There's different types of reaction to fags. There's the typical disgust. Mild and unpleasant, enough to steer normies away from fags. Then there's the wild and obnoxious "I want to punch every faggot ever" which is often performative overcompensating.
You are correct. I will also say that I might suspect someone who is really intent on proving that he is not a homosexual. However, none of that has anything to do with people who object to homosexual behavior on moral or other grounds.
I got distracted with this whole non-sequitur. What I was trying to stay is that there is a loud minority of communists that are obnoxiously anti-nazi to the point where they think even giving a nazi a chance to speech makes everyone in the room guilty by association. Deep down, they know the nazis are right and these commies have to keep telling themselves that the nazis are evil so they don't acknowledge what are obvious facts.
It gets really annoying when these rabid anti-nazis hear familiar arguments from people that have no connection with nazis and fly into their rage. Because the facts speak for themselves and people can discover them independently.
I'd say it has some evidence. There's been a number of religious people here in the US who railed against the gays, and then turns out they were banging dudes the whole time.
That proves nothing though. There's also a great number of people who wholly support homosexuality, and then it turns out they were banging dudes the whole time.
The only one less likely than AntonioOfVenice to not know that quote is someone with the username GertrudeOfElsinore.
But still, I wouldn't confuse a quote from one character with actual empirical proof. Besides, what that quote is about is remarrying, which the character here referred to steadfastly denied that she would ever do, which offended someone who actually did that. Covering her own ass.
Let's say though that the quote is accurate. The proper analogy would be that someone who is always saying that "I AM NOT A HOMO" is more likely to be a homosexual, not someone who expresses moral opposition to homosexuality.
That is BS, made up in order to try to attempt to delegitimize opposition to homosexual behavior.
Oh, you're against pedos? HAR HAR, you must be a pedo yourself!
There's different types of reaction to fags. There's the typical disgust. Mild and unpleasant, enough to steer normies away from fags. Then there's the wild and obnoxious "I want to punch every faggot ever" which is often performative overcompensating.
You are correct. I will also say that I might suspect someone who is really intent on proving that he is not a homosexual. However, none of that has anything to do with people who object to homosexual behavior on moral or other grounds.
I got distracted with this whole non-sequitur. What I was trying to stay is that there is a loud minority of communists that are obnoxiously anti-nazi to the point where they think even giving a nazi a chance to speech makes everyone in the room guilty by association. Deep down, they know the nazis are right and these commies have to keep telling themselves that the nazis are evil so they don't acknowledge what are obvious facts.
It gets really annoying when these rabid anti-nazis hear familiar arguments from people that have no connection with nazis and fly into their rage. Because the facts speak for themselves and people can discover them independently.
What do you mean? I don't think they think or 'know' that at all. However, they do act a lot like Nazis.
I'd say it has some evidence. There's been a number of religious people here in the US who railed against the gays, and then turns out they were banging dudes the whole time.
That proves nothing though. There's also a great number of people who wholly support homosexuality, and then it turns out they were banging dudes the whole time.
I mean, it is partially true. Just because the SJW types have abused it doesnt mean there isnt some historical precedent to it
You never heard of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" did you?
The only one less likely than AntonioOfVenice to not know that quote is someone with the username GertrudeOfElsinore.
But still, I wouldn't confuse a quote from one character with actual empirical proof. Besides, what that quote is about is remarrying, which the character here referred to steadfastly denied that she would ever do, which offended someone who actually did that. Covering her own ass.
Let's say though that the quote is accurate. The proper analogy would be that someone who is always saying that "I AM NOT A HOMO" is more likely to be a homosexual, not someone who expresses moral opposition to homosexuality.