TTY: Prince, RIP

Link from an anonymous person:

Prince, RIP - true-to-you.net
24 April 2016

Although a long-serving vegan and a strong advocate of the abolition of the abattoir, neither of these points was mentioned in the one hundred television reports that I witnessed yesterday as they covered the enchanted life and sad death of Prince. The points were not mentioned because they are identified as expressions against e$tabli$hment interests, therefore we, mere galley slaves, aren't allowed to know.
Prince has influenced the world more than is suspected, and somehow the life of his music is just beginning, and he would be thanked not only by humans but also animals for living his lyrical life as he did. Humans, you see, are not the world.
Meanwhile, on the same day that Prince melts away in physical form, London and England remain two very different countries, and in London the news media (under tyrannized instructions from Buckingham Palace) are informing the world that Her Royal Slyness is celebrating her 90th birthday, and we are assured that all of the United Kingdom is celebrating a monarch who has "served" (that is, served herself, not the people) for over 60 years. There is no evidence of celebrations, and in fact there are hushed reports of national indifference. In this mental maze the marrow of the matter has been grasped by everyone: monarchy is the new anarchy. It is the face of white supremacy, social repression, tyranny, oppression, thought control, big stick control, minority rule, dictatorship, and, on the streets beyond SW1, unfairness. All that can be honestly celebrated on Elizabeth's 90th birthday is the reality that she is the end of the family line. What else could her point be?
Prince, who made something of his life as opposed to having fortune handed to him, is far more 'royal' than Elizabeth 2, and he will be mourned far more than she, for she could never make herself loveable, no matter how many paid and promoted non-stories flood the newspapers of the world. The laughing gulls of Buckingham Palace will never allow you to forget who wields the stick. And, of course, we know very well what gulls tend to do on the people below.
Prince is the royal that people love, whereas Elizabeth 2 was thrust on the people who have never been asked whether or not they want her.


MORRISSEY
22 April 2016.

---

UPDATE Apr. 27:

From terrancestamp:

Much has been said about the Prince and Morrissey's connection. Because of my deep love of Morrissey, I would bore anyone who would listen with my admiration for him. One fateful day in March of 1993 the radio station in Rome Georgia of all places, made an announcement that Prince would be doing an instore at Turtles Rhythm and Views in Atlanta. Because this is right at the time that Prince and Morrissey were supposed to be working together I decided to make the 2 hour trek to wait in line for a glimpse of the man and a possible autograph. Somehow I managed to get in with a copy of my Morrissey fanzine. When it was my turn I approached Prince about Morrissey and ask if they were going to work together. He said and I quote, in his very shy soft voice "Were just thinking about it". He then took a copy of my fanzine and signed my CD. So let the rumor mill be no more. Yes, they were thinking about working together. So they must have had some type of communication. Now only Morrissey can tell the rest of the story. Attached are some photos from that lucky day! Prince went on to do a mini concert for the people who waited in line that day. He did 3 songs from his "Purple Rain" period. Amazing treat from this Superstar to perform for a couple hundred people in a record store. He certainly had my respect from that day forward.

 

[Vegan]

Marriage equality is really a better term. We don't call marriage "straight marriage." The issue is equality and calling it gay marriage is a trick that makes it appear to be an issue that only affects gay people.

At this point in time "marriage equality" is too vague for some people/instances so the use of "gay marriage" has it's place when necessary.

 

[Layne]

I tend to believe you are a troll so I don't really get too involved in what you claim to believe but you're also a moron. You're either for equality or you're not. You have no idea how many people want to be married or what their reasons are. You like to stir things up. and well done. But f*** you. Someone should kick you in the balls so hard that your sexual identity becomes an afterthought. But judging from your posts it probably already is.

You're only helping to prove my point, darling.

- - - Updated - - -

Derek, you are now my favourite poster on this board. It is so rare to read such an accurate, logical and well-written statement -- thank you.

Thank you and you're most welcome, kind sir or madam.

 

[Layne]

I agree. If heterosexual people have the choice to get married or not, the same choice should exist for everybody.

We definitely agree. And as I say, leave it up to particular jurisdictions. If the consensus in a jurisdiction is that homosexual marriage should be legal, then I'm happy to accept that. But I do not believe it to be a fundamental human rights issue as noted above and I do not believe in the authoritarianism of the Left or the gay lobby to impose their will on every jurisdiction.

I don't know why this view is so difficultly received by some.

 

[Layne]

A homosexual who doesn't care about equal rights and thinks it's OK to deny others those rights.

A homosexual throwing the word f***** around thinking he is cool/edgy/clever.

A person who wants to build a case on a lot of incorrect assumptions about their opponent.


Yeah, really accurate, well written and logical.

Gotta laugh sometimes.

And yet I see no substantial rebuttal. Yes, much of this issue comes down to opinion. But you have simply described your feelings while I have brought in some tangible considerations. I would like to hear how you believe it to be a human rights issue when the simple fact is that homosexuals and heterosexuals do not have the same objectives and outcomes when entering into a permanent relationship, which is what marriage is meant to be.

Again, I could care less about the issue. I'm fine with jurisdictions legalizing it. In fact, I remain practically neutral on the issue regardless of how I view it on principle. But if you're going to tell me my views are invalid, you ought to be able to explain why, which you haven't yet.

 

[caramel sea salt]

I have given you substantial rebuttals, but I'm starting to feel I'm being trolled.

Your argument, your logic and your choice of words is like "I'm a n***** and I like to sit in the back of the bus and I'm fine with that because I'm genetically different, and if other niggers want to sit in the front of the bus I don't mind but I feel they are being intolerant and imposing their views on me. Public Transport isn't a human rights issue anyway."

No-one can be that stupid.

I'm done talking to you, f*****. Go wind up someone else.

 

[countthree]

We definitely agree. And as I say, leave it up to particular jurisdictions. If the consensus in a jurisdiction is that homosexual marriage should be legal, then I'm happy to accept that. But I do not believe it to be a fundamental human rights issue as noted above and I do not believe in the authoritarianism of the Left or the gay lobby to impose their will on every jurisdiction.

I don't know why this view is so difficultly received by some.

We definitely don't agree. Equality is a fundamental human right. In all jurisdictions exists marriage, so everybody should be able to get married. This isn't about marriage, an old institution whitout meaning for a lot of people (like me, even I was married). This is about EQUALITY.

 

[Layne]

We definitely don't agree. Equality is a fundamental human right. In all jurisdictions exists marriage, so everybody should be able to get married. This isn't about marriage, an old institution whitout meaning for a lot of people (like me, even I was married). This is about EQUALITY.

I think you misunderstand the concept of equality.

Yes, equality means the same rights. But how equality is applied to individuals does not render every individual identical--as much as the Left wishes that to be the case. Homosexual dyadic relationships have fundamental differences from those of heterosexuals. Why is this controversial?

For example, the ideal method of raising children is in a stable home environment consisting of a mother and a father. Homosexual and heterosexual parents are in no way equal. How could they be? In some cases, homosexual parents raise children as well as heterosexual parents--albeit differently--but there is evidence that this is not an ideal environment and of course no environment trumps, on average, the stable two-parent mother and father home environment.

It is not beneficial to pretend that the institution of marriage applies in the same way to heterosexuals and homosexuals respectively even if it applies equally. There are fundamental differences in priority and general lifestyle.

I already conceded that marriage ought to be legal for everyone if that is the consensus will in a particular jurisdiction. Where do you think that we disagree?

- - - Updated - - -

I have given you substantial rebuttals, but I'm starting to feel I'm being trolled.

Your argument, your logic and your choice of words is like "I'm a n***** and I like to sit in the back of the bus and I'm fine with that because I'm genetically different, and if other niggers want to sit in the front of the bus I don't mind but I feel they are being intolerant and imposing their views on me." No-one can be that stupid.

I'm done talking to you, f*****. Go wind up someone else.

That is a patently absurd analogy.

 

[Layne]

You do not speak for all gay men, Derek17. There are gay men (and women) who want families, who want to commit.

Again, it does not matter that you personally do not care about marriage laws because they mean nothing to you PERSONALLY. It’s about a group of people having the possibility and the right to get married should they want to, like everyone else. It’s called equality.

A friendly word of advice: try not to assume too much about your opponents in a discussion, it only makes you look foolish. I’m in no way a “leftist” nor do I condone or make excuses for the socially accepted insanity called Islam (exactly because I care about human rights).

If homosexuals want families, I do not believe it to be ethical for them to use artificial insemination or other contrived means of conception. The best environment for raising a child is always, on average, with a mother and a father.

Really if homosexuals want children, they should be advised to enter into a heterosexual relationship. It should be generally accepted that homosexuals forfeit their standard right, as part of marriage, to have children of their own in the same way that heterosexual couples do. This should be self-intuitive.

I only support homosexuals having children if they adopt because in that case they are providing a needy child with a home environment that is certainly an improvement over orphanship.

But homosexuals are not the same as heterosexuals in that they cannot reproduce on their own. This is an indisputable fact. Homosexual couples, even if they are considered equal, were not meant to reproduce in the same way that heterosexuals are.

So with all this talk of equality, this is only one example that proves that heterosexual and homosexual couples can never truly be the same and it is impractical and unreasonable to pretend that they possibly could be.

Men are not women and women are not men. Deal with it.

 

[Calamine Lotion]

Oh I'm so sorry ! I thought this was the :TTY Prince, RIP/Queen rant thingy. Sorry !

Benny-the-British-Butcher

Yeah, where's Kewpie telling people to keep on topic? Is hate speech encouraged?

 

[Layne]

Taking what you said at face value that you are, in fact, gay ("f*****")- why don't you believe in gay marriage? That intrigues me. Maybe you just don't believe in marriage at all ha ha? But do you actually believe that gay marriage should be outlawed?

No I do not think it should be outlawed. I think we should stop pretending that it is an issue of equality because it really isn't.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, where's Kewpie telling people to keep on topic? Is hate speech encouraged?

Ask the person who told me that someone should "kick you in the balls so hard that your sexual identity becomes an afterthought." That sounds like hate speech to incite a hate crime, if you ask me.

 

[Calamine Lotion]

At this point in time "marriage equality" is too vague for some people/instances so the use of "gay marriage" has it's place when necessary.

No? It's really not vague. And people that don't understand what it means are not really worth arguing with.

- - - Updated - - -

No I do not think it should be outlawed. I think we should stop pretending that it is an issue of equality because it really isn't.

- - - Updated - - -



Ask the person who told me that someone should "kick you in the balls so hard that your sexual identity becomes an afterthought." That sounds like hate speech to incite a hate crime, if you ask me.

I didn't ask.

 

[Layne]

No? It's really not vague. And people that don't understand what it means are not really worth arguing with.

- - - Updated - - -



I didn't ask.

You asked "is hate speech encouraged?" and I answered.

Apparently it is.

 

[Calamine Lotion]

You asked "is hate speech encouraged?" and I answered.

Apparently it is.

I don't mean you or anyone any harm. I would hope you will take my reaction as a "win" because I do have to believe your goal is to get a reaction. You switch between what appear to be reasonable and sincere arguments and intentionally controversial and divisive remarks in a way that I can only believe that your main goal is to have some fun and score a few "U GOT MAD" points. I'm usually immune to that especially if I already suspect the person is a troll, so, again "well done." I should know by now when to ignore someone.
And I'm done derailing the thread.

 

[Layne]

I don't mean you or anyone any harm. I would hope you will take my reaction as a "win" because I do have to believe your goal is to get a reaction. You switch between what appear to be reasonable and sincere arguments and intentionally controversial and divisive remarks in a way that I can only believe that your main goal is to have some fun and score a few "U GOT MAD" points. I'm usually immune to that especially if I already suspect the person is a troll, so, again "well done." I should know by now when to ignore someone.
And I'm done derailing the thread.

Fair enough. But I am curious as to where you think I veered away from making legitimate points. I have deliberately avoided using personal insults and making emotional arguments.

Sure, I suppose some of what I say ventures into trolling mode. But nothing I say is really all that controversial. It's all fact-based or at least rationally presented. Sometimes the truth makes some people uncomfortable. Some people in this thread are basing their opinions entirely on emotion and that is what I am battling against here. I will say that people have to be able to reach conclusions about things even if the conclusion makes them emotionally uncomfortable. If they were able to rationally discuss the topic with me and provide me with evidence and convincing points, my views would certainly be swayed, as I hope theirs might as I attempt to do the same.

The point that led to this whole derailment was my comment that if Prince did not believe in homosexual marriage that that does not automatically make him (or anyone else) a bad person. Life ain't that black and white and I truly hope some of the people in here are not so politically hysterical that they can see that.

 

[Anonymous]

Fair enough. But I am curious as to where you think I veered away from making legitimate points. I have deliberately avoided using personal insults and making emotional arguments.

Sure, I suppose some of what I say ventures into trolling mode. But nothing I say is really all that controversial. It's all fact-based or at least rationally presented. Sometimes the truth makes some people uncomfortable. Some people in this thread are basing their opinions entirely on emotion and that is what I am battling against here. I will say that people have to be able to reach conclusions about things even if the conclusion makes them emotionally uncomfortable. If they were able to rationally discuss the topic with me and provide me with evidence and convincing points, my views would certainly be swayed, as I hope theirs might as I attempt to do the same.

The point that led to this whole derailment was my comment that if Prince did not believe in homosexual marriage that that does not automatically make him (or anyone else) a bad person. Life ain't that black and white and I truly hope some of the people in here are not so politically hysterical that they can see that.

The point that was made was not a hysterical OH MY GOD PRINCE WAS A BAD BAD MAN because he HATED THEM GAYS, it was that Morrissey praised him as a good human being SOLELY on the basis of his vegetarianism and completely disregarding the fact that he (Prince) was a religious nutbag who spoke out against gay rights proving once again that Moz cares more about animals than humans. Nuance, my friend.

 

[Calamine Lotion]

Fair enough. But I am curious as to where you think I veered away from making legitimate points. I have deliberately avoided using personal insults and making emotional arguments.

Sure, I suppose some of what I say ventures into trolling mode. But nothing I say is really all that controversial. It's all fact-based or at least rationally presented. Sometimes the truth makes some people uncomfortable. Some people in this thread are basing their opinions entirely on emotion and that is what I am battling against here. I will say that people have to be able to reach conclusions about things even if the conclusion makes them emotionally uncomfortable. If they were able to rationally discuss the topic with me and provide me with evidence and convincing points, my views would certainly be swayed, as I hope theirs might as I attempt to do the same.

The point that led to this whole derailment was my comment that if Prince did not believe in homosexual marriage that that does not automatically make him (or anyone else) a bad person. Life ain't that black and white and I truly hope some of the people in here are not so politically hysterical that they can see that.

I respect that you say you sometimes troll. It is difficult not to in some environments. I've been guilty of if myself. BUT, why should I sort through your comments and decide what is sincere and what is designed to get a rise out of people?

As far as this particular issue goes, it's very simple to me. You are either for equal rights or you are not. Terms like "good person" and "bad person" are pretty much meaningless. But I think it is bad to deny people equality.
Prince apparently pointed to a buy-bull when asked if he was for or against marriage equality, and made a comment about "people sticking it everywhere and so God wiped them all out." However, when the interview was released he said that what he really meant was that "God is love and that we should refrain from judging others."
It's possible his view was that it is against his personal beliefs but that he would not inflict those beliefs on others, and that does not make him a bad person. I don't personally relate to people that are transgender, but I do respect their beliefs and their decisions, and I choose to see them as survivors and not victims, and as people and not freaks.
We don't have to understand or agree with people, but when we deny them equality we are doing a bad thing, and most of the people that are against equality do not bother to examine their feelings about it. Anyone that uses God or the buy-bull, or Allah and the Koran, as justification for being a bigot might be leaning towards being a bad person, at least in my opinion. But that doesn't really matter. Being a good or bad person can't really be legislated, and laws are what this is really about. Equality under the law. So if Prince decided he didn't like gay marriage, but didn't think it was his place to say that, or WHATEVER, and whether he arrived at that through logic, or through faith, doesn't really matter.
I do think that when people are bigoted and would deny rights to people based on their faith, to me they are not someone I want in my life, but we all have family or friends who may have different beliefs that we tolerate.

 

[Layne]

Why stop at just 'white men' ? Why not all men? I mean if you're gonna hate,then why limit yourself? go all the way!

Gotta focus on the real tormentors. Once all white men are dead the world will be a better place. Arab men will stop trying to live up to white male standards and will respect women.

 

[evennow]

I respect that you say you sometimes troll. It is difficult not to in some environments. I've been guilty of if myself. BUT, why should I sort through your comments and decide what is sincere and what is designed to get a rise out of people?

As far as this particular issue goes, it's very simple to me. You are either for equal rights or you are not. Terms like "good person" and "bad person" are pretty much meaningless. But I think it is bad to deny people equality.
Prince apparently pointed to a buy-bull when asked if he was for or against marriage equality, and made a comment about "people sticking it everywhere and so God wiped them all out." However, when the interview was released he said that what he really meant was that "God is love and that we should refrain from judging others."
It's possible his view was that it is against his personal beliefs but that he would not inflict those beliefs on others, and that does not make him a bad person. I don't personally relate to people that are transgender, but I do respect their beliefs and their decisions, and I choose to see them as survivors and not victims, and as people and not freaks.
We don't have to understand or agree with people, but when we deny them equality we are doing a bad thing, and most of the people that are against equality do not bother to examine their feelings about it. Anyone that uses God or the buy-bull, or Allah and the Koran, as justification for being a bigot might be leaning towards being a bad person, at least in my opinion. But that doesn't really matter. Being a good or bad person can't really be legislated, and laws are what this is really about. Equality under the law. So if Prince decided he didn't like gay marriage, but didn't think it was his place to say that, or WHATEVER, and whether he arrived at that through logic, or through faith, doesn't really matter.
I do think that when people are bigoted and would deny rights to people based on their faith, to me they are not someone I want in my life, but we all have family or friends who may have different beliefs that we tolerate.

It is exactly this in America. Our own Declaration of Independence sets forth "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Some might argue that marriage is the beginning of the end of life, liberty and happiness. (I would )

It took a long time to get to this point in our American civil society where same sex unions are legal under the law, but at the risk of being stoned to death, I think the distinction between Church and State, between religious teachings and laws is an important one. Even if I don't agree with the teachings of a religion and/or believe in what is being passed off as truths (I consider myself Agnostic) I do believe that unless the actions of a religion directly promote physical harm to others such as Radical Islam then it should be able to function freely without interference from the State. Religious freedom was one of the reasons we went to war to secure our independence in the first place.

The Catholic church opposes birth control, abortion, same sex marriage, etc. but these are all available to citizens of the Unites States in the secular world should they wish to exercise their right to do so under the law. Sure many homosexual Catholics would like to be married in the Church. I get that, but to me the separation of Church and State is an important one. Trying to legislate religious doctrine of any kind from state capital buildings or the White House goes against what many brave people have fought and died for. Prince himself was a Jehova's Witness. I wonder how he would have felt about the government dictating to him what he was permitted to believe under the law?

 

[AztecCamera]

Are bonita fish big? Anonymous-

 

[Layne]

I respect that you say you sometimes troll. It is difficult not to in some environments. I've been guilty of if myself. BUT, why should I sort through your comments and decide what is sincere and what is designed to get a rise out of people?

As far as this particular issue goes, it's very simple to me. You are either for equal rights or you are not. Terms like "good person" and "bad person" are pretty much meaningless. But I think it is bad to deny people equality.
Prince apparently pointed to a buy-bull when asked if he was for or against marriage equality, and made a comment about "people sticking it everywhere and so God wiped them all out." However, when the interview was released he said that what he really meant was that "God is love and that we should refrain from judging others."
It's possible his view was that it is against his personal beliefs but that he would not inflict those beliefs on others, and that does not make him a bad person. I don't personally relate to people that are transgender, but I do respect their beliefs and their decisions, and I choose to see them as survivors and not victims, and as people and not freaks.
We don't have to understand or agree with people, but when we deny them equality we are doing a bad thing, and most of the people that are against equality do not bother to examine their feelings about it. Anyone that uses God or the buy-bull, or Allah and the Koran, as justification for being a bigot might be leaning towards being a bad person, at least in my opinion. But that doesn't really matter. Being a good or bad person can't really be legislated, and laws are what this is really about. Equality under the law. So if Prince decided he didn't like gay marriage, but didn't think it was his place to say that, or WHATEVER, and whether he arrived at that through logic, or through faith, doesn't really matter.
I do think that when people are bigoted and would deny rights to people based on their faith, to me they are not someone I want in my life, but we all have family or friends who may have different beliefs that we tolerate.

I'm pretty much only trolling in the sense that I'm not watering down the truth. Everything I say is supported by evidence and reason. I mean there are some clear jokes like "death to all white men" that only deranged feminists would say and seriously mean it. That's a clear example of where I'm being tongue in cheek.

I'll just leave it at saying that I don't think homosexual marriage is an equality issue because as I pointed out above, equality under the law only pretends that the marriages are equal. That belief does not conflict with my concurrent belief that homosexuals are equal as human beings to heterosexuals. But again, men are not women and women are not men. Humans can be equal while we still acknowledge that they are different in a practical sense.

Certainly I agree that any authoritarian attitudes--those displayed by the irrationally religious and the old political Right and now by the political Left--are to be rejected. I don't think that when people are allowing their rationality to be taken over by any kind of unfounded beliefs that they are demonstrating their soundness and "goodness" as individuals. On the other hand, I respect those who disagree when they can tell me why they disagree, show me their logic and evidence, and demonstrate that it makes sense. In that case, I would not call these people bigoted or "hateful" as some people like to throw around because they have reached a reasonable conclusion--just one I might not fundamentally agree with.