Author |
Message |
Pinklady222
Member
07-16-2009
| Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 5:22 pm
Both are out of ignorance and false truths. I don't think tolerance is the issue as NEITHER should be tolerated, and both need to be re-educated. I think the issue is that is does NO ONE any good to harbor HATRED for the ignorant. It doesn't help to change the mindset of the ignorant, and it is unhealthy for the person who is caught up in the hatred.
|
Keldogg
Member
08-12-2005
| Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 5:30 pm
I believe everyone in the world has a bias and a lot of them are based on experiences. It's as Karuuna described, it's a knee jerk reaction, our body and mind reacting to some "type" of person that we have either had a bad interaction with, or been taught it would be dangerous to have an interaction with. I know I have a reaction to a person with certain physical characteristics, due to an experience that happened to me in college. I literally have to tell myself...it's not the same person, this person is not going to hurt you, etc. I hope it goes away someday, but don't know that it will. Yes, we should be tolerant, yes, we should accept all people and I try to be that way. But when I see people that I perceive with a bias, I always wonder, what may have happened to them? Anyway, just my two cents, as they say 
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 8:01 pm
I think it is nurture, not nature.. Remembering that song from the fifties (at least when I heard it when we saw South Pacific) or earlier.. You've got to be taught To hate and fear You've got to be taught From year to Year It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear You've got to be carefully taught You've got to be taught To be Afraid Of people whose eyes are oddly made And people whose skin Is a different shade You've got to be carefully taught You've got to be taught Before it's too late Before you are 6 or 7 or 8 To hate all the people your relatives hate You've got to be carefully taught
|
Sunshyne4u
Member
06-16-2003
| Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 8:37 pm
frogi, i completely believe those stats. Everyone i know that are female and a couple of guys also had at least ONE molestation or Sexual exposure of some kind. I dont want to say anything about myself cause my Mommy reads here sometimes I was raised in a rough area and saw experienced way too much. Lets just say when I went to have sleepovers, I was "extra cautious" of dads/ stepdads. I had a few friends which removed from their homes due to Abuse. Since i was in a small area with families with secrets, I dont recall anyone OPENLY out when i was in school. it was a different time in the 70s
|
Earthmother
Member
07-13-2002
| Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 9:01 pm
You think it was different in the 70s how about the 60s? There may have been a peace movement going on, but homophobia and racism weren't bothered by it. Women didn't have the ability to communicate with each other like they do now. I know for a fact my mother's life would have been soooooooo different if she had internet and social networking or even a job. Back then usually only divorced women and those not married went to work. It really wasn't that long ago, and look how much we have accomplished through education. Yes, there will always be those who feel that those who are different from them are less of a person because that's what they have been told their whole lives. But technology will produce it's own evolution, and we will see fewer and fewer of those who rail against become those who stand up for those who have been persecuted. Babies are born innocent, with no ill feelings for anyone. They are taught to be hateful, selfish and intolerent. It's important that we watch what we say and how we say things in front of kids. These little sponges soak up all their wisdom or lack thereof from the adults around them. I'm glad this has come up because Jeff can see that it wasn't ignored the last time he made these kinds of statement nor was it overlooked this time.
|
Marksman
Member
05-04-2007
| Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 10:34 pm
My quick two cents.. It is ridiculous that JK Rowling came out after writing 10,000 pages of books and never mentioned or alluded to this fact. That means it was wholly irrelevant to the story. Just like it would have been inappropriate for the story to portray Dumbedore as a Womanizer who slept around. It had no place in the story. Someone saying Dumbledore is gay is an entirely loaded question. I would have had a similar output to Jeff from the standpoint that Dumbledore's sexual preferences is totally irrelevant to everything that has to do with Harry Potter. It pisses me off when people try to co-opt something that has nothing to do with sexuality and use it as a reason to claim discrimination or bias. It does the exact opposite of what they claim they want. It promotes bias and discrimination. Whether Dumbledore likes men, women or toothbrushes is not relevant in any way shape or form and should have never been brought up by anyone. So for someone to say that is wrong, they are 100% right. It should not have ever been an issue. It was inappropriate in the first place and put out there to incite, that is why it is wrong and that is why I think people who are making an issue out of this have a lot more to answer for than Jeff does. Until people stop making isues out of things like this and more importantly trying to co-opt non-sexual circumstances to promote sexual preference we are still going to have massive problems. Saying Dumbledore is gay is a completely loaded statement, and JK Rowling should be called to task for saying it and Kalia should be called to task for repeating it. It would be like if after all the books were written she came out and said "Dumbledore loved wearing red socks every day, all the time" yet in the entire series of books never once mentioned Dumbledore wearing red socks are liking them. She had her chance to show that to be the case in her writings but did not do it. Claiming it after the fact is just ridiculous, and more importantly irrelevant. If Dumbledore's sexual preference was not relevant enough to bring up in any of the books why the heck is it relevant enough to bring up now? People should be ashamed of themselves for blowing this up, especially people who are legitimately trying to fight for equality for gay people and an end to sexual preference discrimination.
|
Marksman
Member
05-04-2007
| Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 10:38 pm
Here is an example of the inappropriateness of the context. What if Kalia said "Dumbledore is a womanizer" and Jeff said that is not right he might be saying I want to grab your honkers Hermione. It is inappropriate regardless of the context or sexual orientation in question. The ignorance is people running around labeling Dumbledore as gay or straight. That is the real ignorance. That is entirely irrelevant and has nothing to do with Dumbledore as he existed in that world.
|
Sunshyne4u
Member
06-16-2003
| Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 10:51 pm
called to task for saying it and Kalia should be called to task for repeating it kalia repeated it AFTER DANI started the whole thing. She answered the door and let Shelly in, as she walked back Dani says hey Carebears, wasnt that harry potter guy gay?? (paraphr) (( with that little smirk she gets on her face)) then she sat back with a smile watching the fireworks. Dani is definitely her dad's daughter LOL
|
Kep421
Member
08-11-2001
| Friday, July 15, 2011 - 4:28 am
"Whether Dumbledore likes men, women or toothbrushes is not relevant in any way..." My first smile of the day...thanks Marksman!! BTW... I agree with your post totally!!
|
Roxip
Member
01-29-2004
| Friday, July 15, 2011 - 7:43 am
I hope this link works. I thought it was timely. http://www.chickensoup.com/newsletter.asp ?newsid=article-daily-110715&utm_source=CSS_Email&utm_medium= Bulletin&utm_campaign=daily
|
Kreno
Member
08-21-2005
| Friday, July 15, 2011 - 8:25 am
Actually Marksman Dumbledore being gay does have a place in the book and there are reasons why it's important. I can't spoil the books, but Dumbledore falls in love with a boy that was not such a good wizard, and it makes Dumbledore more of a tarnished, more human character. (Tarnished because the boy wasn't a good wizard, not that he was gay) And being gay should not be a "loaded question" it's just another great fact of Dumbledore. And I have to add: the new movie is wonderful!!!!
|
Kminfinity
Member
06-29-2005
| Friday, July 15, 2011 - 8:59 am
Marksman said:
quote:My quick two cents.. It is ridiculous that JK Rowling came out after writing 10,000 pages of books and never mentioned or alluded to this fact. That means it was wholly irrelevant to the story. Just like it would have been inappropriate for the story to portray Dumbedore as a Womanizer who slept around. It had no place in the story.
In an interview I read, Rowling mentioned (I'm paraphrasing) that she made the Dumbledore reveal after the fact precisely to make the point to her fans that you cannot know everything about a person "upfront." Plus, by making a beloved character gay in retrospect forces fans to re-evaluate their impressions. So, a fan who's thinking, "I love Dumbledore's character. I don't approve of gays" is forced to reconsider their beliefs. Of course, the way some react (initially?) is to reject the info, or to get mad at Rowling's statement (like Jeff)...
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Friday, July 15, 2011 - 9:19 am
Dumbledore falls in love with a boy I haven't read the books, but I'm troubled by this. He fell in love with a boy?? Please tell me it was when Dumbledore was young also, and not when he was the schoolmaster....
|
Christiii
Member
07-07-2005
| Friday, July 15, 2011 - 9:21 am
I like her thinking
|
Shenanagon
Member
07-28-2009
| Friday, July 15, 2011 - 10:05 am
This is for you Karuuna lol First, the biggest revelation of the night came when Jo revealed to her audience the fact that Albus Dumbledore is gay and had fallen in love with fellow wizard and friend, Gellert Grindelwald. This elicited a huge reaction and prolonged ovation. So much so, it promoted Jo to say: "If I had known this would have made you this happy, I would have announced it years ago." The question was: Did Dumbledore, who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever fall in love himself? JKR: My truthful answer to you... I always thought of Dumbledore as gay. [ovation.] ... Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was. To an extent, do we say it excused Dumbledore a little more because falling in love can blind us to an extent? But, he met someone as brilliant as he was, and rather like Bellatrix he was very drawn to this brilliant person, and horribly, terribly let down by him. Yeah, that's how i always saw Dumbledore. In fact, recently I was in a script read through for the sixth film, and they had Dumbledore saying a line to Harry early in the script saying I knew a girl once, whose hair... [laughter]. I had to write a little note in the margin and slide it along to the scriptwriter, "Dumbledore's gay!" [laughter] "If I'd known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!"
|
Kreno
Member
08-21-2005
| Friday, July 15, 2011 - 10:19 am
Yes Karuuna he was young as well.
|
Archiecat
Member
08-16-2006
| Friday, July 15, 2011 - 10:29 am
This thread has taken a life of its own. Most of it now has nothing to do with Jeff or Dumbledore. It is a debate, albeit healthy, that seems to be much needed by its posters and readers (me included). Jeff is a "whole package" just as we all are....with at least one serious flaw. Me too, You too, Dumbledore, too! This outlet seems to be giving all of us a chance to vent on our delicate feelings about bias/prejudice/hate/tolerance/etc. Perhaps the thread needs to be renamed and continued with its real context reflected.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Friday, July 15, 2011 - 10:53 am
thank you Shenanagon and Kreno!!
|
Csnog
Member
07-18-2002
| Friday, July 15, 2011 - 10:56 am
Rowling said that she "envisioned" the character of Prof. Dumbledore as gay and that she intended the character of Gellert Grindelwald in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to be Dumbledore's lover. It didn't come about and she was happy to have him be more the grandfatherly type. She never wrote him as being gay but "envisioned" him as being gay. That he had fallen in love with Gellert Grindelwald, which was Dumbledore's "great tragedy".. Rowling did not explicitly state whether Grindelwald returned his affections... Rowling explained this further by elaborating on the motivations behind Dumbledore's flirtation with the idea of wizard domination of Muggles... "He lost his moral compass completely when he fell in love and I think subsequently became very mistrustful of his own judgement in those matters so became quite asexual.... He led a celibate and a bookish life".
|
Sanfranjoshfan
Member
09-17-2000
| Friday, July 15, 2011 - 11:58 am
"That means it was wholly irrelevant to the story. Just like it would have been inappropriate for the story to portray Dumbedore as a Womanizer who slept around. It had no place in the story." JK Rowling is the author..she creates characters and she created a gay character in Dumbledore. Of course it had a place in the story...it is her story and she envisioned him that way. It's unfortunate but many parents feel the same way you do when a son or daughter comes out of the closet......some parents feel that suddenly their child "has no place in their family story". The problem is they ARE a part of that family and they are the same people that had always been a part of that family. The only thing that changed was that the parents used their own prejudices to target one of their own children. Revealing that Dumbledore is gay is just as relevant as it would have been to reveal that he is straight. We gay folks exist and we are part of society regardless of when we reveal our sexual orientation....just like Dumbledore.
|
The_beav
Member
08-07-2005
| Friday, July 15, 2011 - 12:19 pm
Anyone else get frustrated when reading these posts and go to click the "like" button, only to remember you're not on Facebook ? I find it presumptuous of anyone to tell an author that her vision of a character has no place in a story. I find it offensive for a houseguest to so strongly object to this particular vision. YMMV
|
Archiecat
Member
08-16-2006
| Friday, July 15, 2011 - 12:26 pm
I find it offensive for a houseguest to so strongly object to this particular vision. First Amendment rights rule.......yours and his......
|
The_beav
Member
08-07-2005
| Friday, July 15, 2011 - 12:30 pm
That is why it is just an opinion ...... hence "I find" rather then the more definative "it is offensive". I am just disappointed that Jeff has failed to evolve after his earlier season.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Friday, July 15, 2011 - 12:42 pm
I am not disappointed in Jeff, I don't know him. What I am disappointed in is a society that inculcates these damaging beliefs in people. After all, it wasn't problematic for Dumbledore to be a single heterosexual male headmaster at a school that served girls! There's no reason to make him into a deviant because he is gay. It just pains me that we haven't yet mostly eradicated these ridiculous beliefs about gays. Really pains me.
|
Kswheels
Member
06-30-2005
| Friday, July 15, 2011 - 12:50 pm
Can we just clear something up? This isn't a first amendment issue. The first amendment protects you from the government. It protects you from being arrested or otherwise silenced by the government. It doesn't protect Jeff from CBS, or anyone who objects to his views. I want to be perfectly clear that I'm not saying that anyone has the right to retaliate for speech that they don't like. I'm simply saying that it isn't the first amendment that stops them.
|