Now I know I'm slightly obsessed by The Guardian, but in this piece, the author

[Luis Anaconda]

Here's my understanding:

She doesn't assert, as Burney said, she suspects.

What does she suspect? First of all she suspects that Trump did say that Pence "wanted to hang them all". This is her opinion (not a fact). If Trump did say that then all it says is that Trump is more liberal about gays than Pence.

Secondly (removing the sub-clause) she "suspects ... that he (Trump) would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people if he thought it would get him good ratings."

So she's gone from using a rumour about Trump either joking or believing that Pence is highly illiberal about gays to suspecting that Trump is basically ok with hanging gay people.

That's only a notch or two down from assert, isn't it?

I think what she actually says he will do anything to get ratings - hardly a massive slight on a man so obsessed with his own image - which is why removing that phrase completely changes the meaning

[Burney]

I think what she actually says he will do anything to get ratings - hardly a massive slight on a man so obsessed with his own image - which is why removing that phrase completely changes the meaning

Right. So you don't think that saying that the President of the United States "would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people" (for whatever bullshīt reason) is a massive slight? Only I'd say it's a bit more than a slight. I'd say it's a gross and tasteless calumny with no substance whatsoever and if you're defending it, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.

[Peter]

Right. So you don't think that saying that the President of the United States "would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people" (for whatever bullshīt reason) is a massive slight? Only I'd say it's a bit more than a slight. I'd say it's a gross and tasteless calumny with no substance whatsoever and if you're defending it, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.

Its also part of an attempt to convince gay people to oppose him/hate him/vote for the opposition. She 'suspects' he hates gay people enough to be happy about hanging them.

Happy. Not 'reluctant but ratings must the the prioority'. Happy.

[Luis Anaconda]

Right. So you don't think that saying that the President of the United States "would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people" (for whatever bullshīt reason) is a massive slight? Only I'd say it's a bit more than a slight. I'd say it's a gross and tasteless calumny with no substance whatsoever and if you're defending it, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.

No, I don't think it is a massive slight on a man who chose a massive homophobe as his VP and whom she believes, with some justification, openly jokes about the subject. I don't think it a massive slight on a man who openly says in an election campaign he could walk into Times Square and shoot someone without it affecting his ratings. He has set the bar very low and I don't think it does much credit to anyone to sink to his level and I think it is a poorly written piece. ffs awimb now constitutes half the readership of that story I would think

[Peter]

blandly asserts that the President of the United States would "happily preside over televised hangings of gay people". There's no 'only kidding' or suggestion that this is satire - let alone factual evidence for this extraordinary assertion. She appears actually to believe this and has written it in an article for a leading newspaper. And what's more, no editor has at any point taken it out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...right-wing-afd

Seriously, what is wrong with these people? Are they so far removed from normal discourse that they can't see how unhinged this sounds to normal people? Are their social circles so rarified that no-one ever challenges them when they come out with this sort of shít?

Let's leave aside all the other horseshít in the article and simply ask how we reached such a pitch of hysteria that people are uncrtitically making this sort of ridiculous, unfounded statement about a democratically elected politician without anyone calling them on it or suggesting they're being hysterical, offensive and mendacious?

As I understand it, Trump actually has a reasonable record when it comes to benders. Of all the attention-seeking oppressed minority groups I thought this was the one where he had the least trouble.

The article is really about the horrific possibility that some gay people might be right wing, or at least conservative. If I could just put my PC hat on for a moment, I am genuinely horrified that someone would even suggest to somebody that they should vote, feel or act a certain way purely on the basis of their sexuality. That being gay means one simply CANNOT vote conservative, or republican, or UKIP.

What else do you have? Do poofs have to be remainers? Are they pro-life, anti-gun? Must they favour Scottish independence?

THese people sicken me. Leave the bummers alone. They are free to vote how they wish, just like the rest of us normal folk.

[Burney]

As I understand it, Trump actually has a reasonable record when it comes to benders. Of all the attention-seeking oppressed minority groups I thought this was the one where he had the least trouble.

The article is really about the horrific possibility that some gay people might be right wing, or at least conservative. If I could just put my PC hat on for a moment, I am genuinely horrified that someone would even suggest to somebody that they should vote, feel or act a certain way purely on the basis of their sexuality. That being gay means one simply CANNOT vote conservative, or republican, or UKIP.

What else do you have? Do poofs have to be remainers? Are they pro-life, anti-gun? Must they favour Scottish independence?

THese people sicken me. Leave the bummers alone. They are free to vote how they wish, just like the rest of us normal folk.

But this is identity politics in a nutshell, p: every minority's rights are sacrosanct and they are all to be cherished, worshipped and agitated for - right up until they start having their own 'wrong' opinions.

[redgunamo]

As I understand it, Trump actually has a reasonable record when it comes to benders. Of all the attention-seeking oppressed minority groups I thought this was the one where he had the least trouble.

The article is really about the horrific possibility that some gay people might be right wing, or at least conservative. If I could just put my PC hat on for a moment, I am genuinely horrified that someone would even suggest to somebody that they should vote, feel or act a certain way purely on the basis of their sexuality. That being gay means one simply CANNOT vote conservative, or republican, or UKIP.

What else do you have? Do poofs have to be remainers? Are they pro-life, anti-gun? Must they favour Scottish independence?

THese people sicken me. Leave the bummers alone. They are free to vote how they wish, just like the rest of us normal folk.

I'm not sure. Can there be such a thing as a pro-establishment pressure, or protest, group?

[Peter]

I'm not sure. Can there be such a thing as a pro-establishment pressure, or protest, group?

I neither know nor care. I think my point is that surely we are supposed to reach a stage where one's sexuality means precisely that and nothing more. where being gay is precisely as significant in one's thought processes and beliefs as being straight.

In other words, a personal sexual preference rather than a set of beliefs that puts one automatically, and without freedom of choice, into a lobby/pressure group/political party/football team.

Would they quite so readily criticise black people or asians for voting conservative?

Leave the benders alone.

[Sir C]

I neither know nor care. I think my point is that surely we are supposed to reach a stage where one's sexuality means precisely that and nothing more. where being gay is precisely as significant in one's thought processes and beliefs as being straight.

In other words, a personal sexual preference rather than a set of beliefs that puts one automatically, and without freedom of choice, into a lobby/pressure group/political party/football team.

Would they quite so readily criticise black people or asians for voting conservative?

Leave the benders alone.

Oh, I've seen articles in The Guardian criticising black people for voting Tory. I think it's perfectly acceptable to consider any kind of 'minority' as owned by the left.

[redgunamo]

I neither know nor care. I think my point is that surely we are supposed to reach a stage where one's sexuality means precisely that and nothing more. where being gay is precisely as significant in one's thought processes and beliefs as being straight.

In other words, a personal sexual preference rather than a set of beliefs that puts one automatically, and without freedom of choice, into a lobby/pressure group/political party/football team.

Would they quite so readily criticise black people or asians for voting conservative?

Leave the benders alone.

We were actually at that point before your sort arrived and ruined it, the separation of public and private selves. Conservatives understand that culture matters. You actually understand this too but can never admit it, and that is the difference.