To think Owen Jones is childish

[sandrabedminster]

Owen Jones storms off sky news

I don't even get what his issue is, he's invited on to discuss the headlines and then runs off as he doesn't like how much attention the biggest story is getting.

Agreed, but if you are having a chat with friends and neither of them acknowledge your point, would you carry on sitting there? I wouldn't! Not when it's something that so deeply affects you.
Don't forget LGBT community have had years of been shunned/ignored/sneered at, so for someone to not acknowledge that this crime was motivated by homophobia is very insulting.

I have asked for my comment to be removed, I didn't intend it to be offensive.

I would be interested to know why the other two would not just say "Yes, we agree. It was a homophobic attact. Just as an attack on a synagogue is an anti Semitic attack"

You wouldn' call an attack on a synagogue an "an attack on people who like praying" would you?

You feel insulted and you can feel that. You can't expect everyone to shut the fuck up as you felt was done to you, that would make your behaviour the same as your tormentors and this all about you not fifty innocents.

Peachpudding- what did you intend it to be?

You can't eliminate the words Mad, Lunatic, Crazy etc etc from the English language because they might offend someone with a MH issue. Ridiculous. Are you seriously saying someone can't say, "He was driving like a lunatic," or "Mrs Brown went mad when I hadn't done my maths homework," etc etc.

Someone who commits an act like this is mad as far as I'm concerned. No one with an ounce of sanity would murder a particular group of people because some online hate preacher had told them to do it.

I would be interested to know why the other two would not just say "Yes, we agree. It was a homophobic attact. Just as an attack on a synagogue is an anti Semitic attack"

You wouldn' call an attack on a synagogue an "an attack on people who like praying" would you

Yes, I thought that Bertrand, it seemed an odd point to get stuck on. And there would be no debate if the commentator had said about the Charleston Church shootings "it's not an attack on black people, it's an attack on all people and I feel very upset about it" that would be seen as a whitewash- white hetero men don't get to say what's upsetting, what's racist, what's homophobic actually: they already decide every-fuckin-thing else!

BertrandRussell - I intended it to be a comment on him being uptight. He didn't know any of the people in the attack and he had no more reason to be upset that the other two people on the review.

Mitzy I could have wrote that post he infuriates me sometimes too!

Have you all watched the video. He wasn't being allowed to contribute to the discussion. As an openly gay man who contributed towards the same sex marriage campaign. It was rude of the others to constantly smack him down because he refused to fit the narrative.
It is also not true that he is simply trying to equate this to a homophobic attack. It is both. A homophobic and a terrorist attack. He has openly pointed this out repeatedly on his own twitter page. The two are both intrinsically linked.

Owen Jones said during that papers programme to either JHB or the presenter "you don't understand this because you aren't gay".

However, according to his Twitter feed: "Whether you're LGBT or straight, please link arms in Old Compton Street tonight at 7pm in solidarity with Orlando"

So, he doesn't mind us showing solidarity with the LGBT community despite the fact that apparently we can't understand it?

I would be interested to know why the other two would not just say "Yes, we agree. It was a homophobic attact. Just as an attack on a synagogue is an anti Semitic attack"

^^ i thought they did aknowledge that, its pretty bloody obvious, HE didn't want to admit it came from Islam, note how he says in a dismissive tone " some twisted view of Islamic fundamentalism" then swiftly moves on.

If this had been committed by a lone gunman of any other religion bar Islam he would have had no issue with the interview.

Interesting how he said in the transcript up thread that he supported IRA against Uk Government, ie supports terrorism and the killing of innocents for a cause.

Maybe this is another layer - and another reason why he was so frustrated?

still

I couldn't link arms with anyone who admits they support terrorism.

Its disgusting.

"Christina, liberals often call terrorists mad or lunatics rather than identify them with a cause. This is to avoid offence to Islam."

What utter bollocks. Your immediate jump to link terrorism with Islam is pretty offensive though.

"describing terrorists as 'lunatics' or 'mad' is offensive'. 'Offensive' What should we call people that randomly kill innocent people and have warped ideologies?"

It's offensive to people with mental health problems, learning disabilita, dementia, acquired brain injury etc etc who are routinely sidelined and belittled by people calling them or thinking of then as 'lunatics'.

This attack was very much NOT 'random'. Calling it that is part of the problem.

Your immediate jump to link terrorism with Islam is pretty offensive though

^^ but we are talking about Islamic related terrorism aren't we?
The Euro 2016, when they warn supporters about imminent terrorist attacks who are they referring too?

"Maybe not - but I don't want to go to parts of the USA because the religious right has made me feel very uncomfortable and unsafe because of their words and rhetoric. "

I am very sorry that you have sometimes felt "uncomfortable" and "unsafe" in parts of the USA.

Now, shall we all pause for a moment and think about how gay people feel in Afghanistan, Indonesia, Sudan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Morocco, and a dozen other countries I can't be bothered to list up?

Do you think they feel "uncomfortable" and "unsafe"? Or do you think they perhaps feel something a bit stronger? Like "being trapped in a living hell where I could be murdered at any minute?"

Mad, crazy or lunatic aren't used to describe people with mh illnesses in modern day society.

Oh yes they are, in derogatory ways, every day and it's considered acceptable by people who don't feel the hurt of derogatory language It is only ever used as a derogatory term to describe their perceived mental illness as if it's some kind of bad thing. It's considered bad form to use "retard" for the very same reason but fewer people will argue that it's ok because it's not used to refer to people with learning disability in modern society. Why? Because that's the implication the word creates.

If people are being hurt or stigmatised by the use of (dis)ableist language are we just to point out that it's not relevant to them anymore so they should just put up and shut up?

What's the relevance of Euro 2016?

"There are more than two States that make life very difficult for LGB people, LBG is still not a protected characteristic in many states, which means that they can lose jobs, homes, financial support etc purely because of their sexuality. Not so different to the ME after all."

Are you seriously trying to say that the imperfect protection of LGBT rights in the United States is "not so different" to the situation in the Middle East?

I don't even know what to say in response to such stupidity.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/middle-east-child-abuse-pederasty

he moral hypocrisy is outrageous in a country where homosexuality is not only strictly forbidden but savagely punished, even between two consenting adults. However, men who sodomise young boys are not considered homosexuals or paedophiles. The love of young boys is not a phenomenon restricted to Afghanistan; homosexual pederasty is common in neighbouring Pakistan, too. In my view, repression of sexuality and extreme gender apartheid is to blame.

It was a homophobic hate crime driven by Islamic teachings.

And probably culture too Dacc.

My comment has been deleted because I pointed out very politely that another poster had made an anti gay slur!!!