The L / G / B / T divide

Discuss the news, current events, politics, etc.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby PopTart » 9 January 2022, 10:03

Derek wrote:First of all, spheres and ellipses are round.
Ahem: As adjectives the difference between spherical and round
is that spherical is (geometry) shaped like a sphere while round is circular or cylindrical; having a circular cross-section in one direction.

:P

But no, okay, I was being pedantic in reference mostly.

Derek wrote:I'm going to start helping you. This was... 907 words.
Marmadukes right, you DO need Daddy in your grindr profile :keke: Tee hee hee ::Blush, Coquettish smile:: :3

Derek wrote:Here's how I would have said it:

"You're right, the words I chose staked an indefensible claim. However, I stand by the point that compromise is sometimes the right option, and even when it's not, it may be the only viable option."
:wide-eyed: How did you do that?

outside-screen.gif


:glasses:

Derek wrote:...To which I'd say, this is a point without a purpose. Whether truth is found between two positions (or not in alignment with them at all) depends on that specific truth and on those specific positions. Rhetoric about the necessity of compromise or the righteousness of centrism is worthless if it makes no reference to what's actually in dispute.
To which I'd agree and was the point I was making. Sort of, rather badly. I don't believe that centrism is righteous mind you, just pragmatic and sensible. But I digress.

:glasses:

Derek wrote:For instance, the example of slavers and abolitionists. I brought them up to demonstrate right and wrong in a moral framework. The abolitionists weren't right because Sherman's march to the sea was a brilliant tactical move. They were right because they believed that slavery was evil and had to be ended. If you think the political crisis caused by slavery could have been handled better, by all means tell us how. But that's not the point.
Agreed. I will say, I don't feel I'm well enough informed, or have any personal experience that would make up for that lack of informedness, to weigh in on alternatives to the historic handling of slavery as a political and social crisis. But I am able to look back and recognise that the path taken, wasn't the most optimal. Armed as I am with hindsight. Hence my reluctance to commit to an authoritative opinion on the subject, I'm happy to talk about it, but I'd purely be spitballing here.

Derek wrote:This is a question of rhetoric. If someone stakes a moral claim, you respond with a moral claim of your own. You don't bog down the discussion with useless generalizations, because that's not helpful, and cynic that I am, I don't believe it's meant to be helpful. I refer you back to this statement:

I wrote:It's a method of fillibustering change you would rather not see enacted that spares you from the responsibility of articulating an actual defense of the status quo on its own terms.

and this one

I wrote:Every socially progressive campaign for human rights that is widely celebrated and accepted today was opposed in its own time by cowardly people who considered the cause to be worthy in spirit but too unpleasant and confrontational in execution.


These are the points you need to respond to. I'm making a specific accusation: that your rhetoric is useless at best and harmful at worst because to aimlessly stall is to take the side of conservative reactionaries. Tell me how what you believe is different than what was believed by the white moderates MLK complained about in his letter.
In the context of this threads topic, I guess I am arguing for the status quo, because here in the UK, gay men are now afforded all of the same rights as everyone else, under the law. Infact, I would go so far as to say, that we get preferential treatment at times, thanks to positive discrimination policies (which is something I have a problem with, as it conferes resentment in regards to our perceived advantages)

Just a couple of months back, I watched two young lads, who had came out of school, jumped on the back of an electric scooter the one at the back, arms wrapped around the one at the front and zipped over to a bus stop and when they hopped off the scooter, hugged, kissed and held hands as they waited for a bus. I felt a visceral pang on seeing this, because a part of me was so amazed that no-one even looked twice. There was heavy traffic, hundreds of other school kids around, from diverse backgrounds, bumper to bumper traffic on the road and you know what? Nobody cared. Nobody paid it any mind. No-one stared (except perhaps me!) or shouted derogatory statements or abuse. Contrary to the lamentation of some people, we have arrived. We have freedoms and acceptance, even I wouldn't have thought possible when I first came out. I could never have dreamed of such public displays of affection, going unnoticed or unremarked upon, as a young man, let alone a school age one.

But the pendulum swings. We have such rights by the grace of a receptive majority, convinced by the movement of years past, to recognise our rights. It sucks but that's how it is. Was that achieved by shaming people? I don't think it was. I think it was achieved by reminding people, that we were their sons, their daughters. Their family. We didn't make of them, our enemies, because having done so, would have made us, theirs.

The current movement, is all about making people enemies, if you don't see things their way. Take the trans movement, which is so overzealous, that it will mischaracterize the things people say, if it even sounds remotely unsupportive of the trans movement. It seeks out discrimination in even the slightest voices of dissent, it makes enemies of potential allies or converts. Once found it zeroes in for the kill. Because they are on a moral crusade to prove the righteousness of their cause.

I'm with those, that firmly believe, it doesn't help. It isn't working. On the contrary it has galvanised a far more radical pushback, than the gay rights movement of the past, ever managed to illicit. Yet what do current radical activists do? Do they reflect? Do they listen to more moderate voices counselling a change of tack? No. They double down. :shrug:

The pendulum swings and if some of the radical activists of the present day get their way, it will reach it's apogee before they achieve what they claim to desire and it will begin swinging back the other way. And we will be on the hook with them.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3779
+1s received: 2860
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Previous

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 21 guests