Serena

Within Temptation II

1,010 posts in this topic

And I agree with Himiko, in that defending homophobia just to criticise a fellow forum member for the way they word their posts is not a hill anyone who's got their priorities right should be willing to die on. If you genuinely think that I am being dismissive of other people's opinions in general, why out of all my posts would you choose quote this one? I would like to believe that you just happened to quote this particular post without thinking about what kind of stand you'd take in doing so. I'll gladly apologise if you think I've been rude to you in general. And I'd mean it too.

But don't expect me to be anything but unapologetic in my defence of human and equal rights. I'm not going to mince my words when it comes to such an important issue. To quote Bill Maher; "don't get so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance". Which is exactly what you're doing when you implicitly argue that I need to respect people who don't believe in something so basic as equality. The answer to that is no, I most certainly do not need to respect everyone who reacted to Within Temptation's message about love and understanding with anger and vitriol. I don't care if being called out on their blatant homophobia hurts their feelings. They are objectively speaking the oppressors, not the oppressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2019 at 6:59 PM, Werewolf said:

 

Nice!

I'm not going to look through the comments, though, mainly so my faith in humanity isn't destroyed.
:P

 

 

This is really a wonderful sign of respect that they showed! How nice of them. I am personally not too big on the Pride iconography (I just think sometimes it can misrepresent what it stands for) but nevertheless it is worth some respect when musicians and other public figures from th world of entertainment use their influence to improve the standing of those who are still unequal in many parts of the world in so many ways. In my opinion, more musicians should follow this suit (wink, Nightwish, wink). 

 

On topic: I somehow still cannot get into Resist, apart from The Reckoning. Which is weird, because the more mainstream they go, the more I like them, usually. But this time it wasn´t so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Baki said:

: I somehow still cannot get into Resist, apart from The Reckoning.

I'm actually the other way round!! I don´t like TR, but the rest is cool!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've only listened to it 3 times.  There's been so much amazingly brilliant music released this year already, and it didn't hit me on first listen (or 2nd, or 3rd, I guess).  Added to that, I'm currenlty listening to my favourite album from each year of my life, in order, and it's taking a while.....

I may a start thread somewhere on this, it's been great fun on another forum!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Himiko

Ofcourse you didn't get it right with your insinuating and totally off topic post. If you read my posts, there's no mentioning of the whole Lgbt-issue whatsoever. I was calling Magnus out on his disrespect for people with other opinions by calling them 'bigots', everyone of them. 

That's what my remark was about. Not LGBT, not the state of Denmark, not Brexit and not the prices of strawberries. Maybe you should read my post first before coming in with all pre-fixed views and ready to bash about a subject that wasn't even mentioned. You mentioned it, so did Magnus. I didn't!

So, read my posts again and you can agree (very unlikely I'd say) or disagree (most likely I'd assume) on the issue I have with Magnus' style of remarks/discussion. That is what it is all about. The rest really lies in your imagination. I think I'm more than clear enough, don't you agree?

 

@Magnus

Like I said to Himiko, I was calling you on your discussion-style. But apparently your need to try to shut everybody up that disagrees with you by calling them names and nasty insinuations is so big, that there is no discussion space for a discussion at all. It suffocates all life out of discussion on a lot of subjects with me. It's not the first time I have said that to you either. That's MY experience with you and if I wanted to have a discussion about LGBT or the prices of strawberries with you , I would have done that a long time ago at The Speakers Corner.

But unfortunately, for me your style of discussion on a lot of issues lacks so much respect towards other thinking people, that I really can't be bothered to hold them anymore on most subjects with you. I think it touches fascisme very closely as well and is a threat to our freedom of speech. And I do get all riled up when it comes to remarks/insinuations like this. Hence my reaction. Do or don't whatever you like with it.

That's it for me on this subject and indeed back to the topic of Witin Temptation, whose song 'The heart of everything' I did not post for Joe with the short surname.        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hunebedbouwer You publicly put Magnus down after he said "stick it to the bigots" in a situation where he clearly referred to anti-LGBT people, then you say that it wasn't about LGBT people and that we are at fault for interpreting it that way.

????

I'm afraid the only discussion style that is causing any harm in this thread is yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hunebedbouwerI also understood Magnus post as clearly directed towards anti-lgbt people, not at any posters here so I find it difficult to understand why you are going off on him like this out of the blue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@NighttimeBird and @icebreaker

Ofcourse my discussion style is up for debate. I'm far from perfect. Everybody's style is.  

 

But, as I made it clear in my last post and all other posts on this issue, FOR ME it was NOT about the LGBT-issue, it was about Magnus discussion STYLE and what I found a lack of respect towards other thinking people. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but why would I lie about that?

And I've also mentioned my difficulties with Magnus' style of putting his opinions forward in the past. Something both of you may not be aware of. It's not something out of the blue as he knows very well. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hunebedbouwer said:

@Himiko

Ofcourse you didn't get it right with your insinuating and totally off topic post. If you read my posts, there's no mentioning of the whole Lgbt-issue whatsoever. I was calling Magnus out on his disrespect for people with other opinions by calling them 'bigots', everyone of them. 

That's what my remark was about. Not LGBT, not the state of Denmark, not Brexit and not the prices of strawberries. Maybe you should read my post first before coming in with all pre-fixed views and ready to bash about a subject that wasn't even mentioned. You mentioned it, so did Magnus. I didn't!

So, read my posts again and you can agree (very unlikely I'd say) or disagree (most likely I'd assume) on the issue I have with Magnus' style of remarks/discussion. That is what it is all about. The rest really lies in your imagination. I think I'm more than clear enough, don't you agree?

 

I read your post very thoroughly, thanks for the suggestion though.

YOU chose to make Magnus's post about Within Temptation wishing their fans Happy Pride Month the subject of your public ire and dressing down. YOU doubled down on it after he clarified that he was referring specifically to homophobes, NOT to people who disagreed with him on e.g. music taste. YOU then brought up Magnus calling people "names and nasty insinuations" a third time (again, in a discussion thread where the only people who had been called names were homophobes) and suggested that this was stifling discussions. YOU compared Magnus's remarks to fascism (in very poor taste in the circumstances) and suggested they were "a threat to our freedom of speech". None of this is MY imagination. That is on YOU.

Magnus is a prolific poster with a lot of posts in a lot of threads. You could have called him out in any of those. You could have called him out by private message. You didn't. I have seen plenty of nasty people on the internet try to soften their anti-LGBT arguments under the guise of "Well, I just think LGBT rights/ visibility should be up for discussion" or "Calling me a homophobe is the REAL intolerance here" - enough to make me deeply skeptical that in your case you just HAPPENED to pick this post, and your arguments just HAPPENED to mirror theirs. If I'm wrong (and I hope I am) then maybe take a step back and see this as a learning experience? But if you're waiting for an apology, you're going to be waiting a long damn time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Himiko said:

I have seen plenty of nasty people on the internet try to soften their anti-LGBT arguments under the guise of "Well, I just think LGBT rights/ visibility should be up for discussion" or "Calling me a homophobe is the REAL intolerance here"

See, I don´t even  think homophobia in much of the world is about bigotism (is that a word at all?), but about freaking hypocrisy of privilege. The worst, most annoying kind of immense hypocrisy. I am all for discussion and tolerance of different opinions, including the issue of rights for non-hetero people, but let´s first have heterosexual relationships be exposed to the same amount of hate speech, mockery, suspicion, state persecution, pseudo-scientific demonisation and legal and para-legal discrimination and bans that homosexual relationships have experienced in the past centuries. When that is done, I am all for discussing different opinions on the topic. It is easy to mock, judge, or disparage one group when you are not going to live with the effects of this judgement and mockery and have them restrict the choices you can make in your life (or, as we say in my region, "it is easy to beat the thorny bush with someone else´s penis"). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Baki said:

It is easy to mock, judge, or disparage one group when you are not going to live with the effects of this judgement and mockery and have them restrict the choices you can make in your life (or, as we say in my region, "it is easy to beat the thorny bush with someone else´s penis"). 

The question to me is why do people want to do this? When I see people in love that makes me happy. I suppose the underlying issue is prejudice and maybe whatever dreams of perceived past glory of the clan inform this - but I'm not a psychologist. Isn't belonging to a larger, more inclusive and vibrant clan a forward-looking alternative? I consider us to be very privileged with our facility to participate in a wider world than the one that only extends to the next village!

That expression sounds painful in more ways than one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Figment-of-me said:

 The question to me is why do people want to do this? When I see people in love that makes me happy. I suppose the underlying issue is prejudice and maybe whatever dreams of perceived past glory of the clan inform this - but I'm not a psychologist. Isn't belonging to a larger, more inclusive and vibrant clan a forward-looking alternative? I consider us to be very privileged with our facility to participate in a wider world than the one that only extends to the next village!

That expression sounds painful in more ways than one!

I think it's just plain lack of empathy, ability to experience someone else's travails as one's own. Nothing new nor exclusive to LGBT rights, but in this case it is also heightened and intensified by all these culturally inherited stigmas and stereotypes that have been attached to these opressed groups throughout the centuries. You know, unless it is you who is forbidden to marry or adopt children, or hold your partner's hand in public, you don't have the same ability to feel the disgrace and humiliation of such life, and very often you don't understand why those people are now being so "annoying" demanding those rights and having their NGOs and their parades and their public surveys and so on. Just like people without migratory background or experience will find it much harder to emphatise with immigrants or refugees, healthy people with people with disabilities, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


On 6/13/2019 at 1:51 PM, hunebedbouwer said:

But, as I made it clear in my last post and all other posts on this issue, FOR ME it was NOT about the LGBT-issue, it was about Magnus discussion STYLE and what I found a lack of respect towards other thinking people. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but why would I lie about that?

And I've also mentioned my difficulties with Magnus' style of putting his opinions forward in the past. Something both of you may not be aware of. It's not something out of the blue as he knows very well. 

 

 

 

Lol, this is just too amusing to read through.

I appreciate that you're trying to save yourself, but there was nothing wrong with Magnus' original post. Luckily most people on this forum (which I'm happy to see :) ), plus mostly anyone else who either lives in an educated society or socializes with educated people in 2019, would not say it's wrong to call an anti-LGBT person a bigot, because they actually ARE bigots (per definition a person who is intolerant towards another because of an opinion). However, in this case it's more like basic biology and equality vs being severely uneducated or narrow-minded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Marius said:

plus mostly anyone else who either lives in an educated society or socializes with educated people in 2019, would not say it's wrong to call an anti-LGBT person a bigot, because they actually ARE bigots (per definition a person who is intolerant towards another because of an opinion).

By that definition, a pro-LGBT person who doesn't tolerate an anti-LGBT person has (or should have) an equal human right to be called a bigot as well, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whitenoise said:

By that definition, a pro-LGBT person who doesn't tolerate an anti-LGBT person has (or should have) an equal human right to be called a bigot as well, I guess.

And I would agree with this. If you've been wronged it's understandable you'll be more inclined to see to your own defenses but that can't permit committing those same offenses against others - especially those not a party to your original wronging.

Being a past victim does not justify your own abuses... but of course it happens all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whitenoise said:

By that definition, a pro-LGBT person who doesn't tolerate an anti-LGBT person has (or should have) an equal human right to be called a bigot as well, I guess.

This is a weird way to twist it, and it's why I prefer the definition from Merriam-Webster:

Definition of bigot

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

That second line says it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is such a changed topic so I also feel a need to "see to my own defenses". I'm not advocating saying certain fascists are "fine people" or any such idiocy.

If I were to feel such people should be shot or that they are undeserving of due process then my own harsh feelings would just be a reflection of theirs. I'd do two things: work to put protections in place against probable abuses to come; and look on them with pity and hopes to improve their hurtful world view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, whitenoise said:

@NighttimeBird

But aren't anti-LGBT people a group of people (often a minority) at which intolerance is equally aimed? Fits in the (second) definition.

Yes but it makes no sense. You're basically saying "intolerance of intolerance is also intolerance", which is true but completely meaningless.

The people that start the intolerance are the bigots. The people that then react to that are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, whitenoise said:

@NighttimeBird

But aren't anti-LGBT people a group of people (often a minority) at which intolerance is equally aimed? Fits in the (second) definition.

I didn't want to get into this, but... How are anti-LGBT people often the minority? How is intolerance thrown at them?

And honestly, I don't mean to be offensive, but I have no other way of saying this - this is one sick way of twisting this. No, you are not a bigot for calling out a bigot. Who else are we going to call bigots next? Victims of sexual abuse speaking up or people of color that had to fight oppression speaking out against it? Because that's what LGBT people are in the face of anti-LGBT people - victims. They have their basic human rights denied by that group, and they have the right to defend themselves. And that's what's calling their actions out is - self-defense, not an attack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whitenoise said:

@NighttimeBird

But aren't anti-LGBT people a group of people (often a minority) at which intolerance is equally aimed? Fits in the (second) definition.

They're not a minority and they're not oppressed. Context is key. Being intolerant of intolerance isn't the same as not letting someone speak their mind just because you disagree with their views. You would never use this kind of Devil's advocacy about Hitler, would you? And yes, I just invoked Godwin's Law here, but it serves its purpose. Why on earth would anyone rush to Hitler's defence and claim people who disagreed with his unquestionably vile views were being "intolerant" and thus "bigots"? The point I'm trying to make here is that the word "bigot" is not used in this context. It's a word that collectively describes people with prejudice, hateful and/or harmful opinions and actions against marginalised people (in other words, people who are sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic etc - I think you get the picture). It's never used in the context of two people simply not respecting each other's personal opinions about trivial matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We got to Hitler so soon!

For the generation that has learnt their argumentation skills on Facebook, I call for tolerance. Tolerance from both sides. A lack of tolerance is the reason why the debate around us is more than often ridiculous. Calling other people outright bigots or dumb or whatever is not fruitful. A vivid discussion is what I like without calling names. I may be laconic and sarcastic sometimes (=often), which causes misunderstanding outside my tribe, but that's mostly a national defect and I'm afraid I can't help. On the other hand some nations are more direct than others, some are more verbose (from whose messages I sometimes have major difficulties to get the core point), and so on.

Hunebedbouwer's critique above is legit and people here were only twisting his message, although he asked the misunderstanders to read it again and he even elaborated it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, whitenoise said:

A vivid discussion is what I like without calling names.

The thing is: if it’s my basic human rights that are the subject of discussion, I don’t like “a vivid discussion”, with or without calling names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, OneOfTheLostOnes said:

The thing is: if it’s my basic human rights that are the subject of discussion, I don’t like “a vivid discussion”, with or without calling names.

Precisely.

 

1 hour ago, whitenoise said:

I call for tolerance. Tolerance from both sides. A lack of tolerance is the reason why the debate around us is more than often ridiculous. Calling other people outright bigots or dumb or whatever is not fruitful.

If I take away from you the possibility to plan your life together with your partner or to be treated equally like all other co-citizens, are you gonna tolerate that? Don´t you see how hypocritical that is? I will tolerate you having a different opinion than me regarding the best NW (or WT, to stay on topic) album. I will not tolerate you having any kind of opinion on whether I should have the same rights as you, because that is beyond personal opinions and idle discussions. Some people do suffer in very concrete ways because of this particular inequality, and you want to discuss it idly on an internet forum as if it was a discussion about some band you saw in concert. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't believe in basic human rights for people who are LGTBQ, then it's perfectly reasonable for you to be called a bigot.  It's true that some people are simply ignorant and need to learn more about these issues, but honestly in most cases it's not like that - the vast majority of the time, it comes from some misplaced sense of morality that has no basis in fact or from unreasonable hatred.  When you've got preachers here in the USA (who also happen to be police officers) saying things like "death to homos" and when you have a resurgent far right calling you "degenerates" for simply existing, it's kind of hard to be completely civil.  It isn't like this is the "did Within Temptation like, totally sell out or not?" debate, it's not simply a matter of opinion - it's basic human rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now