[Alf]

So the LGBTQXYZ Nazi Police are coming after people's basic freedoms yet again.

The LGBTQ movement is such an authoritarian movement. That's undeniable, it's plain to see right here if this is true. No wonder the older homosexuals don't want anything to do with it.

[Abra]

Originally Posted by Alf

So the LGBTQXYZ Nazi Police are coming after people's basic freedoms yet again.

The LGBTQ movement is such an authoritarian movement. That's undeniable, it's plain to see right here if this is true. No wonder the older homosexuals don't want anything to do with it.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Abra

And they're ageist.

[Abra]

Originally Posted by Alf

And they're ageist.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Abra

At least he knows its a cloud, the gen z's would not have a scooby doo as they never look up from their iphone 13's

[Beso]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

At least he knows its a cloud, the gen z's would not have a scooby doo as they never look up from their iphone 13's

That's where they look at the cloud.

[letmein]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

At least he knows its a cloud, the gen z's would not have a scooby doo as they never look up from their iphone 13's

A what?

[Garfie]

Originally Posted by Alf

So the LGBTQXYZ Nazi Police are coming after people's basic freedoms yet again.

The LGBTQ movement is such an authoritarian movement. That's undeniable, it's plain to see right here if this is true. No wonder the older homosexuals don't want anything to do with it.

I don’t think this is about LGBTQ+ as such, but about using language appropriate to the 2020s.

As such, the same sort of arguments would exist, no matter what minority or suppressed group was being insulted.

That’s why there were debates about whether Zak comments were sexist, and why the racist use of the ‘n*****’ word or ‘P***’ word would be offensive today, even though they were freely used on TV in the 1970s.

The reality of the times is that the use of the word ‘gay’ as a way of insulting people is publicly acknowledged as homophobic language, even if the person using it doesn’t recognise or mean it as such, and even if some people watching don’t take offence to it. The fact is, if the word wasn’t perceived as homophobic, BB wouldn’t have felt the need to reprimand Kerry and demand that she issue an apology.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Garfie

I don’t think this is about LGBTQ+ as such, but about using language appropriate to the 2020s.

As such, the same sort of arguments would exist, no matter what minority or suppressed group was being insulted.

That’s why there were debates about whether Zak comments were sexist, and why the racist use of the ‘n*****’ word or ‘P***’ word would be offensive today, even though they were freely used on TV in the 1970s.

The reality of the times is that the use of the word ‘gay’ as a way of insulting people is publicly acknowledged as homophobic language, even if the person using it doesn’t recognise or mean it as such, and even if some people watching don’t take offence to it. The fact is, if the word wasn’t perceived as transphobic, BB wouldn’t have felt the need to reprimand Kerry and demand that she issue an apology.

tbf though I do think there's a difference here, it wasn't the words Zak was using that was sexist, it was the ideas he was expressing (in jest or not) that women are second class citizens to men (ie. people don't listen to you because you're a woman, come over here and do what you're told like a good girl etc) Was he joking or does he really think that, I don't know but I can guarantee if you "joked" that white people are more important than black people nobody would be saying "ah but it's just a joke"

[vesavius]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

...I can guarantee if you "joked" that white people are more important than black people nobody would be saying "ah but it's just a joke"

I would if it was clearly just a joke.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by vesavius

I would if it was clearly just a joke.

Most people then..