WARNING

G'day Bruce
or "the little boy that could"

Over the past few days, I've been seeing A LOT of Bruce Jenner. Or Caitlyn. Or whatever. Whether hearing it on talk radio, seeing it on the news side bar of Facebook, or having friends on Facebook express support, I have seen more of this miss(ter) in the past few days than I have in all the years Keeping Up with the Kardashians has been on air. Quite frankly, I've had enough.

This isn't one of those "if you don't like it, don't watch / listen to / read about". You can't escape it. The media is pushing this tolerance thing down our collective throats, you can't help but be confronted with it. We should support and understand the pain and confusion Bruce has had to endure while being trapped in a man's body. We should show compassion and encourage him through his transition into the person he always wanted to be.

Really? Then why does he still have a penis? Why does he not have any intentions to have his penis removed if he identifies himself as a woman? Is it because he is still sexually attracted to women? Note: Bruce has said, on record, that he is not gay, that, although he sees himself as a woman, he is still attracted to women. Kind of reminds me of Mr Garrison, when he realized after his sex change he wanted to sleep with women. Comical, really. (I know, this could also go for Bunny Rabbit... I'm just calling out Bruce because he's all over the freaking place).

Bruce... until you have your penis removed, you are a man. You are a male. This is not gender confusion, or society forcing its beliefs onto you. A penis is a male sexual organ. A vagina is not, that is associated with women. Have your penis cut off and the stump reshaped to resemble a vagina, and then you'll find that more people would be accepting of you being a woman. Until then, you're just a transvestite, a drag queen. "But he has boobs now!" Yeah, so? I've got boobs, does that make me a woman? I've got feminine traits, does that mean I identify with being a woman?

I don't know. Maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe I'm just not seeing it. I don't have a problem with people being gay or bi, transvestite or androgynous. And I really don't have a problem with people having a sex change... it's your body, do with it what you want. But fer chrissake, if you want to actually be a member of the opposite sex, then go all the way!

Here, I'll give Bruce some credit. At least he has had the plastic surgeries to make himself appear as a woman... what about those guys that simply say "I identify as being a woman" and then expect to be able to use a woman's bathroom? What happens when an adult male goes into a public school and then strolls into the girl's bathroom / locker room? He could be arrested... but what if he says he's a woman? Then what? At least Bruce had (and still has) the balls to go under the knife. To an extent.

And here, as long as I'm touching on the subject; did you know that the LGBTVLMNOP community is less than 4% of the population? Less than 4%! Think about that for a moment. In any sort of genetic sense, this isn't even a minority, this is a +/-, an error in the calculation. And yet, look at how their struggles and difficulties and hardship has been crammed and forced into every facet of the day, with accommodations being created and the vast majority of people being required by law now to be open towards someone's sexuality, under penalty of fines. There are three times as many sexual predators out there (registered) then there are non-heterosexuals. And yet, we don't make laws to support them, we don't open ourselves or our lives for them, we aren't required by law to hire them or to have them live wherever they want.

Want an example? Turn on the television. Over 30% of the shows on television feature LGBTVLMNOP characters! **For the record, I have been pulling these percentages off of the internet, from published studies and polls.

With this being an issue with less than 4% of the population, it makes me wonder just whatever 4% quality group we could get sympathy for, or equal treatment for. And no, furries don't fall into this... they're only about .00008 of the population (or 1 out of 125,000). Sorry.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, Bruce... well, not so much Bruce, but perhaps the media.

Stop forcing us to accept this! Stop treating every person that comes out as being gay or a woman trapped in a man's body as front page news! 4% of the population should not garner so much coverage or attention!

...

Just had a thought. Of Bruce is a woman now, does that mean he has to pay for higher insurance? Is he now required to pay for mammograms and birth control under his insurance policy? And, is he aware he gets a 17% cut in pay?

Re: WARNING Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:49 pm by Shadowcrunch

Without going into a rant, cuz you covered this pretty well, I completely agree. I don't wanna hijack your thoughts, but you did hint more to the point that the media is to blame more than Jenner, cuz it wouldn't be shoved in our faces if he wasn't an ex athlete with a Kardashian bride. Since you covered the facts of the LGBT stats, and that's not my point, I'm going to skip a groove for a moment.

Media... and COSBY. To me, same damn thing... same sensational news where they can dig up some dirt on someone nobody gives a fuck about anymore, and.... IN YOUR FACE! Not doing details or opinions on the actual subject matter, but the way they just... you know, like there's a war in the Ukraine and oil prices and shootings, and "we interrupt this story about terror plots to let you know another nobody one hit wonder from 1963 has come forward to say Cosby assaulted her..." Cuz really, some twit not realizing she was date-raped for 40 years is WAY more important than current events that could be life threatening to the masses. "Shit, there's a possible terror movement planning to blow up the building where I work! Well, at least I'm not Cosby!"... said no person ever.

And one more point that ties into your story cuz you mentioned the name. Less media, more shove it in our face. Bunny Bennett. HAD no problems with the plan to become a womanish (think (s)he plans on staying penis owner also). I had no problems with them making music, and her using her share of the income to make the change. What pissed me off was the day my wife showed me that Bunny (who started out as a graphic designer) had started a kickstarter thing, with the goal of raising more money for her gender surgeries, and offering her art work as the rewards. She did the videos explaining the hows and whys, whining that she really needs the help, and I felt the red rage. To me, that was using the fans for something that fans should not be responsible for. People gave a shit about Bunny for SPG, and becoming a woman has nothing to do with the music (in fact, I believe she is slowly screwing up the band with her womanishness, but that's just my opinion). She got money from fans liking them and the music, but took that adoration one step too far, and I say NO!

At least when Abney Park asked for funding for a tour bus, it wouldn't be something that would affect their music, and they said the idea behind the tour bus was to do more shows FOR THE FANS. Turning into a woman FOR THE FANS? I'm gonna call bullshit on that one.

Re: WARNING Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:36 pm by soothsayer

I do want to add real quick (don't remember if I mentioned it before or not) that I don't have a problem with non-hetero people. I don't have a problem with cross dressing. And I really don't care of someone gets a sex change. I have no problem or issue with associating with such people. I just have a problem with it all being in our face, no matter where we look or turn. Voicing an opinion is not hate speech.

The only other problem I have are with those people who genetically are one sex, who are still attracted to members of the opposite sex, and who decide to get a sex change... while still wanting to participate in the sexual activities they enjoyed pre-surgery.

From a genetic standpoint, I can see why there are gays: men have both sexual chromosomes. That's probably not the reason, but it makes sense. I can even understand bisexuals; it's said that everyone is born bisexual, it's just growth and environment that influences it. And lesbians, hell, there is nothing wrong with that!

*ahem* Getting side tracked here. Anyway, the problem lies with the surgery. Feeling depressed, feeling as if you are trapped, that isn't a biological or physical issue, that's a mental one. Paying out money for body modifications in order to make you feel happy, no matter what the mod is, is an act of the physical to elicit a mental state of self acceptance. There is no physical or biological reasoning behind this, ESPECIALLY when you still keep your sexual gender specific organs.

There is no reason why the media, society, or government should force people to accept this as heroism and bravery, and to openly tolerate this for fear of prosecution.

Oh well, I'm getting sleepy now.

Re: WARNING Thu Jun 18, 2015 10:12 am by soothsayer

Marathon Man
or "but, you're blek"

I'm not going to go on about Rachel Dolezal identifying as being black, and how self identifying as a different race is wrong but self identifying as a different gender is okay. Shadowcrunch parodied that quite well in his Don't take a fence post. No... what I am going to go off on kind of ties in to this, but then covers a broader subject.

Did you know that Rachel was able to do this for as long as she has because of this mysterious thing called WHITE PRIVILEGE. Yes. She was only able to pretend or believe or identify as being black because of WHITE PRIVILEGE. It seems that no other racial group out there in the entire world can lie or pretend to be something they are not, because they are not white.

From The Politico: Choosing to be Black is the Epitome of White Privilege
Yahoo Health: Is White Privilege to Blame?
And the Huffington: Rachel Dolezal and the Complex Politics of White Privilege

WHITE PRIVILEGE, for those who aren't a minority, is defined as the "societal privileges that benefit white people in western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances," and that it "denotes both obvious and less obvious passive advantages that white persons may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice. These include cultural affirmations of one's own worth; presumed greater social status; and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely. The effects can be seen in professional, educational, and personal contexts. The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal."

I have a problem with this... but first, let's go back to Rachel and WHITE PRIVILEGE. You know what? No, let's not. That's just convoluted and... and... no. No no no.

Damn it, I don't even know how to rant this without sounding racist.

*pause*

Okay. Rachel was also accused of appropriating black culture, that as a white person she should not be able to do so because it's a black thang. Really? Since when does the color of your skin denote what culture you are a part of? There is no black culture, there is no red culture, there is no yellow or white culture, or brown or olive or pasty pale. The color of your skin has nothing to do with the culture you are a part of.

Culture, as defined,

Quote :: consists of the beliefs, behaviors, objects, and other characteristics common to the members of a particular group or society. Through culture, people and groups define themselves, conform to society's shared values, and contribute to society.

To me, with reading that, and from my own understanding and experiences, to me that says a nationality can have a culture, or a heritage, or even a tribe or clan (people within and forming a community). Americans can have a culture, as can Canadians; both are a mainly white community, but they have a culture unique to the nationality. Hmongs have a culture, as to those from Laos and Thailand. Look at it this way: there is no defining culture relating to a specific skin pigmentation. Regarding blacks, Australian Aborigines have a different culture than Jamaicans; Jamaicans have a different culture than those living in the Bayou; those in the Bayou have a different culture than black gangs in Los Angeles; those same gangs have a different culture than bush tribes in the African savanna.

Hell, look at Latinos. They range in color from white to light tan to dark brown. Mexicans, Latinos, Hispanics, Spaniards, all are within the same demographic; American Indians (both north and south) share the same skin tone. Do they all share the same culture? Do the Japanese share the same culture as Chinese, Koreans? How about those from Indonesia, the Philippines, and Hawaii?

Black is not a culture. Ergo, Rachel could not steal anything from it, as it does not exist.

Then again, it could just be my WHITE PRIVILEGE talking.

...

I was going to extend this to also cover race cards, black privilege, and other racial topics, but then I realized that that would make for a lengthy post, and I haven't the time at the moment. Perhaps another day.

Oh, black privilege? The acceptance and glorification of violent or illegal actions of an individual because some black person was captured and sold by some other black person, to be forced into slavery by some European person on a southern plantation a two hundred years ago or so. As an example, "Just because he has an extensive rap sheet, was high on drugs, and was fleeing from a crime scene where a weapon was used, does not give the white po-po the right to shoot him. We should riot and loot in protest to demonstrate how kind and good he was, in an effort to show that this kind of racial intolerance can't be ignored anymore."

Re: WARNING Fri Jun 19, 2015 7:40 am by soothsayer

**Addition / edit**

As much as I find the idea of black privilege, race card, and the entire give-it-to-the-man mentality that is expounded upon by the media laughable and backwards, what I find even more backwards and downright arrogant are those who seem to go out of their way to take the entire racial climate back decades, people who are so close minded and blinded by their own self proclaimed supremacy that they make themselves into monsters.

Racists, bigots, whatever you want to call them. Just as there's different degrees of intolerance, you have different degrees of prejudice. I'm not talking about the ones who may not like this or that group of people, but have no difficulty working or socializing with them; they are not allowing their own personal feelings to get into the way of the day-to-day. No, I'm talking about those idiots who will gun down or run down those who they see as being unfit or subhuman.

What the hell is wrong with you? Look at the latest shooting, the one that happened in Charleston. Your hate led you to murder nine people who were in a church?! A church, for >expletive< sake! Way to go, idiot.

I may argue against riots and protests. I may defend police. I may find the continued efforts to separate black culture from white, even though it took decades to get things unified, as a complete joke. I myself may make my jokes, or make comments that makes me sound like a racist, but it should be known that I don't believe in differing races; there is only one race. While the actions of a group of people (ie, rioters and protesters) impact only that particular community, the actions of these lone morons impact the entire culture or nation... they aren't helping anything, they are bolstering or fueling the very actions that causes the riots and protest to begin with!

Re: WARNING Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:06 am by soothsayer

You know... in recognition of all the advances they made in technology, science, and the medicines, in addition to all the scientists and developers that came over, I think NASA should be allowed to fly the Nazi flag. They played a big part in the history of our space program, and without them, where would we be?

All this hysteria regarding the Confederate flag! My gawd! I don't see this flag as being racist; the only power an item has is what people give it. With that said, this is my stance or opinion on the subject.

The only problem with this is that the Confederate flag is neither a State Flag or a national one; it represents a failed government system. Yes, it has historical importance, but so does the Gadsden Flag, the Union Jack, and the Nazi flag; our federal government would not fly the Gadsden or the Union Jack to honor our history with them... they have no place within a government institution. And Germany most certainly wouldn't fly the Nazi flag by it's government buildings in recognition of its history.

If individuals want to fly a flag of their choosing, by all means go ahead, but in or on a government building / property, no. And that is the whole point: this is not a federally recognized flag or symbol of a state, nation, or sovereign entity.

Why is that so freaking hard to understand?

Re: WARNING Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:44 pm by soothsayer

What the hell is up with the flag being lowered for every single event, fart, or sneeze? I thought the lowering of the flag at half staff was reserved for high governmental officials and foreign dignitaries? Oh wait, according to the rules and regulations determining flag etiquette, State governors also have the right to have flags lowered should an armed and active duty serviceman from their State die in battle.

...

So why are we lowering the flag for when people get shot in France? Why are we lowering the flag for when a policeman dies in a car accident?

Not only are these things stupid, but they are against the law, the very letter of the law. Lowering the flag all the time like we've been doing diminishes the very meaning of having the flag at half staff. It's bullocks, and it's seriously got to stop.

Re: WARNING Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:27 pm by soothsayer

Fuckin' god damn media keyboard, typed a big rant, hit a wrong button, website jumped a page, erasing everything I wrote. I swear, I have to start writing my stuff on Word before posting.

Anyway, I've refrained from swearing on this site since the beginning, being respectful of 'crunch's request in the event this site ever "made it" or if outsiders come here. But it's been a while, and society has rapidly gotten to the point where you can't do anything, can't see anything, without swearing.

Too many people getting offended about bullshit. Stuff being glossed over or ignored so that people don't get offended. A need to show and demonstrate that we're not racists, we're sensitive and tolerant and accepting of your plight and those that came before you, and oh dear me, so sorry for that. It is getting to the point where anyone with a brain has got to shout, lest they explode within this sea of fucking nonsense. Want an example?

Nancy Drew.

Nancy Drew, that teenage girl detective. I've never personally read any of her stuff, but I know the name, and in turn, I know her. We all do.

CBS, in all their fuckin' brilliance, have declared that in the latest rebooting of the character, she will be in her 30s; a New York police detective; and "any race except white" to demonstrate that Nancy Drew, as a character, is diverse.

This is just fucking nuts. I'm sorry for the amount of vulgarities, but enough is enough already. I've been reading the comments to the hyperlinked article, and they are right. If you're going to screw around with a character like this so much, why not simply make a new character? References to the success of re-imaging of Annie, Johnny Storm.

I can't even think straight, or type coherently! This is just becoming nuts! Anything but white... really? Really? In pandering... catering...

just...

fuck!

dear gawd

Re: WARNING Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:03 pm by Shadowcrunch

Oh my, the ideas....

Hardy Boys > Harlem Boys
Betty Boop > Betty Burka
Dick Tracy > Tracy Dick "Mommy! That nice detective lady has a bulge in her pants!"

Re: WARNING Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:40 pm by Shadowcrunch

Dude brah! This just in! From a 'Today I Learned' from Reddit, which featured a wiki link for proof, I give you...

The original candidate for DC Comics' first headlining black superhero was a character called the Black Bomber, a white racist who would turn into a black superhero under stress,[4] and be later described by comics historian Don Markstein as "an insult to practically everybody with any point of view at all."[5] When the editor who had approved the Black Bomber left the company before the character had seen print, Tony Isabella (whose previous writing experience included Luke Cage, Marvel Comics' first black superhero with his own title) was asked to salvage the character. Isabella managed to convince editors of his Black Lightning character which he had been working on for some time, mentioning that his characters along the way were merely stepping stones.

All of a sudden, the Womanizers or Jungle Bunny or Harlem Boys don't seem so bad... this was a frickin professional MAJOR publisher for fuck's sake! Makes me wonder though... the year is 1962, Stan Lee calls a young Rob Liefeld into his office. "Rob, DC is killing us with their characters of color. We need a black hero and we need one now!" I can see it already... and extra pouches cuz Rob knows black people are good at carrying luggage!

» Gaming hardware.
» WARNING Review of HULU Plus

WARNING

WARNING :: Comments

WARNING

Similar topics

Similar topics