‘What On Earth Are You Talking About?’

at

Screen Shot 2016-06-13 at 02.07.24

Last night.

During ‘de papers’ section of Sky News.

Owen Jones, a columnist with The Guardian, walked out of Sky News studio as he discussed the newspaper coverage of the attack in Orlando, Florida with Mark Longhurst and Julia Hartley-Brewer.

202 thoughts on “‘What On Earth Are You Talking About?’

    1. Twunt

      It wasn’t being sidelined. He wanted it to be exclusively owned as a homophobic attack. It was more than that.

      1. Waddy Dilson

        How so?
        From reports, the only mentioning of it being an attack on westerners as opposed to LGBT is that he made a phone call pledging allegiance to ISIS. Prior to this he was also allegedly a very violent and mentally unstable man who upon seeing two men kissing in front of his wife and son lost the plot entirely.
        It was a targeted attack on LGBT, not a targeted attack based on religious fundamentalism, as he was not a religious fundamentalist.

        1. Nigel

          The whole ISIS thing seems both opportunistic and enabling, which I guess is the way ISIS wants it. Sick of the gays? ISIS online will provide you with a radical framework to fuel and magnify your violent fantasies until you’re fired up enough to make them real! And they get to take credit for doing nothing other than telling people who hate their hate is awesome.

          1. Waddy Dilson

            Nigel, please don’t agree with me or even speak to me. You’re an insufferable crank.

          2. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

            Nigel, if you could change ‘…who hate their hate…‘ to ‘…who hate that their hate…‘, and change awesome to justified and change your avatar to something that didn’t make me eyes go funny I would agree with you too, just like Waddy Dildaughter.

      2. classter

        Then after his initial outburst, the two others seem to panic & say ridiculous, stupid things. Hartley-Brewer accused him of wanting ‘ownership’. Longhurst started this weird insistence that it was primarily an attack on ‘all humans’. He asked Jones ‘whether it is young contention; that there was a LGBTQ link!

      3. Starina

        this is no different from white people saying “it’s ‘all lives matter’ not ‘black lives matter”. priviledge in action. he was right to walk out

      4. Gerard McGrath

        No it wasn’t, it was a homophobic terrorist attack. The club was targeted because it was a gay club. Which bit of this do you not understand? Moron!!!

    1. Bertie Blenkinsop

      Except, in this instance, he kinda WAS the hysteria.

      He was clearly upset and tetchy from the outset, understandably enough I suppose in the circumstances.

      He probably would have been better off giving the discussion a miss altogether.

      1. fluffybiscuits

        He does seem a bit prone to drama I will say that. In saying that though Sky News is more like a slightly less hystrical but cheaper Fox News with how it goes on. Cicrumstances conspiring perhaps!

      2. Charlie

        What a little arrogant plonker. He made his point but then wanted to make it into his little drama show. Clearly doesn’t know how to have a grown up conversation without sulking.

      3. ahjayzis

        Can you imagine the presenter wanting to move away with the ‘jewish dimension’ if it were a synagogue that were massacred?

  1. Bertie Blenkinsop

    I vant to be al-Owen…..

    I thought he came across like a petulant teenager with his eye rolling and face pulling.

    1. Brother Barnabas

      Come on…if there’s one thing gay men don’t do, it’s petulant eye rolling and face pulling. You’re hanging out with the wrong gay crowd, Bertie.

  2. Harry Molloy

    Well that was bizarre! I can see why Jones may be upset that the homophobic element of the attack is being underdiscussed, even though it’s plain as day imo, but is he also upset that this is being labelled an Islamic extremist attack due to compassion for Muslims or am I misunderstanding?

    Either way he was incredibly childish, as was his body language, and the other two should get an award for pointless waffle…

  3. Paul Davis

    It’s not homophobic, it’s Islamic.

    People are homophobic due to their Islamic religion.

    Is that not blatantly obvious…

        1. some old queen

          My sources tell me that Mary MCAleese wants to have a few words with that boyo.

      1. Won't somebody please think of the children

        Oh wow – bitter much, sweetheart? You need a new hobby!

    1. Nigel

      It’s not homophobic, it’s Islamic.

      You get that it’s not either/or? The homophobia of the Abrahamic religions have been a hallmark of the last thousand years or so. You think LGBT communities in any country are unfamiliar with religiously inspired homophobic violence? You think that homophobia suddenly being sidelined or put as an at best secondary consideration because people don’t want to see it as an important motivating factor in radical religious violence is an edifying sight to people who’ve been living in fear of it all their lives?

    2. Helen Ryder

      Paul Davis – there were plenty of American people on Twitter yesterday thanking the shooter for ‘doing God’s work ‘ ! The conservative backlash against the LGBT community since last year’s marriage equality ruling has been relentless – clerks refusing to issue marriage licenses, presidential candidates standing by fundamentalist preachers who want to execute gay people, over TWO HUNDRED bills in state and national legislatures by Republican politicians to deny protections or repeal anti-discrimination ordinances designed to help gay people (Houston’s HERO was repealed through the efforts of Texan pastors) and religious ‘freedom’ bills attacking transgender people like in North Carolina.

      These homophobic people aren’t Islamic – they are proportedly Christian.

  4. Sheila

    I agree with him. But I also agree with other commenters here: his behaviour could have been a lot more mature.

    1. Small Wonder

      I would have been livid if people kept talking over me. He was making some fairly simple points and they seemed to want to argue with him over it.

  5. some old queen

    Whiter Owen should have walked off or not is another issue but his point is valid. It was first and foremost a homophobic hate crime and the other presenters were attempting to deflect from that fact. Whiter it was a so called Muslim or a Christian who done it is secondary.

    I expect we will see a lot more of this nonsense over the coming days.

    1. Harry Molloy

      I don’t see why either needs to be primary or secondary, it was both, it’s not a competition

      1. some old queen

        No it is not a competition but if any other group in society was specifically targeted in that way, that conversation would not even have been happening.

        1. Tony

          Children, theatre goers, students, women, shoppers, commuters- these have all been targeted but no-one tries to make it a crime against them. They are crimes against westerners for idealogical reasons of which homophobia is only one part.

          1. Harry Molloy

            yeah I agree with this, its an attack on the western way of life which, thankfully, homosexuality is now recognised as being part of.

          2. classter

            However, it was not an attack on an indiscriminate group of western people.

            It was an attack on a gay club.

            When a synagogue is attacked, we call it an anti-Semitic attack. If a black church is attacked, we’d call it a racist attack. We are not afraid to call out misogynistic attacks.

            This was homophobic.

        2. Dόn 'The Unstoppable Force' Pídgéόní

          This. Although with Elliot Rogers, it wasn’t allowed to be an misogynistic attack either, despite him writing a letter that explicitly stated that it was.

          Awful awful awful awful. Good on Owen. Sky news sucks balls.

      1. ahjayzis

        They totally were. Suggesting it was exactly like the Bataclan – but the Bataclan wasn’t targeted by someone known for his visceral hatred of rock fans. This wasn’t a random massacre, it was someone setting out to murder as many gay people as possible. That’s why they’re upping security on LGBT events and spaces across America – because they were targeted, as a group, for who they are.

        If it had been a synagogue the entire segment would have been about the dangers of anti-Semitism as you know perfectly well.

  6. Twunt

    It wasn’t exclusively an homophobic attack, or Islamic attack, it was both.

    He got upset because, as a gay person, he wanted to own this, and he wrongly believes non gays could not understand or relate to it.

    The woman called the attacker a lunatic, which he obviously is, and this fella gets his knickers in a twist because she didn’t call him homophobic – which he also is. People can be many things. Like being both petulant and immature.

    1. Peter81

      Agree with this. No matter what the topic, Jones debating style is always frow-burrowed condescension.
      Walking out on a news channel that has no credibility is a bit pointless. Why even be there?

  7. Tony

    It was a disingenuous move by Owen, for an otherwise clever bloke. We are all upset at the loss of human life. To try and own that grief for the LGBT community was as silly as Trump trying to use it for his campaign.

    1. some old queen

      Ok so, we are now heading into Pride season, including Dublin. Are you telling me that people won’t be on guard and that there will not be increased security now? Ah no it was just a general attack on humanity, sure we’ll be grand. Hardly.

      How this differs from most other attacks was that a specific group was targeted. It was first and foremost fueled by homophobia and no, Trump is also anti gay so there is quite a difference.

      1. Tony

        After 7/7 commuters were on guard, after columbine- students, after bataclan- revellers, after sandy hook- parents, after Norway- everyone. If you see yourself as being first and foremost gay, then you will perceive this as an attack on you. If you see yourself as being a western human being, you will see it being an attack on all of us.

        1. Don'tBelieveTheHypeOrTheBBC

          I’m a western and not gay and I clearly see this as an attack on the LGBT community

          1. Tony

            And the parents?The siblings? The cousins? The bouncers? The police? The doctors? The neighbours? It wasn’t an attack on them? Please, dont you see that this is a time for westerners to stick together?

          2. Don'tBelieveTheHypeOrTheBBC

            Bouncers, police, doctors, etc. weren’t the specific target, LGBT people were the target; it was a homophobic attack.

            Stop watching Sky News, Tony.

          3. Nigel

            Stick together by NOT MENTIONING THE HOMOPHOBIA.

            Seriously, the idea that a precondition of sticking together in the wake of this attack is downplaying the homophobia is such a sick and rotten joke.

          4. Rob_G

            It was both – ‘the West’ is a part of the world where LGBT people have the freedom to live their lives more-or-less as they as wish. An attack on the freedoms afforded to LGBT people (as is right and just) is an attack on the West, also.

          5. Tony

            An attack on any community by ISIS is an attack on all of us. They don’t just hate gays. They hate adulterers, women, Christians, and any other group that identifies with non ISIS values. That is why it is divisive to claim this as a purely homophobic attack. It was a hate crime against western ideology, of which acceptance of homosexuality is a part, carried out in the name of an idealogical and religious cult.

          6. Nigel

            If people can’t describe a homophobic attack as homophobic without being told off or slapped down, then clearly gay people don’t mater very much to you. There should be no objection whatsoever to calling this attack homophobic, Calling it homophobic should in no way detract from the broader political aspects of it. A homophobic attack on western ideology should be a perfectly understandable and uncontroversial description. Other qualifiers should not detract from that description.The idea that describing this as a homophobic attack as divisive suggests you do not regard the LGBT as a fully accepted part of western society. Given the response here you may be sadly right.

        2. The Real Jane

          *Please, dont you see that this is a time for westerners to stick together?*

          Against gay people? Hardly. It was a homophobic attack. Gay people were specifically targeted, regardless of race or religion. That seems impossible to deny. The other affected people are just caught in the crossfire, really, the point was to kill gay people and as many of them as possible.

          1. Nigel

            If they were truly part of us you wouldn’t be balking at people talking about it as a homophobic attack. A homophobic attack on the LGBT community would be a homophobic attack on all of us. You wouldn’t be seeking to put the homophobic aspect side or be telling the LGBT community that they are doing something wrong by talking about it as a homophobic attack. You wouldn’t be setting terms on how they respond to this attack. Yet you are.

          2. Tony

            Nigel, this is another example of your approach- You think exactly like us or I will dispel you from the community. Don’t tell me how to feel about something. And this is too big an atrocity for you to use to score personal attacks. Please leave it.

          3. Nigel

            Just like you want to expel the homophobic aspect of this attack from the more generic identification of it as an attack on everyone? Just like you’re telling the LGBT community not to feel that this is a homophobic attack? Just as you’re telling us that this is to big an atrocity to be primarily homophobic?

          4. Nigel

            If you could calmly and clearly explain why the homophobic aspect of this attack needs to be erased or set aside in order for this to be described as an attack on ‘all of us’ you really should. Or else you can’t and you’re retreating into attacks on the people criticising you. Why do you think that identifying the homophobic aspect of his attack is divisive?

          5. Tony

            Are the gay community not part of all of us? Were they not brothers and sisters? Sons and daughters? Neighbours and friends? Or were they just gay people, totally isolated from everyone else? Not part of society? Only defined by their sexual orientation? Not living and breathing the same freedoms we share here in the west? Freedoms that we value and try to extend to all people? Trying to score points off their bodies does them no service. I can only imagine how wide the circle of grief is today, and it is not confined to the LGBT community. Now let them rest in peace.

          6. MoyestWithExcitement

            “Trying to score points off their bodies does them no service.”

            So stop doing it then, Trollny.

          7. Nigel

            Not enough part of us for this to be identified as a ‘homophobic attack on all of us’ without being ‘divisive?’ If your wish is for these people to rest in peace why do you take issue with the identification of the attack as homophobic? For that matter why do any of the commenters taking such a stance? Even people takng the reasonable position ‘it’s both’ do so while ignoring people like you seeking to erase the homophobic aspect – not just in comment sections but on national television. You want them to rest in peace all right. You want that whole aspect of it buried.

          8. MoyestWithExcitement

            Well done for admitting it really was a competiton for you, Trollny. Also, cheers for the ever flowing steam of schadenfreude you provide everyone.

          9. Nigel

            I don’t win because this is horrible, but it seems I am correct, and you cannot justify or explain your statements.

        3. ahjayzis

          Because gentile friends and family suffer when a synagogue is massacred does not make it any less an anti-Semitic massacre.

  8. Anomanomanom

    So he’s like the gay Jessie Jackson “it’s all about what I say”. Bottom line nobody cares 50 Lgbt people got killed, we care that 50 people got killed. Black, white, brown, Gat or straight it was 50 innocent people out enjoying life.

    1. Nigel

      It might be more respectful to the victims to just recognise that they are part of a community that has suffered for a long time under the threat of directed violence, of which this is just the latest manifestation. Disapproving of people pointing this out and talking about it and even prioritising it suggests you are far more interested in your own delicate sensibilities, so you can safely express pieties once their identities have been sanded down. Why do people think it is necessary to criticise people for highlighting the homophobia of the attack? Why is it wrong for them to criticise coverage that downplays the homophobic aspect? Even if they misjudge it, and the radical Islam aspect does need to be explored, why is it so important that they be policed so heavily on the issue? Don’t even mean to single you out, Anom, your sentiment is otherwise a lovely one, ’50 innocent people out enjoying life.’ if it was just you it’d hardly be such a depressing and cruel spectacle.

      1. some old queen

        Why do people think it is necessary to criticise people for highlighting the homophobia of the attack?

        Homophobia is a gradient scale, not Boolean.

        One of the major problems generally is not overt homophobes but those others who prevent them from being called out. Excuses are made or it is brushed over and if a gay person raises an issue they are just being ‘a drama queen’ or a ‘princess’ etc. That is also homophobia as is some of the comments on this thread.

      2. They Tried To Make Me Go To Rehab

        Why do you need to police people who you say are trying to police what others are saying Nigel?

  9. Ciaran

    agreed with his points, but then he carried on like a little child, and the Stonewall comment and waking off was just petulant and embarrassing.

  10. Robert

    This is to my knowledge the worst exclusively homophobic attack ever. At least in modern times – and while there has been lots and lots of homophobic hysteria by various organisations (for example the Westboro baptist church) I think it’s fair to say none have ever murdered 50 people in a nightclub in one go. Yes, it is a homophobic attack, but it is exclusively the product of this particular strain of terrorism. I like Eoin Jones, and I understand his upset but to say that it being a homophobic attack somehow makes it not a terrorist attack is incorrect.

    1. Robert

      It’s also correct to say he’s a loon. Furthermore it is correct to lay the blame at the feet of a society who fights for the rights of loons to have guns.

  11. The Real Jane

    I think there can be no doubt that it was a homophobic attack. The location tells us that – if he wanted to shoot just randoms in a nightclub, he would have gone to a random nightclub.

    Personally, I just genuinely dislike Owen Jones and I think he made a bit of an eejit of himself.

    1. Robert

      He may be a bit of an Eejit, but in the Sky News land of Eejits the bit-of-an-eejit is king!

      1. The Real Jane

        Yes. We were unlucky enough to have the TV on during the queeny rainy picnic handy shaky thing on yesterday, and my god it’s fodder for morons. I could feel my grip on reality loosening all the while before I turned it off.

        There was an old Columbo on instead. Now that’s good viewing.

    2. Don'tBelieveTheHypeOrTheBBC

      “if he wanted to shoot just randoms in a nightclub, he would have gone to a random nightclub”

      +1

  12. Clampers Outside!

    he saw two guys kissing.
    A month later he blows it and makes a call saying he’s with ISIS.
    He kills 50 gay people.

    He’s not religious, he’s an idiot with a beef and access to guns.

    You couldn’t pay me to live in America.

    I like Owen, but that was too close to the bone for him. I don’t blame him for losing his cool with Sky News trying to frame it one way, and he calling for more focus on the ‘hate crime’ element, but it should be remembered that the vast majority of Muslims dislike ‘gay’ persons intensely. Over half of British / moderate Muslims think they should be illiegal – http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/21/channel-4-what-british-muslims-really-think-complaints – It would be safe to say, US/ moderate Muslims would be similarly minded.

    It is a religious based hate crime, as far as I am concerned.

      1. Clampers Outside!

        True, criticism from those on a “Guardian panel of British Muslims ” …not polling or research experts or anything like that. It’d be akin to prolife / antichoicers giving out… they’re not happy with the results, it doesn’t say they have any expertise in methodology – unless that’s been missed in the article.

        The programme drew complaints does not indicate issues with methodology but with content and what ordinary Muslims saw as a bias. People being singled out and having negative suggestions made about them will draw complaints. Again, there is no “expert” attack of the methodology of which it’s said…. “The methodology used by ICM, has been commended by the Head of the UK Polling Council, which oversees all the UK’s pollsters and recognised by one of ICM’s main competitors as one of the best surveys of Muslim opinions for several years.”

        Unless there is another link to criticism of the methodology else where I am not aware of, but there’s none in the link.

  13. Smashmouth

    So we can’t view this as an attack on western values or western society?

    Instead it needs to be pigeon holed into a sub category?

    Isn’t that…….sort of homophobic?

    1. The Real Jane

      No, although it’s a brave attempt to drive focus from how some groups are especially vulnerable due to the prejudice against them to another group who you think deserves it that bit more.

  14. Owen

    Its an attack on the western world, by deliberately targeting LGBT. He is right, but he is wrong to not see the attacks, or the mindset the results in them, being linked.

    LGBT, and their rights are an great example of western freedom specifically in Florida. Ireland recently voted for equality in marriage. If an attack occurs in a gay club in Ireland I would see that as an attack on Irish people, and our combined believes, irrelevant of sexuality (despite what the attacker might want me to believe)..

    So yes, he attacked LGBT, but he attacked what so many more believe in.

      1. Owen

        Oh, sorry. I retract my comment so. I was not aware my sexuality (or specifically not being gay) meant that my condemnation of this gross attack on society should not be valued because I see it as an attack on everything that western society stands for, and not only the sexuality of the victims.

        Idiot.

  15. Catherine McEntee

    The interviewers repeatedly talked over him and were determined not to allow him to vocalise the truth, it was, without doubt, a direct, premeditated homophobic attack.

    IMO they bullied, disregarded and disrespected him completely. Of course Owen was emotional and upset, he’s a young gay man talking about a homophobic massacre.

    1. rotide

      He talked more than anyone else. He made his point, disagreed with the others in the discussion and proceeded to hurl his toys out of his pram in the most childish manner seen this side of pre-school.

        1. rotide

          There were three people discussing a mass shooting and the possible causes and/or motivations. FACT.

          One of them behaved in a manner that was petulant and embarassing. FACT.

          1. ahjayzis

            Possible causes or motivations for going to a gay club and murdering 50 gay people.

            Hmmm.

            White supremacy? Financial desperation? Homophobia? We’ll never fupping know.

          2. rotide

            Ahjayziz, if you would unclutch the pearls and read what I have said, you would see that I wholehearedly agree that it was a homophobic attack.

            I’m trying to explain that the guy in the video above is a tool.

    2. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

      The talked over him because it’s TV, and if you can’t articulate your point without resorting to childish petulance you’re gonna get talked over.
      Yes he was upset, justifiably so. He should not have accepted the invitation, he should not have left the interview like that, he should tear up cheque when it arrives in the post.
      He should not invent a new ‘Anti-LGTB’ terrorist organisation that nobody wants.

      (Sorry Catherine…I still love you. I just don’t agree with you.)

    3. The Real Jane

      There is a strong argument that you shouldn’t go on notorious moronfest sky news if you can’t keep your temper when listening to morons.

      1. MoyestWithExcitement

        Isn’t that what you two are doing? It was an attack on gay people bit you’re arguing they shouldn’t be seen as the only victims because apparently you are as well because you’re a westerner.

        1. Owen

          No. I didn’t say that at all. I said its an attack on everything western society stands for. I didn’t say anything about it not being focused at LGBT, or driven by homophobia, or ISIS or whatever. Truth is, I don’t care. And I certainly didn’t try to justify empathy.

          For them, for their families, for all innocent PEOPLE that were killed in this horrible event.

          1. MoyestWithExcitement

            “I said its an attack on everything western society stands for”

            But it was just an attack on gays. The killer was divorced New Yorker who beat up his ex wife. It wasn’t an attack on western values by an angry ideologue. You are the one arguing over who should get most milage.

          2. Owen

            Be him a home grown homophobe or a flown in terrorist, he still massacred innocent people and imparted his ignorance on our combined western believes. I’m not saying either is worse, I’m saying this is horrible.

            You are trolling your way through comments on a post about a massacre to find tiny contradictions in what you deem to be correctly guided sympathy.

            Give over.

  16. Catherine McEntee

    @ Harry

    That’s my percception. Your’s may be different but that doesn’t make mine wrong.

    1. Harry Molloy

      that wasn’t directed at you at all Catherine, sorry if you thought it was, it was towards the entire argument we’re having here. It’s pointless and unconstructive.

  17. rotide

    The really sad part of this is that yes, of course he’s correct

    This was a hate crime. The perpetrator dressed it up in the trappings of ISIS but at the end of the day it was a hate crime against gay people.

    He made his best point at the start and I agree, the others pretty much ignored it.

  18. The Real Jane

    I think it’s a bit frustrating to read about how it’s an attack on the west and all of us. In a sense, I suppose it is. But really, it was a targeted attack on a very specific group of people who have been historically attacked and discriminated against in all societies, and I don’t think I’m delivering surprising new information when I say that discrimination and prejudice is still a huge part of gay peoples’ lives.

    Now, if anyone wants to take issue with me speaking for gay people in this context, I think they probably are right to do that. I’m not a gay person and I don’t suffer the discrimination they do, nor do I face the discrimination they do. Having never experienced it, I understand that the many ways in which it plays out and affects peoples’ lives is invisible to me. But overall, I just want to say, it’s not about those of us who aren’t gay. We were not attacked. We should really be listening to gay people rather than telling them it’s not about them, that it’s really about us. It really isn’t. I would not have been in that nightclub, ever. And next weekend, I won’t be wondering whether it’s safe to go out.

    1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

      Get real Jane…
      We were not attacked.

      Are you for real? serious?

      I could go on but ownership of an atrocity is not something to argue for.

      1. ahjayzis

        Would you say that to black Americans over the Charleston Church shootings? Would you not feel like a patronising fool for saying it? It could as easily have been you? The Sikh’s when their temple was shot up? Would you advice Sikh’s to quit making it all about them? And not feel like an arrogant tosser?

    2. Tony

      We were not attacked? Of course we were. Or are you saying that there is complete and utter separation between the gay community and the heterosexual one. What about all the rainbow stuff? Surely that means all? Not just some.

    3. Tony

      It is about gay people Jane, but they are part of society like the rest of us. An attack on them is an attack on all of us. Its called solidarity.

  19. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

    @ rodetoad;
    at the end of the day it was a hate crime against gay people.

    But what about the beginning of the day?
    -Where did that hatred come from?

    Start from the beginning if you want to move forwards.

      1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

        I have very little to do Rawhide.
        I ride ’em up, roll ’em in, RAWHIDE.

        *You spelt ‘coherent‘ incorrectly
        yOUr comment is uncoherant, which is a sarcastic, ironic, clever, sensitive joke and an appropiate response.
        I don’t use a spunk-chucker myself. I find that it Americanizes stuff and that’s a pIN IN my enormous FANNY and you should feel my pain.

        What’s this thread about?

      2. They Tried To Make Me Go To Rehab

        It’s almost surprising when he attempts to actually communicate coherently

  20. The Real Jane

    It’s clear that it’s very important to a lot of people to blame THE SCARY MUSLIMS but I’m struggling to think of a religion or society that hasn’t discriminated against gay people. If someone told you that this guy was from one of those mad christian sects who run those gay conversion workshops, for example, would you be terribly surprised? I know I wouldn’t

    1. Stephen

      “it’s not about those of us who aren’t gay”

      A guy walked into a nightclub and shot 50 people dead. The fact that it is a gay nightclub is about as relevant as the fact that the music playing in the Bataclan was rock music

      1. ahjayzis

        *deep breath*

        When a synagogue is shot up by an anti-Semite, it’s an anti-Semitic attack on a place where Jews congregate. Open and shut.

        But when a gay space is attacked by a known homophobe – not really relevant, could’ve been anywhere, sure he might’ve thought it was the local Tesco.

        You’re either an imbecile or a fellow traveller mate.

        1. Dόn 'The Unstoppable Force' Pídgéόní

          I wish you all the luck with this today ahjayzis, you are going to need it and then buckets more.

          1. They Tried To Make Me Go To Rehab

            That’s right – you need to get back into the gay space there.

          2. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

            No way…they have a ‘Gay Space’ nowadays?
            -Are you serious?

            I always wanted to have ‘flightless sex…I’l go ‘gay if I have to.
            It’s still sex?
            -Is my mate Dave right?

            I mean you would be embarassed about including it on your CV.
            Ammirite? -Is my mate Dave right?

    2. Harry Molloy

      True, but it should also be recognised that as well as being a homophobic attack this is the latest Islamic extremist attack. We shouldn’t avoid correctly identifying an issue for fear of political correctness.

      1. The Real Jane

        It’s not fear of political correctness, it’s fear of ignoring homophobia and pretending that really, it’s just a fringe of cray-cray loons who exclusively belong to one particular religion and the rest of us are all grand so really, it must be an attack on us because we don’t mind the gays overall, so long as they’re not shoving it down our throats and we don’t have to think about what they’re doing and also, why do they have to be so *obvious*? I don’t flaunt my sexuality around the place…

      2. ahjayzis

        It’s almost a completely separate issue. Islamic extremism, or Christian extremism, or far-right extremism, these are rationalisations people make for hating gays, women, blacks, jews. Religion is always a way to justify ones prejudices, a glass to see them through, a holy book (pick one) that tells them to put gay people to death.

          1. MoyestWithExcitement

            Of course it was. Another guy was arrested on the way to a gay pride parade with a car full of guns. He wasn’t Muslim.

          2. ahjayzis

            1. This was a homophobic attack, one of the worst in history.

            2. The perpetrator was an Islamic extremist with a history of homophobic prejudice.

            They’re separate in that if I shoot up a synagogue it’s an anti-Semitic attack. You know that already, before you know what political or religious affiliations I have. What the crime is and who the perpetrators are = distinct things.

      3. MoyestWithExcitement

        Why? How is anyone’s liget different by calling this an Islamic attack? Who benefits from that?

        1. Harry Molloy

          Because it was one. I really don’t like arguing about a sensitive subject so this will be my last but I’m completely confused.

          I completely and totally agree that this was a most heinous homophobic attack, as all my comments have said.
          But this fella also said that he was doing this for ISIS, attack was in a similar vein to previous ISIS attacks so why oh why can we not recognise that it is part of the same trend also? In fact to not do so would be to ignore some pertinent information for some misguided pc reasons.
          News should report facts, facts are it was a homophobic massacre by an Islamic extremist.

          1. MoyestWithExcitement

            “Because it was one.”

            You don’t know that.

            “But this fella also said that he was doing this for ISIS”

            Yet his ex wife said he beat her, was emotionally umstable and wasn’t religious. Is there any evidence he was in ISIS? How do you know it wasn’t just a crazy person who just decided to tell people he was in ISIS. Was the attack on that black church a right wing white American attack?

            “attack was in a similar vein to previous ISIS attacks”

            What?!? What other ISIS attacks involved a lone gunman specifically targeting gay people?

            “facts are it was a homophobic massacre by an Islamic extremist.”

            Except there’s no evidence he was an Islamic extremist.

  21. ahjayzis

    I really can’t think of another kind of prejudice where so many people who probably don’t even share that prejudice, and definitely haven’t experienced , go out of their way to tell me it doesn’t really exist or I’m exaggerating.

    Arguing the likes of Iona aren’t homophobic is one end of the spectrum, I get that they’re probably nice people in real life and people object to me calling it homophobia that they spend so much time and money on limiting my rights. Fine, agree to differ.

    But this guy is known to hate LGBT people, went to an LGBT venue and murdered 50 LGBT people.
    But let’s not call it what it is, it could be a totally random attack, right?

    1. Harry Molloy

      I don’t know that there’s anyone claiming it wasn’t homophobic? It clearly was, but it was other things too.
      It’s another man who donned the black flack, strapped explosives and ammo to himself and went on a killing spree . It seems necessary to link it to similar attacks.
      But to say it wasn’t homophobic is idiotic, I would hope we all agree on that.

      1. MoyestWithExcitement

        You don’t know it was other things. The only thing we do know was that it was homophobic.

  22. Cabbage Bazooka Firing Squad

    The real issue is not Islamic violence. Ultimately we all knew that this shooting was carried out by a man. This is just the latest in the never-ending series of mass shootings perpetrated by males. Male violence is the problem. Narrowing it down to Islam – even though it seems clear ISIS was donned as a convenient bogeyman cloak – is trying to give it specificity it doesn’t warrant. Islamic, white fundamentalist, Christian nutjob: end of the day, it’s a disturbed man doing the bloodletting. Why single out a religion or skin colour. It’s another attack by one of them – men – on the long list of people that upset them.

  23. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

    Ah, I get it now…
    ….someone has upset the BLTG crew…

    Kinda like ‘These are my dead people and you cannot have them for your anti-terrorist campaign. You don’t know what it’s like, you handsome brute…

    Ammirite?

    1. They Tried To Make Me Go To Rehab

      More or less

      Also – you don’t know what it’s like to be gay so how you feel is irrelevant.

    2. ahjayzis

      No.

      I’ll try explain it for you (you total minger).

      More like, this is a homophobic attack, to make it all about general Islamic extremism divorced from context, target, or general culture, allows people like Donald Trump / the entire Republican party, who’ve spent decades fomenting hatred against LGBT people – who we marry, where we piss, are we a danger to kids, to bandwagon on this in their crusade to damage another oppressed minority – Muslims.

      Whereas were this a murderer from another Abrahamic religion close to home, such as the bloke who was foiled attempting to massacre the LA Pride parade, he would have been a fellow traveller of the anti-gay filth using this atrocity to further their anti-muslim crusade.

      Ya geddit or d’ya want pictures, pet?

      As Owen Jones said – “Proud to live in a beautiful city with a Muslim mayor who fought and voted for LGBT people to have the same rights as everybody else.” I won’t let Trump et al sully the dead who in life they harmed, by using them to further their hate.

      Now have a wash, dear, you look a fright.

      1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

        I think you tend to lend yourself a motive you want to hear, just like that whingey effer in the video.
        A desire to be the focus of attention, because today is YOUR day, and you WILL NOT let it pass
        Grow up, shut up and be a bigger girl.*

        -What is it?
        Are you never gonna speak to terrorists again for as long as you live?

        *Take it whatever way you like it, baby.

        1. ahjayzis

          Oooh, someone’s touched the little saddo’s nerve. Of course, fragile little man, you poor cratur, a mass murder of gay people has nothing to do with gay people. Aren’t you the brave boy for clearing that up?

          1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

            Sorry.
            I’m Soooo-oooo insensitive….

            HOW could I comprehend an atrocity like this if I wasn’t Gay?
            -I just don’t get it, do I?
            -You don’t get it, do you?

            Ownership of an atrocity is NOT something to aspire to.
            A ‘persecution complex’ is NOT something to promote.

            I’m not finished yet…I have more stuff to say…I’m just testing your mettle. I know how easily you get upset, you little batch.

          2. Nigel

            Still, though, it’s great that you’ve identified the real villains here and launched your retaliatory attacks on them: the gays.

          3. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

            Congratulations on finding the REAL culprit Nogirl and Ahfurfuxache.
            Straight people…people like me…the REAL enemy.
            You wouldn’t believe how BAD we are, or how identical we are to each other, just like you lot.

            We meet in pubs all over the country every day of the week, plotting against you, but you knew that.
            You go on the Internet and try to make out that you’re somehow ‘different’ to the rest of us, but I never knew that until you told me.

            I would NEVER call you ‘Queer’, but you have to admit…you ARE strange.

          4. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

            Okay AFFS & friends, I’ll make a concession…

            YES, it was an attack on the LGBT community, but ONLY as an aspect of Anti-Western ideals.
            -Trying to conflate that within the community you’ve already won the hearts of, to hi-jack it to YOUR ends, disregarding the wider meaning of it…that’s not right.

            We’re all equal…until you want to be ‘special’? -Then we should shut up and let you rent your rag?

            Grow up.
            LGBTMFA.
            It doesn’t work like that.

          5. neil

            The person who can’t understand why a community targeted in the worst massacre of its kind in decades would consider themselves to not be fully accepted in society, is telling others to grow up?

            You’re an insufferable thundering *rseh*le bad. Signed with my own name.

          6. Nigel

            You’re making a concession that it was an attack on the LGBT community. Well isn’t that special. Thank you for conceding that, because if you hadn’t. there might still be some question about it.

  24. TheBeef

    Owen Jones completely let himself down, there’s no denying that. His attitude and retorts were completely childish. But then, there was almost palpable desperation on the part of the other presenters to make an attack on a gay club really be about an attack on the west. It seems almost baffling…until you remember that this is Sky News. This has to be an attack on the west as a whole, not just on LGBT people, because that fits better into the catastrophising philosophy of news reporting on Sky. That’s not to say that anyone outside the LGBT community cannot be just as incensed about this attack. Any time innocent people are killed we all have a right to sympathise, we just need to call a spade a spade while we’re doing it.

    1. MoyestWithExcitement

      Just like Fox news said the charleston massacre was an attack on Christians. Fox and Sky, and tabloids in general, tend to appeal to social conservatives who tend to be self centred. Everything has to be about them, even when it isn’t. I honestly think a lot of racism and homophobia is just emotional toddlers having a tantrum that someone else is getting attention.

      1. some old queen

        No it goes deeper than that. When a homophobic hate crime like this is committed, it leaves some straight people uneasy for two reasons. The first is just the plain horror of it but the second is that it pricks their conscience because they may be part of the problem rather than the solution.

        So they run around looking for other reasons. Religious fanatic? Nope, no indication of that. Gun control? Nope, he would have used something else. So up pops the deflection. It’s not an attack on LGBT; it is an attack on all of us etc. White noise bullsh|t which says nothing apart from preventing the use of the ‘H’ word.

        They really don’t like the ‘H’ word. I wonder why?

        1. ahjayzis

          I can never understand it. Several times I’ve been in A&E with a mate who’s had their head kicked in for having the temerity to hold someone’s hand or be found guilty of being gay while in a public place. I talk to people about it afterwards and they’re all “well that’s very late to be out walking around” – “probably a mugging”, any kind of deflection, despite nothing being taken and the attackers flat out calling him a ‘fupping faggot’.

          I’ll never understand why people with no experience of homophobia and who are outwardly not homophobic are so intent on convincing me it doesn’t exist contrary to all evidence.

          1. some old queen

            A certain amount of it is emotional fence sitting. If they really think about the wrongness of it then they will be forced to examine their own attitudes and let’s face it, none of us like doing that. So instead, the blame is deflected back onto the victim. The gay person is told what is and is not homophobia.

            Crazy stuff.

          2. MoyestWithExcitement

            “If they really think about the wrongness of it then they will be forced to examine their own attitudes”

            Good call.

          3. MoyestWithExcitement

            “You argument seems to be, ‘Look at me, LOOK AT ME…GODAMMIT, WHY ARE YOU NOT LOOKING AT ME?@”

            That’s every one of your posts, in fairness.

        2. MoyestWithExcitement

          “The first is just the plain horror of it but the second is that it pricks their conscience because they may be part of the problem rather than the solution.”

          For your average wannabe pundit, that is the case alright. I just think there’s quite a few people who don’t think that deeply. I would count amongst friends and close family a few people who don’t really have any opinions on gay people. They treat any gay person they meet like any other and they’ll support equality. But then when anything political happens, they’re not so nice. Pride parades are about sticking the middle finger to straights, is one opinion I got from a close family member.

          You will often see people denying even the existence of the patriarchy. You’ll get people claiming racist attacks aren’t really racist or that victims should deal with it because everyone gets picked on for something. It is often the same people denying sexism, racism and homophobia. Do these people really have developed opinions on gay people, women and non whites? I doubt it. I think self centred egotism is at play there. It’s not so much about gays or women as it is about ‘some attention seeker whining’ which means of course that people aren’t paying attention to *them*. They are self centred and can’t comprehend through idea that they simply don’t matter in other people’s worlds.

          This obviously isn’t to say that’s why *all* bigotry happens, just some.

  25. Clampers Outside!

    Homphobic or Islamic it is an attack on western society as whole, in which we ALL want to live. Homophobes and non-moderate Muslims definitely do NOT want to live in a society that gives the same freedoms to hetero people as gay people, so it is an attack on the west, the target being the gay community the west.

  26. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

    This is the best post EVER on Broasheet.
    -I used to think that EVERYBODY who posted stuff here was Gay, except for me and Catherine McEntee.

    Apparently we are not alone.
    -Imagine if we were…the future of Broadsheet would eventually end up in the hands of our children, and they would most-likely ban the moaning aspect of it because ain’t nobody got ti…

  27. Cynic3000

    The right wing press want this to be about ISIS. They NEED it to be. How else will the hatred of Islam be ingrained in the current generations in order to overwhelm the Middle East with western ideology and power.

    1. Yep

      “How else will the hatred of Islam be ingrained”

      Probably, like, I don’t know….all the other stuff IS are claiming to do in the name of Islam?

  28. Kieran NYC

    Well this was just a JOY to read…

    I particularly like being straightsplained about what homophobia is or isn’t. Because I might not be able to recognize it on my own.

    People who are minimizing the homophobic aspect of this have never been afraid of being jumped for holding someone’s hand. We know it when we see it. And I can see some of it in here.

    Anyway. This evening I’ll be mourning with friends who have lost friends in the last couple of days, at a gay bar that will have armed police officers outside.

    Just in case of another ‘totally random attack against the West’, ya know?

    Toodles.

    1. some old queen

      Where is that gay bar in NYC with armed police officers outside? I am asking for a friend obviously.

  29. Painkiller

    Reading comments above (especially the question of whether this was an attack on western culture or gay culture), I get a sense that some people are questioning whether LGBTQ is a legitimate community and that maybe there is a nagging question of whether that’s constructive. But given it’s considered to be a community by many, a little sensitivity should be shown in light of a terrible atrocity.

    The western value system allows people the freedom to embrace biker culture, goth culture, gay culture etc but at the end of the day, you would hope that we all feel part of a bigger community. Subcultures seem more like safe-zones where people find belonging, and go on to live and die by the value systems found there, so I guess they become communities of sorts. It’s just sad that these subcultures are often caught up in rejection, insecurity, fear, lack of belonging in wider society. This will be a stumbling block for gay people…and the reference to the historical persecution of Jewish people in the interview says an awful lot about how some feel about the experience they’ve had.

  30. Rob_G

    I, like Owen Jones and all right-thinking people, was horrified at the indiscriminate slaughter in Orlando.

    I hope that, in light these latest attacks, Owen Jones will reconsider his decision to share a platform with Sinn Fein, whose military wing carried out almost exactly the same type of atrocities 30 or 40 years’ ago.

    1. some old queen

      Cheap shot sweetheart

      Gerry Adams stood on the stage of Dublin Castle when the result of the Irish marriage referendum was announced because his party earned it.

      1. Rob_G

        I was actually more talking about ‘murdering indiscriminately in places where people socialise’, rather than the homophobia angle; I am aware that SF is progressive on gay rights, but fail to see what that has to do with the point I was making.

Comments are closed.