PDA

View Full Version : Bus advert wars - Round 2



IdleRich
12-04-2012, 05:18 PM
So for the second time in the last few years a Christian group has made a direct response to a bus advert. Seems to be a deliberate and aggressive tactic that they are employing - and if it is intended to rile up the original group I think it will work like a charm. Not totally sure what else it achieves.
If you don't know what I'm on about, it's this

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/images/2012/04/stonewallbus.jpg

and this

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/12/christian-anti-gay-ads-buses

Slothrop
12-04-2012, 05:26 PM
Yeah, but not being a bigot is basically a religion too isn't it?

woops
12-04-2012, 05:30 PM
It's true that some people are gay and I agree that they need to get over it and fall in step with decent society.

Inb4 huge flame war

IdleRich
12-04-2012, 05:31 PM
"Yeah, but not being a bigot is basically a religion too isn't it?"
He he.

you
12-04-2012, 09:54 PM
I don't get such aggressive points of view, christian or gay, I am very happy for a large chunk of society to disagree with how I live my life, I'll keep quiet about it and go about my stuff.... and accept their opinion is theirs and mine is mine - am I being a twerp thinking like this?

Phaedo
13-04-2012, 12:50 AM
I don't get such aggressive points of view, christian or gay, I am very happy for a large chunk of society to disagree with how I live my life, I'll keep quiet about it and go about my stuff.... and accept their opinion is theirs and mine is mine - am I being a twerp thinking like this?

edit: yeah kinda twerpish

Bangpuss
13-04-2012, 09:04 AM
Update: Boris has stepped in to ban the Christians from running their ad. According to the Guardian, he said:

"London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance. It is clearly offensive to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses."

OK, so apart from Christian outrage, you'd think that's the end of the story. Well done, Boris. But no. Politicians running against each other can't bring themselves to say the other did the right thing, even when it's something as obvious and common sense as stepping in to prevent the transport system from becoming a rolling hate crime.

'His main rival in next month's mayoral election, Ken Livingstone, said Johnson should never have allowed the adverts to be booked. "London is going backwards under a Tory leadership that should have made these advertisements impossible."'

How do you 'make these advertisements impossible', other than not allowing them to run? London may well be going backwards in many ways, but this isn't one of them.

Bangpuss
13-04-2012, 09:09 AM
Also, I didn't realise Brian Paddick is gay. So he really is a bent (ex-)copper.

Mr. Tea
13-04-2012, 09:27 AM
Politicians running against each other can't bring themselves to say the other did the right thing, even when it's something as obvious and common sense as stepping in to prevent the transport system from becoming a rolling hate crime.

'His main rival in next month's mayoral election, Ken Livingstone, said Johnson should never have allowed the adverts to be booked. "London is going backwards under a Tory leadership that should have made these advertisements impossible."'

Especially hypocritical, given Ken's history of being not exactly hostile to vile frothing homophobes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone#Meeting_with_Islamic_Cleric_Yusuf_ al-Qaradawi).

Bangpuss
13-04-2012, 10:28 AM
Not sure I agree with the argument that when British politicians invite bigoted fundamentalists for a meeting, it means they are in some way bigoted themselves. I'd much sooner extremists of all stripes be invited to meet and discuss with leaders than feel they are being marginalised or censored. I think in Ken's case, he didn't do his homework before inviting that Muslim guy, and then made the mistake of trying to stick up for him when confronted with evidence that he was a horrible bigot. He should have just said: "I wasn't aware of the full extent of his views, nor do I agree with them. But as an eminent fundamentalist Muslim, I'm going to meet him to see if we can work together."

I think the homophobic bus adverts should have been allowed to go ahead. Because the last thing you want is a load of religious nutters claiming they're being censored. Let it run. Nobody will be convinced by it. In fact, it will probably harden people's views towards religion when they see how spiteful and stupid its followers can be. And to be honest, I also like the idea of the 'national conversation' taking place on billboards and the sides of buses. They do it in America and it's very entertaining.

Mr. Tea
13-04-2012, 10:42 AM
I think in Ken's case, he didn't do his homework before inviting that Muslim guy, and then made the mistake of trying to stick up for him when confronted with evidence that he was a horrible bigot.

Well yeah, that excuse might have washed the first time, but doesn't really work when Ken continued to consort with the guy after it became pretty clear what his views are - and called his detractors "xenophobic" and "Islamophobic".


I think the homophobic bus adverts should have been allowed to go ahead. Because the last thing you want is a load of religious nutters claiming they're being censored. Let it run. Nobody will be convinced by it. In fact, it will probably harden people's views towards religion when they see how spiteful and stupid its followers can be. And to be honest, I also like the idea of the 'national conversation' taking place on billboards and the sides of buses. They do it in America and it's very entertaining.

Hmm, maybe, I dunno. But yeah, these days I think the centre of gravity of public opinion is probably largely against these ads (edit: the anti-gay ones, I mean).

Bangpuss
13-04-2012, 12:35 PM
I don't see any evidence of radical Islam creeping into his policies, so Livingstone meeting him was no more than diplomacy. And I think, to an extent, it is xenophobic to say the Mayor of London shouldn't meet with fundamentalist Muslim clerics, but it's OK to consort with radical Zionists, etc. Especially when the Muslim cleric in question is an influential figurehead to many young Muslims who live in London.

mistersloane
13-04-2012, 12:42 PM
Some people smash bus windows with homophobic advertisements on them.

Get over it.

Slothrop
13-04-2012, 12:53 PM
Your mum's gay.

Get over it.

Mr. Tea
13-04-2012, 01:47 PM
I don't see any evidence of radical Islam creeping into his policies, so Livingstone meeting him was no more than diplomacy. And I think, to an extent, it is xenophobic to say the Mayor of London shouldn't meet with fundamentalist Muslim clerics, but it's OK to consort with radical Zionists, etc. Especially when the Muslim cleric in question is an influential figurehead to many young Muslims who live in London.

Of course Ken himself isn't an Islamist and I'm sure he doesn't agree with many of the guy's views, but that's not the point here. And that's not to say it's OK for politicians to consort with headbanging Zionists either.

Plus the fact that the al-Qarawadi's views are shared by others does not in itself make them any more justified. Nick Griffin represents some people's views, does that mean he should be taken seriously by mainstream politicians?

IdleRich
13-04-2012, 03:28 PM
"I don't get such aggressive points of view, christian or gay, I am very happy for a large chunk of society to disagree with how I live my life, I'll keep quiet about it and go about my stuff.... and accept their opinion is theirs and mine is mine - am I being a twerp thinking like this?"
I would say yes. These things aren't neutral. Not so long ago homosexuality was illegal so you couldn't just say "I'll live my life and not worry about it" - ok that's changed now but rights are still not equal. Asking for equal rights isn't an aggressive point of view is it?

Bangpuss
13-04-2012, 03:28 PM
I think if meeting and appearing to involve someone like al-Qarawadi, even only as a gesture, reduces the chances of him or his followers performing or inciting violent jihad, it should be applauded. People start bombing when they feel their voice isn't being heard. By meeting with him, it's at least showing a willingness to engage. And you never know, Ken may have eked out some concessions like not calling for raped women to be stoned to death.

Mr. Tea
13-04-2012, 03:31 PM
I think if meeting and appearing to involve someone like al-Qarawadi, even only as a gesture, reduces the chances of him or his followers performing or inciting violent jihad, it should be applauded.

Now you just sound like you're appeasing (would-be) terrorists.

Bangpuss
13-04-2012, 04:00 PM
I don't think there's any harm in appeasing would-be terrorists as long as you don't cave in to any of their demands. They're lonely souls. I bet most often they just want somebody to talk to.

Sectionfive
13-04-2012, 05:27 PM
Asking for equal rights isn't an aggressive point of view is it?

You would be branded a 'militant' secularist for doing just that by someone of the gang we share our republic with.

See feminazi also

mistersloane
14-04-2012, 01:48 AM
Anyway, he's stopped it now.

you
14-04-2012, 09:02 PM
I would say yes. These things aren't neutral. Not so long ago homosexuality was illegal so you couldn't just say "I'll live my life and not worry about it" - ok that's changed now but rights are still not equal. Asking for equal rights isn't an aggressive point of view is it?

No asking for equal rights is totally cool. Asking for equal opinions - I'm uncomfortable with that.

But bus adverts are not lobbying politicians to change the law or equalise the rights of the populace, they are targeting the passerby, asking him/her to change his/her internal opinions in a rather aggressive manner. I feel freedom of opinion is pretty sacred, and with that there will be differences and a minority will form repulsive, nonsensical opinions. Point is rights, equality and laws should be consistent and homogenous across all types of people (regardless of how they live and WHERE they live*). But the private opinions of individuals should be kept separate from this - if they act on these opinions that are contrary to notions of equality in law and rights then the safety net is the law and the rights of others (not to be abused).

Venn diagrams up in dis...




*another can-o-worms

mistersloane
15-04-2012, 01:58 AM
Actually I fucking hated those Stonewall ads, and I think, what I actually think, is that Stonewall should just shut up. If they can do ads as 'positive promotion' in that way, then anyone else can too, they started it. What did they hope to acheive? Its Stonewall's fault. I remember emailing people at the time going "oh jesus look at what they're fucking doing".

I'd still smash the bus windows if those fucking christian idiots ever get their way though.

baboon2004
15-04-2012, 04:56 PM
Not sure what I think about the ads (the Stonewall ones, that is), but one thing that riled me about them - when I was researching them cos of something at work, I found an index with the best workplaces in terms of anti-homophobic policies. Fine idea in principle, but in practice the whole list was made up of horrendous multinationals, police, prison service etc etc, thereby sending out the message that it didn)t at all matter what awful shit a company/workplace was doing as long as it wasnt being (directly) homophobic. Pretty depressing indictment of single-issue politics really.

Mr. Tea
15-04-2012, 07:13 PM
Well that's what happens when "diversity" becomes a box-ticking exercise, isn't it?

If it was ever anything else...I think it went pretty quickly from "we value you regardless of your personal background" to "we value you because of your personal background" to "we value you because you make our stats look good".

mistersloane
15-04-2012, 11:18 PM
Not sure what I think about the ads (the Stonewall ones, that is), but one thing that riled me about them - when I was researching them cos of something at work, I found an index with the best workplaces in terms of anti-homophobic policies. Fine idea in principle, but in practice the whole list was made up of horrendous multinationals, police, prison service etc etc, thereby sending out the message that it didn)t at all matter what awful shit a company/workplace was doing as long as it wasnt being (directly) homophobic. Pretty depressing indictment of single-issue politics really.

Yuck thats horrid! Stonewall to me were always the face of conservatism....never liked em lol.

Bangpuss
16-04-2012, 04:43 PM
Taibbi makes the point that corporate assholes shouldn't be commended for speaking out on issues like gay rights pretty well here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/blankfein-the-wrong-spokesman-for-gay-rights-20120214

Although I agree that they shouldn't be made spokesmen, ambassadors, beacons, or any other metaphorical status for merely not being total bigots, I do think it's important that companies are scrutinised for their attitudes to minorities. But league tables, etc. is bound to lead to tokenism. So basically: don't give corporate evil-doers credit for not doing reprehensible shit some of the time.

IdleRich
26-04-2012, 01:39 PM
Not exactly bus wars but fits in with the "not being bigoted is basically just another religion" comment.


The Roman Catholic church has written to every state-funded Catholic secondary school in England and Wales asking them to encourage pupils to sign a petition against gay marriage.
Just evil.


"The Catholic view of marriage is not a political view; it's a religious view."
So that's alright then.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/25/catholic-church-schools-gay-marriage