Sam Smith comes out as genderqueer

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

12 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I'm not saying that every liberal thinks this way. But a lot do, now more than ever. Say what you want about conservatives, but a lot of them are all about citing their sources. I've seen too much liberal media where no sources are cited but we're just supposed to take their bizarre "findings" at face value. Liberals of today are notorious for just accepting whatever mumbo jumbo comes out the mouth of another liberal without actually pausing to see if what they're saying has any truth or so much as pauses to go: "hold on, that doesn't sound right." Even liberal news channels have been altering/cutting footage to wipe out the truth to push their agenda. But liberals just watch it and assume it must be true because liberals never lie and are never biased, apparently. You don't need "source studies" to see this. Just go out and live life and you'll witness it. Why is it that liberals will only accept something if it's "supported" by "credible" sources (sometimes, "another liberal" is all the credible sources" they need anyway). Why must they always approach things from a long list of perspectives ending in "ogical?" How about applying standard common sense without all the big words and high faluting phrases? How about accepting science and dictionary definitions all the time, not just when it suits the liberal agenda? It's no wonder I'm at a loss politically with no clue who to really get behind anymore.

Are you really going to be that naive and think that non-liberals on social media don't believe everything they see? Come on... There's literally nothing backing your statement. It's nothing but a clear attack based on a narrative made from you.

Also, you didn't even respond to my clear statement. You have to give sources. You can't blanket liberals to make a narrative without any credible source and then right away complain about how liberals make nonsense. It's hypocritical and a poor way to make any length of an argument.

[Benji 20,113]

27 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I'm not saying that every liberal thinks this way. But a lot do, now more than ever. Say what you want about conservatives, but a lot of them are all about citing their sources. I've seen too much liberal media where no sources are cited but we're just supposed to take their bizarre "findings" at face value. Liberals of today are notorious for just accepting whatever mumbo jumbo comes out the mouth of another liberal without actually pausing to see if what they're saying has any truth or so much as pauses to go: "hold on, that doesn't sound right." Even liberal news channels have been altering/cutting footage to wipe out the truth to push their agenda. But liberals just watch it and assume it must be true because liberals never lie and are never biased, apparently. You don't need "source studies" to see this. Just go out and live life and you'll witness it. Why is it that liberals will only accept something if it's "supported" by "credible" sources (sometimes, "another liberal" is all the credible sources" they need anyway). Why must they always approach things from a long list of perspectives ending in "ogical?" How about applying standard common sense without all the big words and high faluting phrases? How about accepting science and dictionary definitions all the time, not just when it suits the liberal agenda? It's no wonder I'm at a loss politically with no clue who to really get behind anymore.

I don't need "sources" to justify someone doing what makes them happy if it doesn't hurt anyone else.  If someone is going to try and tear that down for someone, you better actually have some evidence as to why they shouldn't be doing what makes them happy.

I think you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations. 

[Benji 20,113]

30 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

How about applying standard common sense without all the big words and high faluting phrases?

 

 

[StrawberryBlond 14,898]

By the way, everyone, I was following this story online and I looked through the comment section and saw 2 separate people claiming that they went to school with Sam and can confirm he's lying about this for publicity and attention. I didn't notice the first time I read it that Sam claimed that he wore make up, false eyelashes, Doc Martens, leggings and long fur coats to school. I thought he just meant in general, but no, he said he went to school like this. Most British schools require uniforms, some of which even cover what coat you wear (not even denim jackets are allowed at many schools) and a lot of schools also don't allow make up. Sure enough, both these people claimed that Sam never wore such things to school and as they went to a strict Catholic school, uniform restrictions were paramount and anyone who came in wearing make up was either told to wash it off or sent home. They said that Sam never dressed like this - "quite the opposite, actually." And yeah, I don't know of any British Catholic school that allows its students to wear the attire and make up he was describing.

All in all, it sounds like he's highly exaggerating to jump on a bandwagon. And if he felt just as much female as he did male, he would be showing his feminine side a good 50% of the time but no, whenever he's performing or in an interview or at an awards show, he's either in jeans and a t-shirt or a suit with no make up on. So, what's the truth, Sam? Also, "feeling like a woman" is about a whole lot more than wearing a dress and make up. As a woman, I can clarify that most genuinely.

20 hours ago, ZacharyMark said:

Huh? 

I never said anything about conservatives...

And there's literally no source of credible study that backs up your claim.

"we're just supposed to take their bizarre 'findings' at face value" That's you trying to make up a narrative and contradict your previous statement.

This isn't a liberal issue. This issue can literally be found anywhere you look no matter the person. 

I brought up conservatives to point out that a lot of liberals are guilty of the same crimes they always vilify conservatives for (automatically believing everything they hear from other liberals, only trusting liberal news sources, arguing the validity of facts and statistics if they don't support a liberal viewpoint, using any excuse to push a liberal agenda, defending other liberals unquestionably, etc). You don't need a "credible study" to back up this claim. You can't get studies to do with this stuff anyway. If you want to see it, just live life and look at liberal media (with a critical eye) and you'll witness it. I used to be a traditional liberal who never trusted conservatives and labelled them as out-of-touch people with close-minded viewpoints. Then I got a bit older and realised how limited this view was and how liberals were guilty of the same things in reverse and could really rival the conservatives when it came to refusing to listen, being arrogant and refusing to acknowledge facts that they didn't like. I'm not making up any narratives or contradicting myself, you're just struggling to accept what I'm saying. And I never said that it's just liberals who suffer from this. I'm saying exactly what you're saying - every group can be guilty of this. And that's why liberals need to stop acting that they're immune to it.

20 hours ago, ZacharyMark said:

Are you really going to be that naive and think that non-liberals on social media don't believe everything they see? Come on... There's literally nothing backing your statement. It's nothing but a clear attack based on a narrative made from you.

Also, you didn't even respond to my clear statement. You have to give sources. You can't blanket liberals to make a narrative without any credible source and then right away complain about how liberals make nonsense. It's hypocritical and a poor way to make any length of an argument.

I was just saying above how every group does it to some extent. But every group also thinks they don't do it. It's a natural thing to refuse to look inward but we've got to try harder to do it. I'm not attacking, I'm not giving a narrative, I'm just being critical towards my own. Blasphemy, I know.

You weren't making it clear what you wanted me to provide sources on. The idea of whether gender queer was a real thing or my critique of liberals. For the first one, there is no scientific proof that gender queer or any of these other "genders" is genuine, it's an undiscovered realm that science hasn't looked at yet. And as for my critique of liberals, well, you just need to search "liberal media lies" online, but Blaire White's top ten round-up will get you started. And don't just glance over it because she's not liberal, she looks at each case from a completely non-biased viewpoint (#1, #5, #6, #7, #8 and #9 are the most shocking):

I wasn't trying to blanket all liberals, I just said a lot of them suffer from certain problems that they think they don't have. Maybe provide sources of your own before you criticise me. As you'll also have seen from my paragraph before my replies, I've exposed how Sam is likely lying about the extent of his clothing choices for publicity and attention.

20 hours ago, Benji said:

I don't need "sources" to justify someone doing what makes them happy if it doesn't hurt anyone else.  If someone is going to try and tear that down for someone, you better actually have some evidence as to why they shouldn't be doing what makes them happy.

I think you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations. 

I never said he can't do what makes him happy, I just disagreed that gender queer is real. Science hasn't backed it as of yet, nor has it backed any of these countless other "genders" that have come to light. Personality and preferences are not the same thing as gender identity and I think that's what's being confused here.

And I didn't make sweeping generalisations.

20 hours ago, Benji said:

 

 

How is what I'm saying ironic? The longest word/high faluting phrase I used was probably "definition." As opposed to other people on this thread coming away with stuff like "psychological," "sociological" and "anthropological."

[scallywally 626]

On ‎23‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 11:02 AM, FameHookah said:

ikr? im 25... he looks 40 and very gaunt x.x i love daddies but he's a no no for me 😶

You know its 2017 and youre judging people on looks? OMG.

It must be lucky to look like Nick Jonas in real life. With that attitude even if you did I wouldn't touch you with a barge pole either.

[scallywally 626]

12 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

By the way, everyone, I was following this story online and I looked through the comment section and saw 2 separate people claiming that they went to school with Sam and can confirm he's lying about this for publicity and attention. I didn't notice the first time I read it that Sam claimed that he wore make up, false eyelashes, Doc Martens, leggings and long fur coats to school. I thought he just meant in general, but no, he said he went to school like this. Most British schools require uniforms, some of which even cover what coat you wear (not even denim jackets are allowed at many schools) and a lot of schools also don't allow make up. Sure enough, both these people claimed that Sam never wore such things to school and as they went to a strict Catholic school, uniform restrictions were paramount and anyone who came in wearing make up was either told to wash it off or sent home. They said that Sam never dressed like this - "quite the opposite, actually." And yeah, I don't know of any British Catholic school that allows its students to wear the attire and make up he was describing.

All in all, it sounds like he's highly exaggerating to jump on a bandwagon. And if he felt just as much female as he did male, he would be showing his feminine side a good 50% of the time but no, whenever he's performing or in an interview or at an awards show, he's either in jeans and a t-shirt or a suit with no make up on. So, what's the truth, Sam? Also, "feeling like a woman" is about a whole lot more than wearing a dress and make up. As a woman, I can clarify that most genuinely.

I brought up conservatives to point out that a lot of liberals are guilty of the same crimes they always vilify conservatives for (automatically believing everything they hear from other liberals, only trusting liberal news sources, arguing the validity of facts and statistics if they don't support a liberal viewpoint, using any excuse to push a liberal agenda, defending other liberals unquestionably, etc). You don't need a "credible study" to back up this claim. You can't get studies to do with this stuff anyway. If you want to see it, just live life and look at liberal media (with a critical eye) and you'll witness it. I used to be a traditional liberal who never trusted conservatives and labelled them as out-of-touch people with close-minded viewpoints. Then I got a bit older and realised how limited this view was and how liberals were guilty of the same things in reverse and could really rival the conservatives when it came to refusing to listen, being arrogant and refusing to acknowledge facts that they didn't like. I'm not making up any narratives or contradicting myself, you're just struggling to accept what I'm saying. And I never said that it's just liberals who suffer from this. I'm saying exactly what you're saying - every group can be guilty of this. And that's why liberals need to stop acting that they're immune to it.

I was just saying above how every group does it to some extent. But every group also thinks they don't do it. It's a natural thing to refuse to look inward but we've got to try harder to do it. I'm not attacking, I'm not giving a narrative, I'm just being critical towards my own. Blasphemy, I know.

You weren't making it clear what you wanted me to provide sources on. The idea of whether gender queer was a real thing or my critique of liberals. For the first one, there is no scientific proof that gender queer or any of these other "genders" is genuine, it's an undiscovered realm that science hasn't looked at yet. And as for my critique of liberals, well, you just need to search "liberal media lies" online, but Blaire White's top ten round-up will get you started. And don't just glance over it because she's not liberal, she looks at each case from a completely non-biased viewpoint (#1, #5, #6, #7, #8 and #9 are the most shocking):

I wasn't trying to blanket all liberals, I just said a lot of them suffer from certain problems that they think they don't have. Maybe provide sources of your own before you criticise me. As you'll also have seen from my paragraph before my replies, I've exposed how Sam is likely lying about the extent of his clothing choices for publicity and attention.

I never said he can't do what makes him happy, I just disagreed that gender queer is real. Science hasn't backed it as of yet, nor has it backed any of these countless other "genders" that have come to light. Personality and preferences are not the same thing as gender identity and I think that's what's being confused here.

And I didn't make sweeping generalisations.

How is what I'm saying ironic? The longest word/high faluting phrase I used was probably "definition." As opposed to other people on this thread coming away with stuff like "psychological," "sociological" and "anthropological."

You can wear what you like after your GCSE's at 15/16. Also what 'bandwagon?' I think for publicity he would say the opposite not try and get a minority to buy his music but the masses.

You are trying to degrade someone for no reason. That's bullying.

[Pharamon 6,839]

On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎22 at 10:06 PM, Saint Laurent said:

You're wrong actually, there are only 2 sexes, but many genders and many sexualities. 

This sentence is the true cancer of our times... 

[Pharamon 6,839]

On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎22 at 10:07 PM, M Monstre said:

Gender and sex are two different things. Gender is like a spectrum, like sexuality. There is male, female, and then there are people in between who don't necessarily identify as either (or they can sometimes identify as both).

Sex has to do with biology. There are two sexes: male and female. There are intersex people, but that isn't a third sex.

BELONEY... there is a gay man a gay woman a bisexual man a bisexual woman and hetero male and female... The rest is PERSONALITY. OH im attracted to intelligence imma call myself hmm... sapiosexual... wait no I dont like short guys so uh hmmm im longosexual...yeah ****ing right.

[rpggal 332]

On 10/23/2017 at 1:32 PM, StrawberryBlond said:

It never fails to amaze me how terms like this did not exist a few years back and now all these people are coming out the woodwork defining themselves as gender-nonconforming in some way. It just suggests a bandwagon approach as people are so low on self-esteem that they feel they have to join up to a group and give themselves a label to make them feel accepted. If Sam wants to dress in "female" clothes, that doesn't necessarily make him any less of a man. My cousin crossdresses and assumes a female name when he does so but that has never changed his gender identity. He believes that clothes are just clothes and everyone should be allowed to wear what they want without anyone assuming anything about them. He has a girlfriend and is perfectly happy dressing "like a man" most of the time. There are also straight male drag queens who are married with children. The thing is, clothing is just fabric. It doesn't mean anything, we have put a gender identity onto it. Why can't you just wear whatever you want without thinking that it somehow changes your gender identity? How you choose to dress doesn't make you any less of a man or woman, if it's just the superficial notion of dress that we're talking about. Wanting to dress in women's clothes does not mean you're automatically identifying as a woman in any way. You just like dressing in women's clothes. It's that simple, stop trying to complicate things.

Roaming Millenial did a great video about this idea and her views on gender identity are so much more progressive that the very limiting and ironically outdated SJW view of it. The whole video's good but, for the sake of this particular topic, watch 3:04-4:07 in particular:

 

While some YouTubers perhaps aren't the most educated examples, if they've lived with being trans and the concept of being confused about their gender, they are as good a source as any in my book. I'll pay more attention to people who have lived it as opposed to someone who's merely studied it from an outside perspective. I don't think that being "educated" is the only thing that should give you grounds to be listened to in these situations. While I'm not the biggest fans of these people and can understand why their level of close-mindedness can be problematic, it doesn't take away how right they are about some things. I think even the worst people can be right. Just because I'm a liberal doesn't mean that I shut out any and all conservative or alternative viewpoint. It's actually a big part of my mission to hear all sides of a debate in order to formulate a truly coherent opinion. When you won't listen to certain people just because they sometimes say things you don't agree with or don't have the same political view as you, your opinion will always be limited and you'll struggle to converse with people. These people aren't always ignorant about everything. They sometimes just acknowledge the facts that the SJWs don't know about/want to silence.

Trust me, I'm critical of everyone I look up and trust for information. I do that to those on my own side as well, which a lot of liberals fail to do. I'm afraid that a lot of what you're describing about only trusting "educated" and "reputable" sources just sounds like classism. Facts are facts, logic is logic, I don't really care who it's coming from. I support the people who are speaking sense and you don't have to have a university degree or be employed at Buzzfeed to do that.

The claim you are making is empirical and absolutely needs a citation if you expect anyone  to believe you. Your claim is extremely easy to design an experiment around, since it is an observable, quantifiable fact whether and out of how many claims a liberal provides a source. I'm honestly baffled how you think that would in any way be "impossible to study." Just like we can measure the frequency of claims that are lies per politician, we could easily do the same for media members, general Facebook users (as all of that data is collected and sold), Twitter users, etc. that are liberals, then do statistical analysis. It's really very simple.

The fact that you would insist that something that could easily be studied by hard science should instead be studied by merely "looking with a critical eye," indicates that you do not understand the importance of science and statistical analysis in having an accurate world view. "Looking with a critical eye," without collecting data and doing statistical analysis, is literally the worst possible method of coming to empirical conclusions available. If that is what our society used as the basis of our established "facts," we would still be living in ancient Greece where the only "scientists" were philosophers and they believed objects fell to the ground because they wanted to. 

Science has shown that humans (including you) are fundamentally irrational beings with thousands of biases, logical fallacies, and heuristics operating at any given time. A human mind is not just bad at, but fundamentally incapable of coming to rational, evidence-based conclusions without using an outside system of analysis like data collection and statistical analysis. If you did not write down each of your observations, control for the right variables, and apply statistical analysis, it's not just unlikely that your brain would have done this mental work for you unconsciously, it's quite literally impossible. If you did happen to come to the right conclusion about your observation it would be by sheer chance. This has all been demonstrated ad nauseum.

If you really care about thinking critically, it is not good enough to believe your brain alone. It wasn't designed by evolution to do that, and based on your lack of ability to design or even imagine possible the very simple experiment for your empirical claim, and your implication that just looking at evidence "critically" (by which you mean with no statistical analysis so I literally don't even know what you mean by the word) can be sufficient proof for a claim, it is is apparent that it hasn't been trained to do that either. To truly think critically is to acknowledge that your own empirical beliefs are worthless unless you have controlled for all confounding variables, collected data systematically without sampling bias, and used statistical analysis to interpret the data for conclusions and limitations of the data. Anecdotes are not evidence. They never will be. Until then you're just another liberal making an empirical claim about their subjective experience without a proper source or evidence. 

[REALITY 77,122]

6 hours ago, Skrill said:

BELONEY... there is a gay man a gay woman a bisexual man a bisexual woman and hetero male and female... The rest is PERSONALITY. OH im attracted to intelligence imma call myself hmm... sapiosexual... wait no I dont like short guys so uh hmmm im longosexual...yeah ****ing right.

So is there no such thing as a transgender man or transgender woman? Because you've got LGB, but no T.

Gender is how some identifies, it has nothing to do with who they're attracted to. You're missing the point. Gender and sex are different, I'm talking about how gender is how someone identifies themselves. You can biologically be a male, but you can identify as a female, you can biologically be a female and identify as a male. You can also biologically  be a man or a woman, but be genderfluid/genderqueer. This has **** do with sexuality. 

[Pharamon 6,839]

1 hour ago, M Monstre said:

So is there no such thing as a transgender man or transgender woman? Because you've got LGB, but no T.

Gender is how some identifies, it has nothing to do with who they're attracted to. You're missing the point. Gender and sex are different, I'm talking about how gender is how someone identifies themselves. You can biologically be a male, but you can identify as a female, you can biologically be a female and identify as a male. You can also biologically  be a man or a woman, but be genderfluid/genderqueer. This has **** do with sexuality. 

oh yeah sorry I was in a rush and I forgot about transgender people xD 

[Saint Laurent 4,862]

8 hours ago, Skrill said:

This sentence is the true cancer of our times... 

Who are you to tell somebody what their gender is though? Who do you think you are?

Ignorance manifests in the strangest places sometimes.

[StrawberryBlond 14,898]

14 hours ago, scallywally said:

You can wear what you like after your GCSE's at 15/16. Also what 'bandwagon?' I think for publicity he would say the opposite not try and get a minority to buy his music but the masses.

You are trying to degrade someone for no reason. That's bullying.

I can't speak for English schools for this but that's certainly not the case in Scotland. From what I've seen, schools all over Britain require you to wear a uniform your entire school life. However, England does have the concept of sixth form college which is basically like a dry run of university, so you're allowed to wear what you want. But as some people who'd been to school with him said, he never wore stuff like this. And when I say bandwagon, I mean the "gender nonconforming" trend as of late. It's now all the rage to claim that you're not completely cisgender, that you identify as multiple genders or none at all. Because this idea has taken off, its led people who were perfectly comfortable with who they were to claim that they're now something else and are in a rush to put a label on themselves, it's like peer pressure. And some are definitely just doing it for attention and to be cool and edgy. Appealing to the SJW market is big business now. Sure, it's a polarising business plan but there's a lot of people out there who will now be drawn to Sam just for the reason that he is different from everyone else now. It's shallow, but that's just how things work. The gay community got majorly interested in him after he came out and admitted his whole debut album was about a guy. So, while appealing to niche markets may seem risky, it's actually very lucrative. So many female artists lied/exaggerated about being bi when they started out after Gaga made it popular to confess this sort of thing. The record labels told them to do it to reel in the LGBT community as well as straight males who were turned on by the thought of 2 girls together but liked knowing that they still had a chance.

I'm not degrading him for no reason, I'm making valid criticism of something very real. I would never bully someone, by the way. He's a celebrity, he's put himself out there to be judged. It's not the same thing.

7 hours ago, rpggal said:

The claim you are making is empirical and absolutely needs a citation if you expect anyone  to believe you. Your claim is extremely easy to design an experiment around, since it is an observable, quantifiable fact whether and out of how many claims a liberal provides a source. I'm honestly baffled how you think that would in any way be "impossible to study." Just like we can measure the frequency of claims that are lies per politician, we could easily do the same for media members, general Facebook users (as all of that data is collected and sold), Twitter users, etc. that are liberals, then do statistical analysis. It's really very simple.

The fact that you would insist that something that could easily be studied by hard science should instead be studied by merely "looking with a critical eye," indicates that you do not understand the importance of science and statistical analysis in having an accurate world view. "Looking with a critical eye," without collecting data and doing statistical analysis, is literally the worst possible method of coming to empirical conclusions available. If that is what our society used as the basis of our established "facts," we would still be living in ancient Greece where the only "scientists" were philosophers and they believed objects fell to the ground because they wanted to. 

Science has shown that humans (including you) are fundamentally irrational beings with thousands of biases, logical fallacies, and heuristics operating at any given time. A human mind is not just bad at, but fundamentally incapable of coming to rational, evidence-based conclusions without using an outside system of analysis like data collection and statistical analysis. If you did not write down each of your observations, control for the right variables, and apply statistical analysis, it's not just unlikely that your brain would have done this mental work for you unconsciously, it's quite literally impossible. If you did happen to come to the right conclusion about your observation it would be by sheer chance. This has all been demonstrated ad nauseum.

If you really care about thinking critically, it is not good enough to believe your brain alone. It wasn't designed by evolution to do that, and based on your lack of ability to design or even imagine possible the very simple experiment for your empirical claim, and your implication that just looking at evidence "critically" (by which you mean with no statistical analysis so I literally don't even know what you mean by the word) can be sufficient proof for a claim, it is is apparent that it hasn't been trained to do that either. To truly think critically is to acknowledge that your own empirical beliefs are worthless unless you have controlled for all confounding variables, collected data systematically without sampling bias, and used statistical analysis to interpret the data for conclusions and limitations of the data. Anecdotes are not evidence. They never will be. Until then you're just another liberal making an empirical claim about their subjective experience without a proper source or evidence. 

I really don't know what to say to all this. All the jargon just put me right off. Try speaking normally. You can't find every single liberal online and look at every time they cite or don't cite a source. That's just common sense. I'm just asking you to live life and observe liberals. You don't have to carry out studies.

When I said "look with a critical eye," I wasn't throwing out the concept of science and statistical analysis, just asking people to observe. I don't see any liberals calling for studies on whether or not conservatives always provide sources or not, they just assume that conservatives are always wrong, they don't need studies for that. Funny, huh?

I honestly don't really understand what you're asking here. And I've been to university. I'm not going to conduct studies of my own, I don't have the time and no one's paying me. You don't have to go to that extent to criticise your own. Just act normally. The fact that liberals gets so defensive when their way of life is questioned is proof that there's a severe lack of inward thinking involved. It's a self-centeredness superiority complex that needs seen to.

[Pacify Him 9,073]

Genderqueer? More like I want to dress as either gender but labels make me special 

[scallywally 626]

1 hour ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I can't speak for English schools for this but that's certainly not the case in Scotland. From what I've seen, schools all over Britain require you to wear a uniform your entire school life. However, England does have the concept of sixth form college which is basically like a dry run of university, so you're allowed to wear what you want. But as some people who'd been to school with him said, he never wore stuff like this. And when I say bandwagon, I mean the "gender nonconforming" trend as of late. It's now all the rage to claim that you're not completely cisgender, that you identify as multiple genders or none at all. Because this idea has taken off, its led people who were perfectly comfortable with who they were to claim that they're now something else and are in a rush to put a label on themselves, it's like peer pressure. And some are definitely just doing it for attention and to be cool and edgy. Appealing to the SJW market is big business now. Sure, it's a polarising business plan but there's a lot of people out there who will now be drawn to Sam just for the reason that he is different from everyone else now. It's shallow, but that's just how things work. The gay community got majorly interested in him after he came out and admitted his whole debut album was about a guy. So, while appealing to niche markets may seem risky, it's actually very lucrative. So many female artists lied/exaggerated about being bi when they started out after Gaga made it popular to confess this sort of thing. The record labels told them to do it to reel in the LGBT community as well as straight males who were turned on by the thought of 2 girls together but liked knowing that they still had a chance.

I'm not degrading him for no reason, I'm making valid criticism of something very real. I would never bully someone, by the way. He's a celebrity, he's put himself out there to be judged. It's not the same thing.

I really don't know what to say to all this. All the jargon just put me right off. Try speaking normally. You can't find every single liberal online and look at every time they cite or don't cite a source. That's just common sense. I'm just asking you to live life and observe liberals. You don't have to carry out studies.

When I said "look with a critical eye," I wasn't throwing out the concept of science and statistical analysis, just asking people to observe. I don't see any liberals calling for studies on whether or not conservatives always provide sources or not, they just assume that conservatives are always wrong, they don't need studies for that. Funny, huh?

I honestly don't really understand what you're asking here. And I've been to university. I'm not going to conduct studies of my own, I don't have the time and no one's paying me. You don't have to go to that extent to criticise your own. Just act normally. The fact that liberals gets so defensive when their way of life is questioned is proof that there's a severe lack of inward thinking involved. It's a self-centeredness superiority complex that needs seen to.

You are deluded?!! oh my god. What backwards town are you from? The funny thing is you believe what you are saying is true.

Firstly you compare your own Scottish agenda and then you think Gaga made to say that sortve thing popular?? ****, have you never heard of Marlene Dietich, David Bowie, Grace Jones, Madonna, Annie Lennox, Boy George, Marilyn, Prince?????

You are a lost cause. I love the fact you added that you have been to Uni. That's what Trump says everytime somebody calls him stupid. You say you have found facts opposite to what Sam said without showing any proof then you say no one is going to pay you for doing studies of your own. (What to get a grasp of real life? You shouldn't need to be paid to learn how the world works)

Ask for your student loan back. Waste of money.

None of you agreeing or putting down this are Gaga fans, or brain dead and don't listen to a word she says.