¤ milky moon ¤

actually i'm quite ashamed of the government of my country, the war legally developped against gypsy people, the difference governement makes between the GOOD french and the others, the censor in the media, that every free electron journalist are fired when they spoke against the president, the jail or community work for each people who "insults" the president, social helps which existed since napoleon or the industrial revolution destroyed by "new laws". And i don't ask about fiscal facilities for industries, banks, rich people etc... Nicolas Sarkozy by his faschist policy is now changing the fundamental path of french democracy, the foundation of civil right, the declaration of the citizen, inherited from the Revolution. We killed kings and queens in the name of democracy and now there isn't anybody to act again him. Liberté, égalité, fraternité, liberty, equality, brotherfriendship, any of our motto is respected. I'm now really ashamed to be french.

Hey, why did the French get to kill kings and queens in their revolution. Americans only got to fight British soldiers and some mercenaries, and got to dump some tea in Boston harbor, but we didn't get to kill any kings or queens. That's so unfair. I just hate that.

Sorry about your fucked-up government, milki. Really. I guess not everyone can have a wonderful government like we have in the U.S.

yeah but you paid during centuries to have Obama : Reagan, Truman, Nixon, and the Bush family...
i read new daily excerps this morning, there a french intervention at the european council, now he lied about supposly friendship of his policy, this man is an ass hole...

we loved killed kings and queens, in fact it's a french tradition

Kings and queens are important, because without them palaces just end up gaudy tourist traps full of sweaty, pie-faced tourists with obnoxious cameras and outdated clothing. Crucially the monarch must spend all of their undeserved money on frivolous and impractical beautiful things, must be at least slightly handsome/beautiful or at least regal, and should preferably die young and tragically. They should also behave outrageously lest they be boring and therefore undeserving of superhuman status.
There are still lots of good things about France, milki! For one thing, you're either the first or second most atheist country in the world. For another, France is romantic. For another, you have universal, free healthcare. Perhaps it's not perfect or even good, but what government ever has been?

One thing about Kings, Queens, and the like, that I greatly appreciate, is that they have facilitated the creation of a lot of incredibly beautiful art. I wonder if some of their facilitation (money) could pull me out of my creative slump. I'm willing to give it a try.

You can be a monarch by stealing things and only paying for the ones you like. Piracy represents a return to patronage, but a more democratised patronage!

What if you only pay for the ones you can't steal?

Then it doesn't work! Just look harder.

i love this conversation!
of course there's still great social things in france, but i'm afraid by the...what's the name, "retrograde"policy of sarkozy, is like a monarch, never listen to french people, even if half france is in the street, and he got friendship from berlusconi, so you can imagine his awareness...

Lady Gaga, people who are obsessed with Lady Gaga, America's obsession with masters degrees, America's obsession with PhDs, student loans, the state of Arizona and its state University, classical musicians who think they are better than everyone else (even though there are tons of successful musicians WITHOUT music degrees), stereotypical gays, never being able to find shoes that fit, the necessity of gainful employment, passive-aggressive customers, evangelical Christians, people who don't reduce/reuse, corporate America, lip service, having to bullshit to make it in the real world, how difficult it is to get a job on merit alone. And other things.

As far as 'stereotypical gays' are concerned, they're very important to gay rights. It should be possible for a gay to be visible and easily recognisable because there ought not be any stigma attached to it. One ought not fear repercussions, from the judgement of the man on the street to the judgement of the law, for being visibly and obviously gay. There's a reason we have big, noisy, vibrant pride parades: visibility is key to acceptance.
It's also important to the reclamation of negative perceptions. Not unlike the black reclamation of the N-word to the non-pejorative "nigga", the age-old 'kinaidos' stereotype of the effete man has been reclaimed by the gay community, as have words like "queer" and "faggot". By reappropriating a negative perception and turning it into an intragroup positive perception, we disempower it of its pejorative usage.
Furthermore, you say yourself that you hate having to bullshit to make it in the real world - if someone wants to dress and behave outlandishly and that's who they feel they are, why should they have to bullshit their way through life?

Wanbli, like all American leaders with big plans, he's gotten into office and been told universally by the rest of the White House to shut up and do as he's told.

About the stereotypical gays thing, I really get what you mean Jordan. On the other hand, campness just really irritates me as a character trait as it's so often accompanied by an absolute vacuous-ness, gay or straight.

You do realise you'd still suffer from that stereotype if there was not a single gay man in the world like that? The negative image of gays has been the same for thousands of years. If gay people universally behaved like orthodox rabbis, we'd still get accused of behaving like prancing, limp-wristed fairies. This was the case even in the most anomalously tolerant cultures - the Greeks, for all that they institutionalised homosexuality and in some cases even enshrined it, still thought it was possible to be "too gay" and their idea of what that looked like was exactly the same as that of western culture today.
I think you mean that you hate prejudice itself, not the confirmation of prejudice. Those who are prejudiced have never needed proof to confirm their ugly beliefs. The best we can do is turn the negative prejudice into a positive one. People will continue to find nasty things to call us until we can honestly claim that it doesn't bother us. Responding to prejudice by getting up in arms about it only serves to further polarise those who hold prejudices against us. To respond with a shrug and a "So what?" disarms them. Consider it using the enemy's own weapons against them.

I still disagree with you. This isn't about prejudice from the outside, it's about idiotic brainlessness from the inside.

Not to foolishly stick my nose in the discussion, but this quote by John Waters came to mind:

"I’m 100% gay and about 20% in gay society. Sometimes I’m more comfortable in punk rock clubs than gay clubs. There are just as many rules I rebel from in the gay world as the straight one."