HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » sibelian » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 34 Next »

sibelian

Profile Information

Member since: Tue Sep 4, 2007, 07:36 AM
Number of posts: 7,794

Journal Archives

Bullying is not about the victim. Bullying is about the bully.


Bullies will make up anything.

They will convince themselves and as many other sidekicks as they can muster of anything they can that gives them the permission to abandon responsibility for managing their emotions appropriately and pretending it's someone else's fault.

There isn't a word coming out of them about their victims that they truly believe. Even if they did truly believe any of it, they wouldn't truly care. They don't need to believe it, or care, they just need to say it. So that they can hear themselves say it. So that they can be the kind of person who is allowed to say things like that. It's all about them.

That's why they hang around in groups. They need loud support, strength in numbers. They haven't the faith in their own statements sufficient to give them the stamina to continue with their campaigns alone. There's no end goal in sight for them, it's the process itself that they need. The process can be shortened by simply wasting their opponent's time on endless defense and that can be achieved by dividing the work of attack among a group of perpetrators.

It is not necessarily a good idea to respond in terms of the content of their statements. Typically they pick subjects that are inherently nebulous or founded in clouds of vaguely related perceptions rather than facts.

When bullies mature and have mastered their skills, courtesy becomes one of ther favourite weapons. They house an imaginary audience applausing their restraint. All in the bully group house this audience and play the role of the audience member when necessary.

Many adult bullies specialise in subtle mechanisms consisting of sidelong suggestion rather than outright attack. This is highly effective in engendering frustrated responses which can be easily characterised as tendentious.

Well, I know who I'll be voting for. NICOLA STURGEON...



First Minister of Scotland, party - Scottish National Party (currently being compared to racist orgnisations in the UK and the EU on a regular basis in comment sections all over the UK press). Tney've been in power in Holyrood (Scottih Parliament) for some time now. Incredibly, they are MORE popular now than on the date of their last Scottish election victory.

. Gender balanced her cabinet
. Wants to end austerity
. Recently released policy on maximising economic opportunities for women
. Wants rid of Trident (UK's nukes)
. Wants to focus healthcare on prevention rather than treatment (studies have shown that this leads to longer . lives and higher quality of life as well as saving money)
. Wants internal investment in infrastructure to improve employment rather than relying on zero hour . contracts and bullshit McJobs to massage the figures
. Wants to increase immigration as immigrants are a net benefit to the economy
. Wants to increase the minimum wage

.. and so on.

Currently polling at around 50% in Scotland. Nearest competitor is Jim Murphy's party on 26%.

(I don't get to vote for her personally, I hasten to add. I'll be voting for her candidate in my constituency)

So, there you go. I GET to vote for people like that in my country. Don't you think it woud be good if you guys got to vote for someone like that in the US, my DU friends?

It is predicted that on 7th May Ms Sturgeon's party will be holding a sizeable proportion of seats in Scotland.

(BTW, Nicola doesn't have a logo)

(Also BTW, I'm not trolling or "boasting" or something. I just think it would be good if you guys saw that tiny insiginificant nations like my cuddly little country, Scotland, seem to be getting a better deal.)

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.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/21/nicola-sturgeon-scottish-cabinet-equal-gender-balance#comments

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?




Sigh.




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.


http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/people-seeing-putin-everywhere-2015031696282

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.


http://news.sky.com/story/1446196/ikea-bans-hide-and-seek-in-stores-report

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


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site

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.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/pope-francis-compares-trans-people-nuclear-weapons190215

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/10922181/Pope-Francis-stops-motorcade-to-bless-disabled-girl.html

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..."
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 34 Next »