Post: #1

Gabbana responds to Sir Elton's boycott calls

Quote:Business partners Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, who are both gay and were a couple for 23 years until breaking up in 2005, have rejected same-sex marriage in the past.

But in an interview with Italian magazine Panorama this weekend they went further saying they also didn't agree with the idea of gay families.

"We oppose gay adoptions," they say, "The only family is the traditional one.

"No chemical offsprings and rented uterus: life has a natural flow, there are things that should not be changed."

Domenico Dolce went on to say that having children should be an "act of love".

He said: "You are born to a mother and a father - or at least that's how it should be.

"I call children of chemistry, synthetic children. Rented uterus, semen chosen from a catalogue."

Stefano Gabbana added: "The family is not a fad. In it there is a supernatural sense of belonging."

In an interview in 2006, Gabbana revealed in another Italian magazine that he had approached a woman to be the mother of his baby but said he struggled with the idea.

"I am opposed to the idea of a child growing up with two gay parents," he said.

"A child needs a mother and a father. I could not imagine my childhood without my mother. I also believe that it is cruel to take a baby away from its mother."

There has been a backlash:

Quote:Victoria Beckham has joined the celebrity backlash against Dolce and Gabbana after the fashion designers said gay adoption was unnatural and called those born via IVF “synthetic children”.

Beckham spoke out on Twitter in support of Elton John, who was called a “fascist” by the designers, after he called for a boycott of their brand in the immediate aftermath of their comments.

“How dare you refer to my beautiful children as ‘synthetic’?” John – whose two sons, Zachary and Elijah, with husband David Furnish were conceived through IVF treatment – wrote on Instagram. “And shame on you for wagging your judgmental little fingers at IVF – a miracle that has allowed legions of loving people, both straight and gay, to fulfill their dream of having children.

“Your archaic thinking is out of step with the times, just like your fashions. I shall never wear Dolce and Gabbana ever again. #BoycottDolceGabbana.”

In a comment on the post, Stefano Gabbana responded to John’s remarks, calling the singer a “fascist” and using the hashtag #boycotteltonjohn”.

Quote:Singer Courtney Love said she had gathered up all her Dolce and Gabbana items and wanted to burn them. “I’m just beyond words and emotions,” she said, before asking her followers to “boycott senseless bigotry”.

Screenwriter Ryan Murphy, of Nip/Tuck, Glee and American Horror Story fame, said: “These designers’ horrifying views are never in fashion. Their clothes are as ugly as their hate.”

I disagree with their stance on IVF, but I do think that an ideal world, a kid needs a mum and a dad.

So it’s come to this...in modern western culture you can’t even say that you believe a kid should have a mother and father! Is this how bad things have got?!

Post: #2

Oh, it's a fight in fairyland!

Post: #3

There's probably a small minority of LGBT who will agree with them, even in the Anglosphere.

SJW's are extra upset because their stance is that basically anything gays say must be pandered to. Now, they have one of the world's most famous gay couples not agreeing with their platform, and they hate that.

Post: #4

Our society's gotten so bad even gay couples are supporting the traditional family roles. Who would've thunk it?

Post: #5

I find it humorous, yet sad, that all minorities, LGBT and any other victim class basically have a script they must follow to continue being a victim. However, when they go off-script they are beat down like in this instance, with hopes of forcing them back in line. For example, if a black man is a Republican, he's automatically an Uncle Tom and shunned from the black community and liberal gatherings.

If these guys stand their ground then I will give them major props. I would support them by buying D&G but I'm not (and that shit's expensive).

Post: #6

I guess common sense isnt so common after all.

Post: #7

Some of these people are so old, it's hard to give a fuck.

Most people are putting people who look like Elton John in homes, so it's hard to care about whatever boycott he's going to lead.

I actually have on a pair of D&G boxer briefs right now, think their style is dope.

Regadless, they're billionaires, they'll be aight.

Post: #8

Quote:Singer Courtney Love said she had gathered up all her Dolce and Gabbana items and wanted to burn them. “I’m just beyond words and emotions,” she said, before asking her followers to “boycott senseless bigotry”.

But she didn't actually burn them I'm guessing. She'll just wait a few months to wear them after this all blows over. Same with all these other celebrities. A few might donate them to charity for some more faux outrage and attention whoring though.

Post: #9

This is where things get interesting.

Political correctness has its set of rules, and those who adhere to it are generally well informed as to who said regulations are to benefit. There are classes that are designated beneficiaries, and those who are in the opposition. The expectation among those within the ideology is that those beneficiaries will all unite as a single front against the opposition in order to "improve" things. Everything goes smoothly when "opposition views" that aren't politically correct or progressive receive unyielding criticism from all beneficiaries.

The problem, of course, is that the beneficiaries are diverse in their interests and their thought, and not all of them truly oppose those opposing views. Some of them, being true believers in the concept of "liberty" and "free speech" ostensibly promoted by the progressive camp, see no problem expressing these diverse views and being politically incorrect.

My readings online indicate that a not entirely trivial number of gay men hold somewhat politically incorrect, red pill views that they occasionally express without shame even outside of their inner circles.
Muslims represent another large protected group with the potential to house many views that are far from politically correct.
The same goes for other non-white immigrants (ex: Africans, Caribbeans, Latinos), who are far more religious and socially conservative than the domestic leaders of the SJW crusade and tend to remain so on average even after a couple of generations spent here.

African Americans are in line with this as well - remember that 70% of black voters in California voted to ban gay marriage.

And therein lies the problem: what does the left do about this? Do they attack these sub-groups and risk splintering the coalition that has essentially allowed them to dominated mainstream discourse in recent decades? And, if they do attack them, what do they say? Are they going to label the black voters mentioned above "privileged"? How does that work? The standard attacks they use on the (largely white) opposition lose their lustre when focused on historically oppressed minorities.

So what else can be done? Do the leaders of the left allow said politically incorrect views to be expressed legitimately by these sub-groups without attacking them? This would also risk undermining the unity of their coalition (which will no longer be presenting the same views as a united front but will now, in part, support some of what the "opposition" says)?

I expect this problem to become increasingly acute in the coming decades, and I'm going to enjoy watching its resolution.

Post: #10

Italians are generally far more socially conservative than the pussy-ass Northern Europeans. This is one of the things I like about Italy. Didn't the Barilla CEO say something similar as well?

Post: #11

It's happening, the SJW activist world is imploding on itself.

It's going to be civil war between, gays, lgbt, transgenderes, sjws, etc.

All the infighting is going to be hilarious. Seeing who becomes the biggest victim.

Post: #12

I bet, on average, western gay men are substantially more "red pill" than western heterosexual men or women.

They tend to know:
1) Men and women are different
2) Women are not to be taken seriously
3) Men are stimulated by looks above all else
4) Men have much higher sex drives than women

Just internalizing those four precepts puts one on the far right tail of "red pill"-ness in the PC west.

Post: #13

(03-16-2015 02:49 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  Italians are generally far more socially conservative than the pussy-ass Northern Europeans. This is one of the things I like about Italy. Didn't the Barilla CEO say something similar as well?

The way that political labels have been deliberately muddled in Anglo countries makes the following statement more difficult to understand:

Continental Europeans are generally socially conservative and fiscally conservative.

In the Anglosphere conservative parties are fiscally liberal while pretending to be socially conservative while socially liberal parties pretend to be (relatively) economically conservative.

Post: #14

(03-16-2015 03:04 PM)Kabal Wrote:  I bet, on average, western gay men are substantially more "red pill" than western heterosexual men or women.

They tend to know:
1) Men and women are different
2) Women are not to be taken seriously
3) Men are stimulated by looks above all else
4) Men have much higher sex drives than women

Just internalizing those four precepts puts one on the far right tail of "red pill"-ness in the PC west.

Oscar Wilde's quips would lend credence to your post. For example, "If a woman wants to hold a man, she has merely to appeal to the worst in him."

I do disagree with points 4 and 5. Men are stimulated by Juliet, a woman who actually loves a man to the death. Men would do anything for this type of woman. It is no coincidence that the Anglosphere's most romantic story is in stark contrast to the majority of Anglo women. It is a male fantasy that will outlive the latest deluge of porn fantasy.

When I took the Red Pill, I saw that point 4 was a socially conventional mirage.

Post: #15

(03-16-2015 02:40 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  This is where things get interesting.

Political correctness has its set of rules, and those who adhere to it are generally well informed as to who said regulations are to benefit. There are classes that are designated beneficiaries, and those who are in the opposition. The expectation among those within the ideology is that those beneficiaries will all unite as a single front against the opposition in order to "improve" things. Everything goes smoothly when "opposition views" that aren't politically correct or progressive receive unyielding criticism from all beneficiaries.

The problem, of course, is that the beneficiaries are diverse in their interests and their thought, and not all of them truly oppose those opposing views. Some of them, being true believers in the concept of "liberty" and "free speech" ostensibly promoted by the progressive camp, see no problem expressing these diverse views and being politically incorrect.

My readings online indicate that a not entirely trivial number of gay men hold somewhat politically incorrect, red pill views that they occasionally express without shame even outside of their inner circles.
Muslims represent another large protected group with the potential to house many views that are far from politically correct.
The same goes for other non-white immigrants (ex: Africans, Caribbeans, Latinos), who are far more religious and socially conservative than the domestic leaders of the SJW crusade and tend to remain so on average even after a couple of generations spent here.

African Americans are in line with this as well - remember that 70% of black voters in California voted to ban gay marriage.

And therein lies the problem: what does the left do about this? Do they attack these sub-groups and risk splintering the coalition that has essentially allowed them to dominated mainstream discourse in recent decades? And, if they do attack them, what do they say? Are they going to label the black voters mentioned above "privileged"? How does that work? The standard attacks they use on the (largely white) opposition lose their lustre when focused on historically oppressed minorities.

So what else can be done? Do the leaders of the left allow said politically incorrect views to be expressed legitimately by these sub-groups without attacking them? This would also risk undermining the unity of their coalition (which will no longer be presenting the same views as a united front but will now, in part, support some of what the "opposition" says)?

I expect this problem to become increasingly acute in the coming decades, and I'm going to enjoy watching its resolution.

The problem with SJWs is that they think that just because somebody is a member of an “oppressed” class, that they’re all in with their social justice agenda. I’ve created a short list of some social just issues ranging from the most acceptable to the most extreme:

1. Racism
2. Religious discrimination
3. Gender equality – give women equal rights – e.g. Voting
4. Stronger anti-rape legislation
5. Homophobia
6. Teach kids gay stuff in schools
7. Gay marriage
8. Gay adoption
9. Trans rights
10. Ban gender specific terminology
    

Just about everybody is OK with points 1, 2 and maybe 3, 4, 5 but many people are not OK with going further down the list. SJWs need to realise this. One deluded person told me with a straight face that gay rights are the same as the civil rights movement in the 1960s. I’d like to see her say that a black person who’s against gay marriage.

Also what does diversity means to an SJW? If they’re pushing for diversity in games, TV shows or movies, one list is:

1. Race
2. Religion
3. Disabled characters
4. Sexuality – more gay/bi characters
5. Trans people
   
   

Again, 1, 2 are acceptable to most people, maybe 3 but who gives a fuck about 4 or 5?

Post: #16

The one thing I always find so funny about these attempts at engineering is that they're so out of touch with reality.

Men don't want gay, midget transgender protagonists boinking on screen in a movie. We want bloodshed and tits. I'm fine with IVF, but I think we haven't studied exactly how fair-reaching the effects of gay parentage are. I used to be super pro-gay parentage, and I still am for the most part, but I have to concede that we have no clue if that can really fuck a kid up or not. I'm more inclined to think it does, just because it suggests homosexuality as a normal thing to a developing mind. All that said, I still wouldn't be against kids being adopted by homosexuals who are responsible and able to support the kid. I imagine growing up in a tough fostercare program is way worse than having two gay parents with an abundance of extra-income.

Post: #17

(03-16-2015 03:19 PM)N°6 Wrote:  Men are stimulated by Juliet, a woman who actually loves a man to the death.

I always thought Juliet killed herself not for love, but because she's a typical teenage girl. It's all about the drama, and making all her friends jealous their love was so much more 'intense' and 'real' than normal love, that they had to both die for it. She'd be thinking how beautiful she'll look in her coffin, how sad everyone will be, and the oceans of tears they'll have to cry on her.

Sure, it's obscured by exquisite flowery language and iambic pentameter, but back before social media, killing yourself was an entirely-viable option for attention whoring. Stabbing herself is just the Italian version of 'Down the road, not across the street'.

I'm surprised most girls live through puberty.

Red Pilling Shakespeare...

Post: #18

I saw on the news last night they'd capitulated, and 'clarified what they meant'. Usual arse licking of Elton John and David furnish by the BBC.

Disappointed at D&G's latest stance to be frank. Looked for a moment like they might have a backbone, turns out it was just pink on pink attention whoring.

Post: #19

I never really believe things like this are real. Its already incomprehensible to me that children can be legally artificially created and raised in poof families. The idea that some otherwise normal people get outraged at suggestions that there is something wrong with this, well I'm just going to assume its all fake.

Post: #20

(03-16-2015 02:40 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  So what else can be done? Do the leaders of the left allow said politically incorrect views to be expressed legitimately by these sub-groups without attacking them? This would also risk undermining the unity of their coalition (which will no longer be presenting the same views as a united front but will now, in part, support some of what the "opposition" says)?

I've said this before and I'll say it again. "Diversity" is coalition warfare. Coalition warfare happens when different groups ally to attack a hegemonic entity that they think is a threat to them. In this case, it's the PC coalition attacking what they perceive as the hegmonic white cis hetero male patriarchy. The more you align with the hegemon, the more hostile the SJW's will be to you, while the less you align with it, the more they want you because you're more of a victim.

But coalitions are always unstable, and coalition warfare has historically been very unpredictable. This is because the different coalition partners often have different interests among themselves. Yes, they all want to curtail the power of the hegmonic entity, but that's about the only thing they have in common.

I like to use the War of the Spanish Succession (1701 - 1714) as an example. The interests of all the allied partners going into it was to curtail the power of Louis XIV and prevent the possibility of a Franco-Spanish union. Beyond that however, their interests were pretty different.

The Dutch and the British wanted to maintain a balance of power in Europe, which a Franco-Spanish union would greatly upset. Then there were more selfish interests, such as the Holy Roman Emperor's in Austria, who wanted to claim the Spanish crown for his dynasty at the expense of the French Bourbons. Then you just had your smaller states in the Holy Roman Empire like Prussia who wanted more power for themselves so they allied against Louis XIV.

Because of these competing interests, the latter stages of the war were quite unstable. When it became clear that the British and Dutch achieved their principal war aims around 1710, they quickly began to gear up for peace talks because they did not want their own ally in Austria to gain the Spanish crown for himself because that would be just as unwelcome as a Franco-Spanish union. Ultimately they withdrew and left the Austrians to themselves for another year.

Same goes here. Beyond their interest to curtail what they perceive as the hegemonic straight cis white man, they actually have little in common. As you said (and I said before), minorities are typically more "homophobic" than whites are.

Then you have the inherently antithetical interests of feminists and trannies, particularly male to female transgenders, as we saw recently with Planet Fitness. I have seen feminists very upset about male to female trannies in the past and I only expect this to continue to grow. Aside from the fact that they rightly will make some women uncomfortable at times, the existence of transgender people tells us that gender, contrary to what feminists say, cannot be solely a social construct. If it was, transgender people should not exist.

Some have tried to explain this away before, but this is an internal inconsistency that cannot go away and ultimately stabs a dagger into the very heart of feminism.

There will be a civil war amongst the far left in the future. It will be our job to exploit this and hopefully tear these lunatics away from left wing politics, hopefully bringing back a sort of New Deal Coalition as in the past to act as a sensible counterweight to some right wing politics.

Post: #21

The thing that spins me out the most about that article is that Courtney Love has fans.

Post: #22

Quote: “And shame on you for wagging your judgmental little fingers at IVF – a miracle that has allowed legions of loving people, both straight and gay, to fulfill their dream of having children.

"Their" dream. It's entirely selfish. They don't think about the kid that's being brought into the world under questionable and unnatural circumstances. It's about THEM wanting it, like a kid that wants a pet. Maybe not a perfect analogy but you get what I'm saying. They care more about making these parents feel good than any social implications for the children. That's what irks me. Everything is about making everyone "feel good" to the SJWs. The hell with what actually is good for children and society.

I don't even believe it's wrong for gays to adopt. It's better than they be adopted than sitting in foster care. But I also think a mother and father couple should have explicitly stated preference in adoption. I could even make peace with gay marriage if as a society we would collectively declare that male/female pairing is the social ideal and that the main purpose of marriage is to formalize the creation of family and that this mainly serves the interest of children. Not the capricious feelings of romance between two men.

I would ban IVF for gays/lesbians and single mothers. If they want to take care of a kid, let them adopt one of the many kids around the world in a foster home. If they want a natural born kid, then let them do it through natural processes. IVF should only be considered for male-female couples suffering from fertility issues.

Quote:Singer Courtney Love said she had gathered up all her Dolce and Gabbana items and wanted to burn them. “I’m just beyond words and emotions,” she said, before asking her followers to “boycott senseless bigotry”.

Phoney SJW outrage. It sounds so forced. It's also hilarious that she'd refer to them as bigots when they are gay themselves.

Quote:Screenwriter Ryan Murphy, of Nip/Tuck, Glee and American Horror Story fame, said: “These designers’ horrifying views are never in fashion. Their clothes are as ugly as their hate.”

"Horrifying." "Hate."

SMH...

Maybe Muslims taking over the West isn't such a bad thing after all.

Post: #23

Dolce and Gabana are gay fashion designers and are infinitely more conservative than any of the Republicans running for president in 2016.

Post: #24

You know the rules:

Children are better off with their mothers than heterosexual fathers.

Post: #25

(03-16-2015 03:04 PM)Kabal Wrote:  I bet, on average, western gay men are substantially more "red pill" than western heterosexual men or women.

They tend to know:
1) Men and women are different

Of course they do, because unlike straight men, they haven't been brainwashed to believe that happiness will be found in finding a woman with "common interests." They don't have to lie to themselves about women's nature because it doesn't figure into their (perceived) future happiness.

Quote:2) Women are not to be taken seriously

Gay men often know how to have fun with women. But they never have to risk missing out on pussy by accepting that women are not to be taken serious. If a man starts to think this way, he has to also accept that any chance of having a family in future means being partnered (and legally bonded with) a woman who can't be taken serious, but expects to be.

Straight men hang in their with "NAWALT."

Quote:3) Men are stimulated by looks above all else

Not only are they attracted by men, but they are ATTRACTING men, so it pays to know.

They don't have to lie to themselves about what they really want.

Quote:4) Men have much higher sex drives than women

Don't they know it!

Gay men are the key witnesses to how much ass-pounding men will take when all "restrains" (hypergamy) are removed.