http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-nightclub-shooting-20160613-snap-story.html
GMT, I already posted all about that last night in no. 329. Also, please don’t use ridiculously outdated clinical terms like “closet homosexual.” It’s not 1950 anymore.
Bookworm, see that post of mine for quotations from people who did talk to him on previous visits.
This morning on CNN I actually heard a talking head say that “perhaps we were too quick to label this a case of Islamic terrorism.”
The frequent visits to Pulse over the past 3 years; Mateen’s presence on Jack’d and Grindr; a former police academy classmate who said that Mateen asked him out…maybe Mateen was attracted to men but conflicted about that attraction. That, combined with his anger problem and the possibility of some mental health issues, would be more than enough to fuel this kind of rage. The ISIS stuff may just be an add-on, something to make him feel more important.
Besides, didn’t he also claim to have connections to Al Qaeda and Hezbollah as well as ISIS? And aren’t those organizations contradictory to one another?
It will be interesting (to me) to see what happens to the press coverage if it’s all NOT Islamic-terrorism-related. What if it’s just (yet another) disturbed, screwed-up individual with anger issues and access to a gun? What if it’s a much more complicated or nuanced situation than “Islamic terrorism”? Will the coverage and the national outrage die away?
Of course it will - until there’s another mass shooting. Because of course there will be another one.
Back in post 70 I mentioned my brother. Turns out one of his acquaintances was injured at Pulse but is expected to be okay. Meanwhile, my brother is so angry that he can’t even donate blood - he says he could buy a gun easier than he can give blood.
This thread is moving quickly and there are many posts that repeat something that was posted earlier.
And a genuine question, @DonnaL . What are the correct, current, appropriate terms to use, as people begin to discuss the new findings that are surfacing about the shooter’s past attendance at the club (and possibly others) and his use of certain apps? Doubt anyone here means to offend- they just may not be familiar with the correct, inoffensive, current terminology. How should someone reference a possibly gay or bisexual individual who is not out? My office associate is gay. I would not want to have a conversation and accidentally say something offensive. Appreciate the guidance.
Could you possibly also consider reposting the pertinent issues from your earlier post from several pages ago? That would be helpful. And speaking for myself, I have a short attention span. It’s hard to read long posts, so sometimes they get skimmed.
Genuine thanks.
I agree with jym626. I don’t want to offend or denigrate anyone in my posts either. Hope I phrased things correctly.
I just get so mad when I read simplistic hate-filled posts/blogs (I’m thinking of you, Franklin Graham) that see all problems in black and white and reduce every complex issue to jingoism.
@scout59 People are complicated. His motives are easily a combination of everything you stated. A convergence of outward hate and self loathing.
@DonnaL I am a 60 yr old and I knew what the term closeted homosexual meant. I understood what the poster was saying. Sometimes it is more important to understand and comment on the context than scold someone.
Why don’t you share what term you might prefer and then people can have a choice.
Regarding rushing the shooter that was brought up earlier: I believe people really are programmed for " flight or fight" when their life is suddenly and unexpectedly threatened. I have been there. Your body reacts before your brain can even process what is really happening. I found myself standing in the middle of a busy 4 lane highway before I could even think what was happening. To this day I can’t figure out how I didn’t get hit and killed while fleeing. You do what you do in those first moments.
This is just heartbreaking. Just heartbreaking.
We are friends with a gay couple about our age (i.e. old). They frequently refer to certain people as “closet cases.” I will inform them that they are being politically incorrect.
I understand that gmt meant no harm. I guess what bothered me was the combination of two outdated words – the use of closet as an adjective instead of closeted reminded me of the old 1960s - 1970s terms “closet queen” and “closet queer” (think Boys in the Band), and the use by a straight person of the word homosexual as a noun, as a sort of quasi-clinical, quasi-diagnostic term, instead of just saying something like “gay man.” Also very common from the 1940s to 1970s. Separately, either of those terms would not have bothered me enough to say anything. It was the combination that struck me.
Excuse me for being a little sensitive right now, tomofboston. I am so sorry that my “political correctness” triggered you, and I hope you recover soon.
I see no reason for me to repeat or digest my post no. 329. I said what I said when I said it, and I am satisfied with it the way it is. It’s simple enough to find.
^You haven’t offerd an alternative to “closet”. Or are you saying it should be closeted? I also thought the term closet was current.
I am not DonnaL and certainly lack her historical background but I think many gay and lesbian people don’t like homosexual because it was a term used to diagnose them as mentally or otherwise I’ll; it pathologizes their normal selves. If you want to play it safe, I think you can say ‘gay man in the closet’ or ‘closeted gay man’ are probably less controversial.
Igloo, yes, I was suggesting closeted.
And yes, closeted gay man would be fine, I think.
Can we please get back to the topic of this thread instead of arguing about labels and word origins that may offend highly sensitive people?
Given that the “highly sensitive people” that you’re referring to were just targets of a hate crime that is the topic of this thread, it might be considerate to have some sensitivity around how language choices might impact members of the the LGBTQ+ community. I appreciate the people on this thread asking questions from a place of learning and trying to understand.
@TomSrOfBoston - maybe if you don’t like the discussion about what people here are trying to learn about, which is incredibly pertinent to this conversation and how someone might develop such a hate to the point they commit a crime like this, you are the highly sensitive one.
Assuming this guy was a conflicted gay person, what tipped this guy over the edge? Was it his internal struggle, or was it reading ISIS material on the web and getting inspired to do this? And would he do this if otherwise he hadn’t read that material? Not to mention that Islamic terrorist groups are cheering this, and I would bet good money that many fo the regimes in the Middle East who are publicly saying how shocked they are at what happened, decrying it, privately are nodding their heads and basically saying “good”, the same way I would bet that many on the hard right in this country are publicly saying the right things. There are a lot of people who struggle with their identity, who are conflicted, but how many of them think about getting a high powered semi automatic gun and killing and shooting over 100 people? To say this isn’t inspired by religious belief or by Islamic terrorism is trying to avoid the obvious, that not only is Islam one of the most virulently homophobic faiths out there (where even “moderate” Muslims think gays are abnormal), but that like the shooters in California, this guy was inspired by ISIS to pull off a massive killing spree. There are a lot of conflicted LGBT people out there, and they don’t shoot 100 people (sadly, many of them end up the victim of violence, or end up killing themselves), and what I fear is that this gets turned into “Islam had nothing to do with this” or “It wasn’t Islamic terrorism”, when it was definitely involved (not to mention that the guys conflict was caused by his faith).
As far as those talking about people ‘rushing the shooter’ and so forth, that isn’t just monday morning quarterbacking, it also is demeaning to the victims. I don’t know if those people who say that have ever been in a crowded night club, they are dark, there would be several hundred people in there, screaming and yelling, you wouldn’t be able to see who the shooter was in that crowd (sorry, folks, it won’t be like in a movie, where the shooter is on one side of the room and all the people are cowering on the other end). Who are you going to rush? And through a crush of people screaming and running and so forth? Not to mention you aren’t talking a guy with a handgun, which after X shots would have to reload and that takes time, you are talking a guy with a semi automatic rifle, that even if not modified, can put out 100 shots a minute, likely had an oversize magazine, and those can be switched out quickly, so it isn’t like in the movies where people rush the shooter when reloading. Bravely picking up a table (I love that one!) and using it as as shield…through a crowd of hundreds of people, if a table is even there and not bolted down? Throwing a garbage can at the shooter? Hitting him over the head with a bottle of booze? People watch too many movies. If a shooter is in an isolated location with few people, maybe, just maybe, someone could take them out, but even that is unlikely. I have training with dealing with active shooters, and the one thing they emphasize is that playing the hero is only likely to get you and others killed, that unless it is evident you are in last straights and don’t stand a chance, you likely will lose.
It is the same way I have heard some pro gun types saying that if people there were armed, they could have stopped this. Leaving out the obvious (that the off duty cop on security there was armed and couldn’t stop the shooter), The stupidity of that is obvious…think of the description about, in a dark nightclub, with people yelling and screaming, sightlines non existent, can you imaging someone taking out their glock thinking they are going to be John Wayne, or worse, more than a few do it? Wanna guess how many people would die by friendly fire with people pulling out guns and shooting? Even if they got the guy eventually, you don’t think stray bullets would fell a lot more people? Like everyone else, these clowns watch too many movies or think the old west was real the way it was portrayed in the movies.
Not to mention that bullets can ricochet and still kill people. And the people in the crowd might think that anyone firing a gun is part of the attack, since it isn’t always the case that there is only one shooter.
@sylvan8798:
That, too, thanks, that if we had people pulling guns, how do you know the good guy from the bad guy? When Gabby Giffords was shot and a bystander took down the shooter, some drugstore cowboy coming out of a convenience store from what I recall had drawn his weapon and was ready to shoot the person who intervened, imaging a gunfight in a nightclub when, to quote an old french writer, “all cats are gray at night”
Not advocating guns, just pointing out a gap in your logic. The off-duty officer was alone. That does not disprove guns could have been useful since if there were more guns present the dynamics could have been different. In this particular case, people could have stopped the shooter before he reached 50. I am sure someone shooting an automatic is easily distinguishable. Of course, people shooting off each other is a scary thought.