[TheOrator]

I would like to preface this post with a disclaimer: I have no problem with homosexuality. I am not myself homosexual but I have qualms with those who are.

That being said, I would like to bring to light something that could be called nothing but arsery. The Day of Silence, something I have vehemently hated since my first exposure to it in eigth grade. The premise is this: Because Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and whatever T is are too intimidated by bullying to be honest about their sexual orientation (a valid point), on April 25 people in support of these types (a phrase I hate dearly) will abstain from...talking.

This form of protest doesn't even make sense to me! I mean, the Day without Immigrants made sense back when just illegal immigrants were walking out, and I supported it in that sense, but then people got all like "I support them! I'll walk out, too!" and didn't realize this defeated their cause because it corrupted the data and invalidated their expiriment.

Anyway.

This Day of Silence things angers me for reasons I can't really put in to words. Generally, student organized protest has always angered me in ways I similarly cannot express, but this one really takes the cake.

I'm going to try to express it. There seems to be something so self-righteous about these guys, so elitist, when they don't talk. It's like they're mourning for something.

In other words, they're whining pricks. Without the whining.

I realize that the discrimination they face is real and terrible, but this method seems so passive and half-assed that it's almost to it's detriment that it occurs.


This year, it's dedicated to some kid who got killed because of his orientation, and that works for me, but these last few years I grow hot in the head when this thing rolls around and some jerkoff thinks they're being really profound by not speaking for a day.

I probably come off really dickish myself, but that can't be helped, can it?

[Spoon Poetic]

No, I agree. I am totally in support of GLBT (the T is transgender/transsexual) rights and issues but this is not a smart way to support anything. It doesn't prove a point; it doesn't make a statement... But then on the other hand, I haven't come up with any better ideas for some sort of unifying action for people all over to do to voice (or... not voice) their opinions and support for GLBT rights (and/or privileges).

...And I can't imagine how one could participate and manage to keep from getting into some sort of huge predicament with teachers or bosses or whatever.

[Simperin' Fool]

If gay people really want to fight discrimination, they need to all learn systema (Example). You don't mess around with a black belt.

[J m HofMarN]

Why not just have a gay day when guys dress up as drag queens or fairies, and girls dress as dykes. That adds an element of humor and solidarity to the matter, really lets straight people show their support. Plus it'd just be a fun kind of day.

Actually I went to a crossdressing party recently (a party where the theme was to cross dress, not a party for crossdressers) and that was fun.

My tits were made of apple sauce.

[Cobnat]

Travis- Hey Cobnat, whats your opinion on the historical suppression of homosexuality among the masses?
Cobnat- …
Travis- Interesting perspective.

If nothing then at least it is an excuse not to answer the teacher if they ask you a question during class.

This post has been edited by Cobnat: 28 February 2008 - 11:11 AM

[Despondent]

So this is the one day that Gays don't have a voice? If that's the way they want it, good for them.

[BigStupidDogFacedArse]

Just recently, Vancouver had an "anti-bully" day event. I guess if you wanted to partake, you'd be required to wear a pink shirt to show your support for bullied kids. This is just one reason, next to many, as to why I stopped associating myself with the Liberal party. Infact, I take major offense now when people call me a liberal.

This event will have no impact beyond itself and will forever go down as an event planned simply for the sake of planning an event.

[Spoon Poetic]

Well, at least they could explain why the hell they were all wearing a pink shirt. This day of silence thing, you'll be going around not answering anyone and people will just think you're a douche.

[Simperin' Fool]

Or deaf, perhaps.

[Spoon Poetic]

Well, that too. But I was mostly thinking of people that would normally talk to you and know you're not deaf. Like, your friend comes up and says "hi" and you just stare at him. "What's up?" ...Silence. "What's your problem?" ...More silence. *shrug* Or your boss asks you an important question about your work and you just sit there and pantomime. Just doesn't seem practical or sane.

[civilian_number_two]

Just recently, Vancouver had an "anti-bully" day event. I guess if you wanted to partake, you'd be required to wear a pink shirt to show your support for bullied kids. This is just one reason, next to many, as to why I stopped associating myself with the Liberal party. Infact, I take major offense now when people call me a liberal.

This event will have no impact beyond itself and will forever go down as an event planned simply for the sake of planning an event.

This was hosted by the Liberal Party? Federal or Provincial?

I never heard of it, but of course I agree it sounds stupid.

[BigStupidDogFacedArse]

http://www.gordoncampbellmla.bc.ca/

or the official version

http://www2.news.gov...0041-000246.htm


“Nobody likes a bully and we all have to take a stand to stop bullying,” said Campbell. “Anti-Bullying Day is a celebration of those who take action to stop bullies in our schools and around the province. It starts with all of us saying bullying is wrong and then standing up for those who become targets. We all benefit when everyone feels safe and secure in their schools, neighbourhoods and province."

We've all survived highschool and most of us figured out how to drive after 2 months. Our provincial government does not agree. According to the BC government we're all fragile minded idiots who can't take a bit of abuse; on top of which we can't drive properly and need massive restrictions attached to our driving privileges for at least the first two years.

This post has been edited by BigStupidDogFacedArse: 07 March 2008 - 03:27 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Well, to the former I agree, we're turning into a nation of overprotective nannies. To the latter it's business being sold as a protection policy. Restrictin licences means they get to test everyone at least twice. It's a job creation strategem for civil service workers and they sold it as a means of limiting liability in insurance claims.

[Jordan]

LOL, you're the most liberal pansey I know. The only thing that contradicts your liberal view is your anti-religion everything stance.

The New Driver law is a total scam to make money.

t's a job creation strategem for civil service workers and they sold it as a means of limiting liability in insurance claims.

Good point, I JUST missed the new driver law by about 1 year I think. I do know a few people that had to go through it and basically in the end it means you end up paying twice to get your real license.

I'm not even convinced the roads are safer, I'd like to read some documentation on it. If you can prove that paying the initial fees actually decreases collisions, then maybe there is merit.

[civilian_number_two]

Are you calling me a liberal pansy? Because that's funny, it's not what your mom called me when I let her up for air! While she was sucking my dick, you see.

Anyway, ICBC is being tighter-fisted with payouts, so while there may be as many claims as ever (or likely more, with more drivers on the road every year), they can show that the total claims value is lower. So then they can manipulate the stats and pretend that the roads are safer.

The only stat anyone cares about is fatalities anyway. Since the auto manufacturers are making safr cars, and since so many people are driving SUVs now, ICBC can claim that fatalities are down as well. Whoo hoo!