By David Futrelle
The fellas at internet garbage site Return of Kings are celebrating Pride Month, a little tardily, with a post attacking Facebook for adding a “degenerate” rainbow flag to its menu of “like” buttons, which users can access by liking the official LGBTQ@Facebook page. Or, as the author of the RoK piece, one Rufus Winnfield, puts it, the “button is only active if you show active approval for homosexuals on the site.”
Winnfield was so afraid of catching teh gey himself that he didn’t bother liking the LGBT page to check out what the button looks like, which results in him calling the flag-shaped flag icon “a little rainbow ball.” (Not to be confused with the Star Wars Cuck Ball.)
Apparently teh gey is quite contagious, as Winnfield goes on to explain how Facebook’s addition of this tiny optional button shows that the site “is recruiting you to the gay cult.” Winnfield evidently worries that the cute little button will lure unsuspecting readers of RoK into “liking” gay things on Facebook; next thing they know they’ll be dancing on a float at the Pride Parade wearing the collar of their leather daddy.
Winnfield isn’t a big fan of Pride Month in general.
“Establishing a pride month for the gays is legitimizing them as if they’re black,” he explains to RoK readers, many of whom actually hate black people.
It’s a savvy move by the gay community to adopt everything that isn’t heterosexual, monogamous sex as part of their movement under the ever-increasing umbrella of their rather clunky acronym.
This may backfire upon them if they over-extend their relevancy by endorsing the next big thing like pederasty or bestiality, but, for now, their strategy seems to suck up everyone who isn’t completely straight in the head.
Channeling the Westboro Baptist Church, Winnfield goes on to explain that the whole gay rainbow thing is an insult to gay-hating God.
Since America has been a primarily Christian country since it got started, many things, like Jewish pornography and Satanism, exist solely to bash on it. Supposedly the gay rainbow flag represents a lot of things, but the rainbow was originally God’s promise that He would not ever flood the earth again after the great flood. Seems like it’s part of the gay M.O. to pervert religious symbols.
While Winnfield assures his readers that really, he’s “got no issue with a dude liking another dude,” he asks plaintively why these dude-liking-dudes
have to spread their degeneracy to everyone, including children? … Do they hate Western culture so much that they would drop the birth rate so far below the replacement rate that Islam can just waltz right in in two generations, throw them off the nearest rooftop, and set up a caliphate?
Winnfield is really covering all the bases, hate-wise, huh?
In the interest of covering all my own bases, let’s end this post, which started with gay dogs, with a gay cat.
Enjoy the rest of Pride Month, everyone!
I got the flag without doing anything! Somehow facebook knows I support the LGBTQ community, which is cool on one hand, but also creepy that they know me so well.
Yeah but Katz, drug testing isn’t really about saving money. It’s about (a) demonising the poor, and (b) funneling government money to cronies – or, in Florida’s case, to a company in which the governor himself has an interest. In other words, exactly what you’d expect from Republicans.
The right has long abandoned the pretense that they’re about fiscal conservatism. They’ll spend any amount of money to keep the poor poor and make the wealthy even wealthier.
@Haise
Ehhh, his law work might have helped people, but my understanding is that Fred Phelps was pretty damn racist.
Closest I can find by googling “Fred Phelps racism” leads to a BET article which sources an interview by the Telegraph with Fred’s son Nathan and an anecdote of referring to clients as DNs or Dumb N* in front of them.
@Mike, Mish, GussieJives:
Of course, without ‘Canadian Content’ regulations, we probably wouldn’t have Bob and Doug MacKenzie as characters.
As I understand it, the sketch comedy show SCTV was mostly created by the Toronto branch of The Second City comedy club (the original club being in the original ‘Second City’, a.k.a. Chicago). Despite the fact that most of the writing was being done in Toronto and most of the cast was Canadian, the CBC wanted to have ‘identifiably Canadian’ content in order to run the show. After some snarky commentary, Dave Thomas and Rick Moranis created what was originally a throwaway gag bit of ‘The Great White North’ as a sort of ‘you want Canadian Content, here!’ snap, with pretty much all the dialog ad-libbed. And then they were rather surprised when it became popular enough to eclipse much of the rest of the show…
I’m not in favor of universal basic income simply because welfare benefits are typically arranged as a transfer of wealth from the government to service providers, with the people who are “receiving” the benefits getting gouged and screwed. I would prefer to completely revamp the welfare system to take the middlemen out of the process as much as possible. I can see universal basic income creating an inflation problem as service providers try to tap into as much of that sweet, sweet government cash as possible.
On what do people spend their money? 1. Shelter. 2. Food. 3. Medical care. 4. Miscellaneous expenses like phones and necessities. (usually in that order but not always)
Shelter and food can be combined into one benefit by providing universal housing. A hybrid dorm/co-housing system that accepts everyone with no means testing would be my answer of choice. People would live in separate private rooms, but come together for mealtimes and the residents would take turns preparing meals for one another (the food itself would be provided).
Yes, there is likely to be a stigma attached to living in socialized housing. I don’t see a way around that – being on housing benefits is already stigmatized and all efforts to reduce the stigma have simply funneled government money directly into the pockets of private developers without actually solving that problem. I don’t think that problem is solvable.
Having a universal housing option so that no one has to be homeless could solve so many social ills. How much bullshit do we put up with out of fear of losing our housing? All of that would go away, greatly reducing the amount of bullshit in our lives. Of course, this is a pipe dream right now, because Republicans would never allow such a system to receive the necessary funding. The dream is for enough universal housing to be available that anyone could leave a bad situation, tonight, and in a few hours find themselves well-housed in a clean, secure environment with good meals every day without having to prove a need. No Republican would get behind that.
I can think of drawbacks beyond the funding problem, but that’s the outline of how I would start to rewrite the American welfare state if I had the power to do it.
I’m not recruiting for the gay cult. I’m recruiting for my cult of personality.
What I ask: Affection, fashion sense, and playing games with me.
What I offer in return: Crying fits, bitter sarcasm, constant changes of focus, and asocial behavior.
I’m in the top…100% of cults!
In all seriousness, it’s kinda telling how these folks seem to have to believe they’re the only ones thinking and making active choices. I suppose it helps them ignore the reality that they’re being led by the nose.
This is a nice thought, but it would not work well for people who need to have dedicated food preparation areas due to allergies, autoimmune disorders, etc.
Co-housing arrangements don’t require you to participate in the meal, just that you participate in meal preparation once or twice a month. It would be easy to set aside part of the kitchen (which, in co-housing arrangements, is a big commercial-sized thing) as a non-allergenic prep area and people with allergies could make their own food there. When an allergic person’s turn comes around, they make a non-allergenic meal.
Many people who co-house only eat the communal meal once a week or twice a week, while others eat every day. But everyone has to take a turn making the communal meal. How much do you know to make? People sign up on the board if they intend to come, as an RSVP, so you know approximately how many servings to prepare. People who don’t come to the meal make their own arrangements the same as if they were living alone.
Communal housing has its virtues, but ultimately it comes back down to the government deciding what’s best for poor people. You can spend all day hashing out how to accommodate different kinds of people, but ultimately, what it comes down to is that it’ll work for some people and not for others, and the people who it doesn’t work for (say, if you have an underwater mortgage) it provides no benefit.
The beauty of UBI is that you can apply it to whatever you happen to need, rather than relying on someone anticipating what you’d need and providing it.
Legit critique, but I still see most welfare benefits today enriching the already-well-off while the poor remain poor. Housing vouchers? Enrich developers and landlords, not tenants. Food stamps? Enrich the owners of stores that accept them, especially the ones who game the system by offering low-quality food in food deserts.
I can’t see how a basic income is going to escape this trend.
What I like about UBI is the universal part. The stigma against welfare is never really going to go away. Or at least it won’t anytime soon. Even with a revamped and more generous system, there will always be excuses to cut it. Universal programs are more popular and once they’re in place, cuts and repeals are deeply unpopular. Look at the way social security (universal for anyone over 65) is talked about as opposed to anything means tested. Same goes for public services everyone uses, like roads. Roads get decently funded because those who use them aren’t seen as moochers.
In theory I don’t have an issue with a robust welfare system instead of UBI, but I just think the latter would work better in the US. Passing it in the first place would be a gigantic hurdle, but once it’s implemented, people won’t want it cut or repealed. Nothing is perfect, but UBI is probably the best option at the moment IMO.
UBI won’t come into effect until the Republicans have less control. They’re still trying to work out a way to take from the poor and give to the rich. Thankfully they’re not entirely in favor of that idea yet. Keep calling if you live in the US.
Republicans are generally not in favor of “big government” and that includes the social safety net that’s been put in place over the last 8 years.
Yeah, UBI is a distant dream. It’s not going to be until enough jobs are permanently lost to automation that no one can deny it’s happening until there’s even a prayer of it even becoming a mainstream conversation. I hope that big business will eventually get on board when they realize that an unstable economy full of impoverished an unemployed people means not enough people can afford their goods or services. But wealthy executives tend to be really married to Randian ideology, so I’m not sure it’s ever going to happen.
Well yeah, at some point the problem is just that in capitalism, if you give anyone any kind of money, sooner or later it ends up in the hands of rich people.
@Wolverine’s Granddad
No, no, no, wrong, no, stop, stop, stop. Pederasty means, and meant, sexual molestation of adolescent (sometimes) boys by adult men.
In a small bit of good news, Minneapolis just raised the minimum wage to $15/hour. Unfortunately, it’s going to be phased in slowly but hey, it’s better than nothing!
English being English, words keep evolving – often despite stubborn attempts to hold them to their original meaning (“decimate” is one that I’ve recently given up on; the tide is too strong).
However:
Etymologically and historically, pederasty refers to sexual relations between males where there is a distinct age difference. Whether this is consensual is not built-in to the definition itself; i.e. the word ‘pederasty’ does not signify molestation or abuse by itself. But nor does it signify “gay butt sex” by itself 🙂
Pederasty in Ancient Greece (the origin of the term, as far as I know) generally meant a relationship like the above, that also involved teaching or mentoring. Much of this is completely outside of our contemporary frames of reference for sexual relationships; it’s also very difficult to do it justice in a few sentences, so I won’t try any further 😐
Exactly. So my solution is socialized housing that cuts out the landlords.
Perfect? No. Better than landlords jacking up rent because they know their tenants are pulling in $X every week in basic income, no exceptions? I think so.
@pom;
Oh sure, mandatory roommates with strangers. Sounds just great. Especially for people who are part of widely descriminated against groups.
@PoM
Or, yanno, rent controls.
@Dali
Yep!
Thing is, why are we making this an ‘or’? I agree with @PoM that services are better than cash handouts, given you can only do 1. I also agree with @Katz that big gubmint shouldn’t be in the business of choosing how people are best served (food stamps irk me so fuckin much!). But that’s the beauty. Porque no los dos?
Communal housing sounds righteous, yo! Let’s get on that shit. But also, give people a briefcase fulla paper just as a thanks for being Murican? Sounds swell! Ain’t like we couldn’t afford both if we really wanted 🙂
@PoM
@Helix_Luco
Or hardcore introverts. Or other people who have well-founded aversions to other people. There are people out there who would use this as an excuse to intimidate or harass the people that have to room with them, as well as survivors of rape and abuse who justifiably are frightened of having to live with people who even unintentionally trigger memories of the trauma.
Nobody rooms with anyone in co-housing.
Do I need to explain co-housing? It’s googleable. Co-housing communities are highly-sought-after and very expensive because so many people want to live in one but there aren’t very many. The system facilitates community but you choose how much you interact with your neighbors and aren’t forced to do it if you don’t want to. Nobody “rooms” with anyone. Living quarters are private to each family (and “family” can mean “individual”).
There is an element of self-selection in existing communities, because people who aren’t okay with the co-housing arrangement don’t move into one. But co-housing is flexible. There is a bare minimum of participation required (contributing to the communal meal prep when it’s your turn to do it) and beyond that it is up to you. Since poor people tend to become isolated in current systems, and isolation leads to any number of social and health problems, facilitating community is an important goal. Making sure that introverts can remain introverted is accomplished with co-housing, but so is making sure that people who need child care can meet with others who need the same thing to allow the pooling of resources.
Current housing assistance isolates people. That needs to be acknowledged as a problem. Current policy does not think it is a problem, but it is one.
Eh? The shortcomings of rent control are pretty well researched. Rent control reduces the amount of housing available to the poor, it doesn’t increase it. Why would I want to promote that?
I’ve just managed to get the rainbow like button on my phone, but not my iPad for some reason 🙁
I suppose what the Nazis will want now is a Facebook Nazi page which enables you to have a little swastika reaction, that’d be cute.
I don’t see it happening any time soon.