Thursday, March 29, 2012

Carson Daly's Joke About Gays Causes Uproar

You can ignore the title of the link - Carson Daly does not appear to refer to gays as cowardly at all in the video (On link).

Mr. Daly had been commentating on the Jet Blue flight in which the Pilot needed to be restrained. Daly mentioned that reports noted that the flight had a disproportionate amount of men who were en route to a seminar or convention for security work. His point was that there were quite a few men on the plane for whom fighting, or more properly, being physically, emotionally, and psychologically prepared for serious scrapes, was a part of life and that this was a stroke of fortune.

He goes on to joke that, with his luck, if he faced a similar situation on a flight, his would have a bunch of gays who were on the way to a floral convention. He added a few jokes about what one could imagine that his co-travelers would say. Examples such as "No I can't I may break a nail" were given.

It was a joke. Daly never meant to harm or demean anyone. The mother of one of the flight 93 passengers (Flight 93 was the flight in which the passengers counterattacked the bad guys and sacrificed their lives) weighed in, stating  that her son, who she described as 6'4" and a rugby player, was reportedly one of the counterattacks. Of course she would be hurt over this remark.

With the understandable emotions that a possible hijacked flight brings, we can, as armchair quarterbacks, say that Mr. Daly should not have made the comment. He did in fact apologize later on.

Having said that, I strongly believe that what we are witnessing is much more than a lot of people who are hurt and offended by the remark that was meant as a joke. This is another example of the widespread censorship that in forced upon anything that goes against the Leftist doctrine of Political Correctness. This doctrine found its home in Leninist Russia/Soviet Union. The idea was to put a stop to any speech or activity that did not toe the line drawn by the Party.

Mr. Daly clearly was not indicating that no gay man (or Woman, straight or gay) could be of any help when it is time for a fight. If someone were to be asked what Mr. Daly could have meant by his joke, he may offer the following scenario:

If the flight (Or any other otherwise isolated group) was made of three general groups of people; heterosexual men, gays, and women, what third would supply the the bulk of those who would defend the whole group against a threat?

No answer is needed, but it is not politically correct to give the obvious answer in a public setting.

Yes, we all know that there have been many examples of women and gay men who have performed bravely and proficiently in battle or other types of fights (Let's avoid Alexander the Great for now as the evidence is heavily against the claim that he was a homosexual). The fact that these people have proven that they are not helpless does not do anything to even suggest that those from these two groups, as a whole, tend to provide near the amount of people that you would want on your side in a fight as does that of heterosexual men.

I hope that no one would contest that there are more effeminate, non-violent, and non-aggressive men among gays than there are among non-gays. Feminists love to paint heterosexual men as violent and dangerous, but refuse to admit that, just sometimes, this tendency/predisposition can be of benefit. This is an easy thing to deny or ignore in a society that is generally safe and free of crime. When the tables are turned, though, it is the men that are expected to do the fighting and we can be certain that non-gays comprise, if not an overwhelming amount of the fighters, a clear majority of the same. I can assure you that, in countries plagued by violence and other strife, women do not go about pretending that they are equal to men in general fighting abilities. If I was getting beaten up or chased by several bad guys, and was made aware (Say, via radio or cellphone) that a group of gays, a group of women, and a group of non-gay men were all on the way to help me, which one do you think I would hope arrived first? Leftist love to refer to humans as just another species of animal. Well, as a species we belong to the Class Mammalia. In that group, males comprise almost the entire body of the most aggressive members.

In the workplace, we are supposed to be afraid to say that men are generally (Almost always) born to be more capable to, for example, serve as an infantry soldier in the armed forces than are women*. To even mention it in passing is to draw, if you are lucky, cold stares and shoulders. If gays tend to have more effeminate men in their ranks than do heterosexuals, it follows that there will be a lower percentage of gays who will be effective fighters than there will be among non-gays. Simply put, more gay men will act/function like women in the event of a vicious fight than will non-gay men. Their hearts may be in it, but it takes more than heart (Although heart is a big part) to fight.

Angry people, I know that this offends many, but I am not here to avoid hurting feelings. Men are physically stronger, have more aggression, are more likely to engage in physical altercations, become proficient in the use of weapons, and train as boxers or in other fighting styles. I have seen one High School female wrestler, one. She was quite good. Does that prove anything? If one High School with a wrestling team with one or no girls had a meet against a similar-sized team with, say, five girls, the Politically Correct thing is to pretend that we don't know which team has an apparent advantage, even though we of course know that the all/almost all-guy team has a good probability of beating at least four of the five girls in the individual matches.

To my knowledge, there never have been:
Female MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, etc. players.

There of course have been gays that have been in these organizations. I will freely admit that many gay men are very capable athletes and fighters. But, again since there is a disproportionate amount of men among gays that act and think in manner similar to women, that group will provide a a smaller percentage of effective fighters than will non-gay men.

To hold anything to the contrary to what I have written is to have to assert that, out of all of the warriors/soldiers/fighters through the millennia, the reason that almost no women were included as fighters was that the men just wanted all the fun for themselves and have excuses to subjugate their women.
Standing up for our civilization is not possible unless we insists on being able to speak, not only freely, but factually.

Let's not pretend that, in the event of a fight, I would start by asking who is gay and who is not. That would never happen and implying so is dishonest.

*A post that I did in 2011 on Australia's opening of all military specialties, including infantry, to females:

No comments:

Post a Comment