On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:12:35 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:47:28 +1100, Bruce > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:39:53 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:20:54 +1100, Bruce > wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:09:26 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:03:34 +1100, Bruce > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:52:36 -0700, sf > wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>He wasn't annoying, it was a funny theatrical effeminate caricature.
>> >>>>>Maybe it's a West Coast vs Southern perspective.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>You mean modern/open-minded versus backward/narrow-minded?
>> >>>
>> >>>You sound narrow minded, actually. But you're far from alone there.
>> >>
>> >>What brings you to this interesting perspective?
>> >
>> >Partly your assumption that anyone from 'the south' are rednecks (or
>> >whatever).
>> >
>> >And partly that anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly and unquestionably
>> >support gays no matter what they do is some sort of knuckle-dragging,
>> >ignorant and narrow-minded person.
>> >
>> >Some of us have moved on from blindly accepting and supporting gays,
>> >to realising they have the same shortcomings as anyone else and are
>> >open to criticism when appropriate. Many clearly exploit/abuse this
>> >situation.
>> >
>> >It's much like the average Greens supporter these days. What is it
>> >that they actually support, when you look at what the Greens do (or
>> >don't do) in actual practice? And yet, people get a nice warm glow
>> >thinking they're somehow morally superior being Green voters.
>> >Silly me, I thought the Greens were supposed to be there to protect
>> >the environment, when in reality they don't give the slightest ****
>> >about it. All they care about is winning votes like any other
>> >mainstream party.
>> >
>> >People like to develop a belief system (of sorts) - what they then
>> >DON'T like is to ever question it or reevaluate it when things change.
>> >I call that narrow-minded.
>>
>> Sure but I wasn't so much commenting on that caricature *** guy, but
>> wondering if sf implied what I thought she implied.
>
>It has more to do with exposure. When you know them, you can
>understand the humor better. Let's face it, the South would be very
>happy to reinstate slavery, so gays might as well cease to exist.

I don't know much about the south of the US. I guess Texas is part of
that. Not immediately the state I'd choose to live. But Lousiana would
be an option and that's also south, I think. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
sound kind of cool.

--
Bruce