Bus advert wars - Round 2

IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
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

stonewallbus.jpg


and this

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

woops

is not like other people
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
 
you

you

Well-known member
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?
 
P

Phaedo

Well-known member
you said:
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?
Click to expand...

edit: yeah kinda twerpish
 
Bangpuss

Bangpuss

Well-known member
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.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Bangpuss said:
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."'
Click to expand...

Especially hypocritical, given Ken's history of being not exactly hostile to vile frothing homophobes.
 
Bangpuss

Bangpuss

Well-known member
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

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Bangpuss said:
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.
Click to expand...

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".

Bangpuss said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Last edited:
Bangpuss

Bangpuss

Well-known member
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.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Bangpuss said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

IdleRich

IdleRich
"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?"
Click to expand...
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

Bangpuss

Well-known member
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

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Bangpuss said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Bangpuss

Well-known member
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top