Discussion in 'Current Affairs & Debate' started by KindaCool, Oct 14, 2020.
That said, I DO actually think TORIES ARE CUNTS.
You stupid bitch, it’s not the tories I’m defending but the HETEROSEXUALS! (Is there no fucking facepalm emoji?!)
Why would we assume they’d be the hated Tories just because of their sexual preference... that what I was talking about.
And how is my generalising about big city queens not obvious banter too? What am anyway if not exactly that kind of queen?
The POWER of "Cant Hold Us Down"
Not assuming that heteros ARE definitely the hated Tories, just thinking the odds of being one increase with heterosexual cis males. Just like the odds of voting Democrats increase if you're an African American woman in the US.
You really don't need to be defending the heteros HERE anyway, let them fight for the rights once.
For the sake of objectivity, I’ll always be defending those in the minority.
I know loads of gay tories
I think you are overreacting a tad to some flippant short-hand. Your second paragraph is how I would theorise WHY straight people are generally more on the right compared to gay people. Your sexuality itself obviously won't have an effect on your politics. But it does change how you interact with the world and, more importantly, how the world interacts with you. Even in European countries that are pretty socially liberal, it is still a different experience to not be straight.
And "woke boutique issues" is my new favourite thing.
I am a young queen (for now) but I don't know if my issues are woke or boutique enough. How do I find out? Is there a venn diagram I can consult?
My first comment might sound like an overreaction in this actual discussion but what I said in the first paragraph is an oversimplification of, but still the general sense of what we read everywhere in all kinds of political-ish discussions nowadays where the polarisation is getting unbearable and everything is either black or white.
Notice how I was instantly accused of being right leaning and that I should be cancelled, when all I did was trying to give you exaggerated examples of how sexual preferences could affect our political views... a theory that I myself don’t believe in.
Maybe I’m just too old and out of sync with what’s ”cool” nowadays, or maybe I just don’t make myself understood (English is after all my third language), who knows...
Woke boutique forum NOW.
Is this like when Lowri Turner said gays shouldn't be party leaders because we were too preoccupied with soft furnishings?
It's true but she shouldn't say it.
I literally do it FOR A LIVING.
Oh it's even better than I remember it
Under the headline "However much I love my gay friends, I don't want them running the country', she said: "Frankly I don't trust a man who says he swings both ways, unless he is a spotty teenager who hasn't sorted himself out yet.
"Oaten is 41 and Hughes is 54. If they think they are old enough to run the country then surely they are old enough to work out which gender they fancy?
"Those who claim to be bisexual are simply trying to fudge the truth."
Later in the column, Ms Turner said gay men did not make good party leaders because they did not face the same challenges as those who had children, adding: "I have gay friends whose biggest headache is whether to have a black sofa or a cream one."
I mean, if the theory is that being gay and financially secure affects your political leanings, where does @Kratz fit in? Would he be part of the ALT-RIGHT if he were a straight?
I think it was @Loufoque who said recently that rich queens are fine aligning themselves with a right who don't even particularly welcome THEIR KIND as long as they can protect their wealth. Money talks far louder than anything else. I'm quite sure that if I'd been born rich I'd be a total cunt.
Middle Eastern gays calling each other "you stupid bitch" beats "botique issues" any day
None of which relates to the titular question at all - for the longest time I would've said yes, I'd love to flick a switch and be straight. It would be easier. But to be honest, smaller though the talent pool is, I think the bigger existential crisis these days is simply making human connection (on any level) while also figuring out how to survive and maintain mental balance at a time when the odds appear stacked against my generation.
And anyway I think being gay has given me a feeling of being an underdog which has in turn made me a much funnier, warmer and more empathetic human being, all qualities I love in myself and others. So no, I would not.
Question though. Are the Tories much different than Republicans? Both relatively and comparatively.
...in what sense?
Their stance on things and how corrupt they are.
It used to be the case that Tories were arguably left of the democrats, but since Brexit the rhetoric, tactics and explicit policy goals of the Tories are sending them careering into republican territory
Well yes, because we say it with love (something those stupid white folks don’t understand).
Amazing. I remember her also saying years ago that she hadn't bonded as well with her BROWN BABY as she did with the WHITE ONES because it didn't look enough like her.
Whatever happened to Lowri Turner?
Edit: now works as a private nutritional therapist and clinical hypnotherapist.
I don’t know about the Tories, but in modern day Sweden even the Right is way more to the left than the Tories and especially both Democrats and Republicans.
they are equally morally bankrupt, but from a purely ideological standpoint (I'm sure not all will agree with this) I'd say the Republicans are positioned more to the extreme right. the most obvious example of that being the fact that almost any elected Republican will claim to be anti-abortion (although recent polls have indicated that only 33% of the US populace is anti-abortion rights, suggesting a third of the Republican base doesn't give a fuck). For a Republican senator NOT to be "pro-life" however would be career suicide. there is also the obvious cultural gap of almost everybody in the UK being anti-guns/right to bear arms, whatever side of the political spectrum they fall on.
the Tories will always protect their own and you could argue that their continued dominance in elections post-Blair even during times of national meltdown and total political chaos suggests that the simple act of being more clear on what they stand for is appealing to voters in a way that TOTAL DISPARITY and lack of identity (as evidenced in the shitshow modern Labour party) absolutely is not - even when "what they stand for" is nothing but survival instinct and protection of their own interests.
in shorts, the Tories are economically hard-right, socially centre-right but gradually moving to a more centrist position on at least a handful of key issues (such as gay rights). the Republicans are economically and socially hard-right (but again, you could certainly argue that being "socially liberal but economically conservative" is simply not a thing due to the fact that economic conservatism by its very nature acts as a roadblock to social progressivism).
I hope these three rambling and not at all abbreviated paragraphs answered your wide ranging question satisfactorily
Did anyone else watch Grayson Perry's recent series about America?
They do. Thanks.
I find it interesting because what a British person considers "regressive Right" is often so different from an American thinks it is.
Yes - well, part of it anyway. I might watch the rest tonight.
Pansexual then. Or “I’ll fuck anyone”
Anything that is of age and able to consent
Does that exclude SOFT FRUIT?
I know some people by that description so no