HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » sibelian » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 30 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Sep 4, 2007, 07:36 AM
Number of posts: 6,476

Journal Archives

Well, I'm NEVER EVER voting for Hilary Clinton EVER.

And that's the truth.

I can't, I live in Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Holyrood, the Scottish Government, GENDER BALANCED her cabinet.


Scotland’s first female first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has announced a new cabinet with a 50/50 gender balance, after pledging to put equality at the heart of government.

Announcing the full lineup at Bute House in Edinburgh on Friday lunchtime, Sturgeon said her cabinet was “a clear demonstration that this government will work hard in all areas to promote women, to create gender equality and it sends out a strong message that the business of redressing the gender balance in public life starts right here in government”. Of Sturgeon’s cabinet of nine secretaries as well as herself, five are women.

Sturgeon began her reshuffle by tweeting a selfie with John Swinney, her new deputy first minister. Swinney, who had been widely tipped for the role, is one of Holyrood’s most experienced frontbenchers and has previously served as finance minister for seven years, a position he will continue to hold.

I think this is a good idea.

(I don't know whether or not you guys knew this. It's from November, so I'm sorry if you already knew).

Anyway. I didn't know whether or not to post this as it seems likely to draw the obvious arguments.... but I thought it would be a good idea to show that this kind of thing can in fact be done.

Say, you guys! Do any of you want to attend a course on managing passive aggressive behaviour?

No. You don't, do you?


Well, never mind.

No, no, it's fine. Don't worry about it. It's fine. I'm sure you have more important things to concern yourselves with.

I guess I'll just... take the course myself.

People seeing Putin everywhere

VLADIMIR Putin sightings have surged in the last 48 hours.

After the Russian president disappeared, witnesses claim to have seen him selling DVDs from a van in Carlisle, married to a voodoo princess in New Orleans and organising penguins near the UK Antarctic Research Centre.

Putinologist Wayne Hayes said: “The Putin is a cipher, a construct of our subconscious, representing our innate desire for sexual experimentation.


Ikea Bans Hide-And-Seek In Stores - Report

Thousands were set to take part in the events at a number of stores, but they have reportedly been stopped for safety reasons.

Ikea has reportedly banned thousands of people from playing hide-and-seek in its stores in the Netherlands.

The retailer has stopped several events at Dutch stores for safety reasons after thousands took part in the children's game at a store in Belgium last summer, Bloomberg reports.

Ikea Group spokeswoman Martina Smedberg is quoted by the news organisation as saying: "It's hard to control.


Reports of Black sites on US soil - Chicago police detain Americans


The Chicago police department operates an off-the-books interrogation compound, rendering Americans unable to be found by family or attorneys while locked inside what lawyers say is the domestic equivalent of a CIA black site.

The facility, a nondescript warehouse on Chicago’s west side known as Homan Square, has long been the scene of secretive work by special police units. Interviews with local attorneys and one protester who spent the better part of a day shackled in Homan Square describe operations that deny access to basic constitutional rights.

Hopey Popey compares trans people to nukes.


The head of the Catholic Church has claimed people who 'manipulate' their bodies are similar to 'Herods' that
'destroy, that plot designs of death, that disfigure the face of man and woman, destroying creation.'

The comments were made in a new book published in Italy, Pope Francis: This Economy Kills, calling on Christians to safeguard God's order of creation.

'Let's think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings,' he says.

So. There you are. That's how hopey he ACTUALLY is.

I would like to ask you all something.

See when someone comes out and does something superficially liberal like take photographs of themselves next to disabled people?

Like this:

Pope Francis stops motorcade to bless disabled girl


Do you think that means that they are actually liberal or is it just a photograph?

If you photograph someone who says they are liberal, or wishes to portray themselves as liberal, next to some liberal stuff and then they go off and do something that is very obviously NOT liberal, what criteria do you use to decide whether or not they are liberal? What they look like in photographs, or what they do?

I think there is space and time for a wider discussion on these engaging topics.

Homophobes. They think I want their respect.

I'm listening to "Seventeen Seconds" by the Cure.

Earlier this evening I had a youtube exchange with a homophobe obsessed with other people's asses thinking the obsession was mine. "Sibelian - Pervert, nuff said" he posted after I'd asked him why he thought I wanted his respect.

I've had a couple of Youtube exchanges along these lines. "Meh, you don't get our respect! It's all you want! We will never respect your gay marriages!"

Uh? What's me being gay got to do with THEM?

What would I do with their respect? Will it feed me? Will it clothe me? Will it shelter me from harm?

Will it stand in the way of my nephew's inescapable self-confidence issues concomitant on the exit of his heterosexual father to Switzerland with a swanky new girlfriend?

Respect? What are they TALKING about?

That thing they curate on imaginary high school copybooks covered with WWF stickers? The points they give each other for the expensive NIKEs their bro-tastic buds bought for the sake of .... respect? The points they give each other for their flashy cars? The points they give each other for investment banking jobs? The points they give each other for cutting benefits to the poor? The points they give each other for proclaiming a bloodless, functionless love of an invisible god who pronounces imaginary morality in total silence? The points they give each other for cultivating petulant, carefully calibrated slivers of hatred creeping around in the dirty basements of their brains, standing erect in the background like a scorpion's sting waved aloft?

THAT respect?

Why would I want that?

OK I've just hit "A Forest" which is about a man looking for an imaginary girl in a forest.

What the fuck is it? Is it because THEY don't get any respect?

Is it because they invest so much effort and emotion in idiotic symbols that are supposed to add up to stuff that should earn respect but don't, striking dumb attitudes at each other in an attempt to coerce the pretence of something they know deep inside is only meaningful if it is something that is felt and offered freely like love, kindness or an apology? Endlessly wrangling a dull, echoing, meaningless copy of something they know somewhere inside ought to FEEL like something?

Is it because they spend their whole lives collecting the symbols, knowing that none of the damn things mean jack shit? Is there some wild little monster jumping up and down on a pile of bananas screaming for attention and always getting it but never really knowing what to do with it because they know it isn't really the same thing as respect? It's just custom? It's just habit? This is the stuff we're supposed to respect now? Beards? Tattoos? Waistcoats? Naff, blokey Yorkshire caps? NASCAR? The troops? Pf. Nobody respects the troops. Not even the troops respect the troops. The poor bastards rot on the streets and blow their brains out daily. Is that the fate of a caste that is fucking respected?

What do they even mean when they use the word? When I respect something, I feel it. Respect is a feeling.

They seem to talk about it as if it's a high score in a video game.

Is it because nobody respects heterosexuality? Is that it? They can't respect me because nobody respects them?

I think that's it.

I'm an accident of biology. The system of symbols that signify masculinity are burned into a sphere of my soul somewhere off to the left of it's usual location.

I have had to re-learn love. I have had to choose love for it's sake and understand that it is not a given. That it must be made. That
it cannot be taken for granted, that it isn't something you get. It's something you make, or it's nothing.

There isn't a gay man in the world that doesn't understand this. We reach, and if we're fortunate, there might be a man who sees us for what we are and chooses us. We are few in number. We haven't many chances. If love falls over and dies, as we age, there are fewer and fewer of us left that can make that time with us that brings forth meaningful living, to share the life with another.

We take love seriously. We have little other option. Love, the chance for sharing the life, in the gay community, is almost worshipped. Silently, but knowingly.

Does anybody take heterosexuality as seriously?

Romantic comedies. 50 shades of Grey. Divorce. Gender Wars.

Are there homophobes who do not realise that something sacred sits in their hands? Can they even see it?

Would they see it if it found them? Do they deny my capacity for love, believing it nothing more than an obsession or a fetish or a crush or an infatuation or a perversion, or whatever word they've pulled out of their de-signification lexicon today might be, because THEY have never received love? Or, worse, never given it?

"...the dream had to end.. the wish never came true... and the girl starts to sing.... seventeen seconds.... a measure of life..."

Here's how I can tell when people are wasting my time on discussion boards...

Let's say I ask a question -

"Where's the cat?"

Useful responses would consist of something like:

"The cat is over there"
"There is no cat and there never has been a cat, the cat has always been a figment of your imagination"
"I don't know where the cat is"
"It's not a cat, it's a dog"
"It would be great if we could find the cat, but we really need to talk about the hot-dog stand"
"I have found the cat"
"Ok I'll help you find the cat"
"Here's what we do in order to find the cat"
"Don't worry, the cat is fine"
"I'm sorry to say that the cat is dead"
"The cat is sitting on your head"
("I don't regard finding the cat as a priority") - EDIT - Donald Ian Rankin has pointed out that this should be different, so, instead: "The cat isn't the priority". So there you go! Even I fuck this up sometimes!

Useless responses would consist of things like this:

"You're obsessed with cats"
"Why should I care about the cat?"
"People who like cats are stupid"
" "
"What makes you think anyone here cares about the cat"
"You keep going on and on about cats"
"You want a pony"
"Why do people keep blathering on about cats"
"Why can't these Cat Derangement Syndrome people fuck off"
"Why do you hate dogs"
"So I guess you want Jeb Bush for President"


"When you say 'Where's the cat' do you realise that you are pre-supposing that the people you are talking to actually have any information about the cat? You don't seem to have considered the possibility that those on the receiving end of your concern may not have any direct involvement with the cat or any knowledge of it's whereabouts. You do realise that the word 'where' implies a location, well who's to say that the cat's location is actually useful to know? And even if it is useful to know, why would anyone feel comfortable in discussing their knowledge of the cat's location with you? I think you're making a number of ill-considered assumptions about not only the cat itself, but any who may put serious consideration into answering your question. You do realise that it was a question? That means you're putting pressure on people to answer it. Some people don't feel comfortable answering questions. And have you actually established that the cat wishes it's whereabouts to be known? I'm not sure we can assume that. You do realise that that's an assumption? And do you realise that many cats have a tendency to go out and be away from home, sometimes for extended periods? And do you realise that there may be a relationship between the cat and those whom you are aggressively interrogating which may not be any of your concern? Do you realise that? You do realise that, don't you? Don't you realise that? Please consider deleting."

So, DU, what distinguishes list 1 from list 2?


Well, it's like this.

The responses in list 1, even though in certain cases they thwart the aims of the person asking where the cat is, retain the mysterious and hypothetical cat as the subject of the communication.

The responses in the second list do not. The second list consists of people talking indirectly about the person asking the question, which is a waste of time.

And what this means, darlings, is that the person doing the responding in list 2 has no real interest in what was said and is simply stuffing the Universe with junk.

It is emo-spam.

Delete the offenders from your life. Press "ignore".

Alternatively, if you're like me, use them as a lightning conductor for pent-up working life frustrations and be FIFTY TIMES AS RUDE in return. Whyever not? It's not like they care.

Cheers, petals!

Dearest DU: An excellent way to occupy the attention of otherwise productive people

- thus disrupting the flow of useful information is to spend vast amounts of time purposefully misinterpreting what is said or refusing to address the main point made. It's possible to waste an utterly extraordinary amount of everyone's time by simply making one's "opponent" explain thesemselves over and over again.

One is then in a marvellous position to say things like: "You're repeating yourself" or "You're going on and on a about this." It's a simple, manipulative trick.

Disruption is clearly observable. Anyone who finds fault with some perfectly trivial aspect of the main thrust of an argument is wasting everyone's time.

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 30 Next »