Page 4 of 6

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 10 October 2021, 16:39
by katzgar
its complicated. The shrink world considered homosexuality a mental illness not too long ago so many LGBTQ dismess them. ACE people find hypersexual gays off putting, some times enen disgusting. I see alot of hate in the gay community for ACE and trans people and vice versa.

[Deleted]

Unread postPosted: 13 October 2021, 18:52
by Eryx
PostThis post was deleted by Eryx on 13 October 2021, 18:52.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 13 October 2021, 19:20
by Eryx
ThatNomad wrote:I fully understood where you were coming from. I've honestly experienced much the same. Hell I've even experienced it as an actual gay man who was once an much more vocal proponent for gay rights. I've had people tell me since I "try so hard to pass for a straight man", which was utterly baffling since I've never been shy with the fact that I'm out and proud, I need to leave the activism to those who are more willing to risk things. All because I am naturally a more masculine guy who dresses like a regular dude on the street, and don't really keep up with mainstream gay culture. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that I will support individual people in their efforts, but I'm pretty much completely done with groups. They tend to devolve into reactionary bullshit far too quickly and will decry you as false, unfit, or even destructive to their cause if you don't toe the line just how they see fit, or even if you do, but they feel a certain way about you.
I could have never been more succint.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 13 October 2021, 21:32
by pozzie
When it comes to the rights of others - groups for which I don't self-identify as a member - I think the best approach is 1) to shut up and listen and when appropriate 2) ask, "How can I help?" If they say, "Go away," so be it.

The last thing any minority oppressed group needs is someone representing the oppressors telling them what to do. It's their fight, they need to figure out how they want to fight for their right at the table. The best thing others can do is get out of their way.

Okay, while it reads more than a bit sexist in today's climate, I still defer to Malcolm X on this one, "Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it."

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 14 October 2021, 04:12
by PopTart
pozboro wrote:When it comes to the rights of others - groups for which I don't self-identify as a member - I think the best approach is 1) to shut up and listen and when appropriate 2) ask, "How can I help?" If they say, "Go away," so be it.

The last thing any minority oppressed group needs is someone representing the oppressors telling them what to do. It's their fight, they need to figure out how they want to fight for their right at the table. The best thing others can do is get out of their way.

Okay, while it reads more than a bit sexist in today's climate, I still defer to Malcolm X on this one, "Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it."

While I agree with much of what you say in principle, the problem is that, in practice, going away, isn't really an option in a, so thoroughly integrated, multicultural society, when the activists in question are feeling in a revolutionary mood. We are after all, all in the same boat.

And identitarian politics and activism have stoked a revolutionary bent, inspired by various forms of applied post modernist theory. And supported by a revolutionary element in the various race, sex and gender industries.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 14 October 2021, 04:35
by PopTart
I mean, I've witnessed conflicts and issues, endemic to the US, being imported here to the UK. Where their applicability isn't the same. Much as Eryx has in Brazil.

Take the race issue for example.

It makes sense that in the US, with it's history of slavery and segregation and it's Sizeable population of people of African American descent and certain disparities, between them and other Americans, that many of the unresolved race issues exist.

But I see the same racial issues being imported here were they aren't as relevant. I'm not suggesting racism does exist here, it exists everywhere and I'm one of those that resents the belief that all white people are inherently more racist than anyone else. But we never had segregation and we never had a huge population of exslaves and their descendants to accommodate. The ethnic population in the UK was very small. Only 4% of the population here is black. We understandly don't have the same social issues. Yet the conflation is very real and not at all helpful.

But activism is stirring up these issues, even when they aren't applicable or find different expressions here than in the US. Stoking conflict and intergroup hostility, where, by and large there wasn't any before.

I get why alot of us, no longer look fondly at activists, as people fighting a good fight and now look on with scepticism and mistrust. They seem to have an entirely self serving agenda. Their radicalism has made them not only unsympathetic, but exclusionary of anyone outside of their group.

Activism used to be about inclusion, about being heard. Now it's about who you are and what that means for how much you can say before having to be quiet. It's exclusive and it's about silencing plurality of thought, in favour of in-group orthodoxy.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 14 October 2021, 04:51
by Derek
The UK has an even more terrible history of racism and segregation if you count the entire British Empire. There was that time you tried to make an entire subcontinent your serfs. What you have going for you is a relatively restrained police force and no overincarceration contributing to the creation of permanent criminal underclass. Thank god you lot had the sense to cut and run instead of staying mired somewhere on the other side of the world, ruling over people you didn't understand and whose interests you had no incentive to protect.

The broad strokes of this issue present a stultifying dilemma. On the one hand, some minorities have endured centuries of injustice which have compounded into endless cycles of pain and poverty. On the other, they don't seem very sympathetic to me, who resents the implication that I'm part of the problem. It's a real head-scratcher.

I'm in a bad mood.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 14 October 2021, 05:16
by PopTart
Derek wrote:The UK has an even more terrible history of racism and segregation if you count the entire British Empire. There was that time you tried to make an entire subcontinent your serfs. What you have going for you is a relatively restrained police force and no overincarceration contributing to the creation of permanent criminal underclass. Thank god you lot had the sense to cut and run instead of staying mired somewhere on the other side of the world, ruling over people you didn't understand and whose interests you had no incentive to protect.

The broad strokes of this issue present a stultifying dilemma. On the one hand, some minorities have endured centuries of injustice which have compounded into endless cycles of pain and poverty. On the other, they don't seem very sympathetic to me, who resents the implication that I'm part of the problem. It's a real head-scratcher.

I'm in a bad mood.
Not at home it didn't. I did nothing, I am not a representative of "my people" any more than you are of yours and I have nothing to do with empire. Ofcourse there are many who would argue that modernity was built on the backs of slavery (it wasnt) and stolen wealth (being a small part of a much larger equation that is all too often sinplified) but I have little interest in defending empire, beyond pointing out that, few common Brits lived any better than colonial subjects and some, lived far worse.

I will always refute the idea that I have inherited sin from my forefathers, for possible crimes they committed against the forefathers of other people. All the participants now being dead.

I wasn't in the market for original sin with the catholics, I don't see why I should be in a buying mood when dealing with post modernist disciples of the academy.

Your in a bad mood too? Join the club, it's become my default setting the past couple of weeks.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 14 October 2021, 05:34
by Derek
Here's a little trick. If you don't think you're part of the problem, then don't take it that way. If you understand history, then you can understand the perspective of aggrieved groups without feeling personally targeted. You can understand the rhetoric without making the entire issue about yourself.

I guess I'll repeat what I said earlier in this thread, the thing about the process of divorcing meaning from history as a way to justify one's antipathy. Lots of activists are annoying. Many aren't. Every movement that has ever existed has contained the full gamut of human foibles. What I keep seeing in this thread is the cherrypicked construction of a narrative that demands the least possible of our consciences. Enormously complex issues with far-reaching consequences boiled down to personal interactions and petty resentments. No history, no politics, no big picture, just annoying people on both sides. You say
Activism used to be about inclusion, about being heard. Now it's about who you are and what that means for how much you can say before having to be quiet. It's exclusive and it's about silencing plurality of thought, in favour of in-group orthodoxy.

And to that, I'd say... which activists? What are their names? What do they believe and what do they want? I don't think it matters. It's about reducing everything to whatever asks the least of us.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 14 October 2021, 13:38
by poolerboy0077
Derek wrote:If you don't think you're part of the problem, then don't take it that way.

That’s very true, although you must admit that it’s sort of ironic that the very people who rail against prejudice tend to frame their ire in generalizations. We can say that these are inconsequential but I feel like an important lesson is being lost and leaves open the possibility for, say, a black person to do a lateral move of bigotry toward another historically marginalized and persecuted minority and dismiss any accusations of bigotry by claiming to be exempt from it. This sort of shield has worked great in the wake of attacks against the Asian elderly.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 14 October 2021, 17:22
by Derek
You can criticize that behavior on its own terms. What I keep seeing is an attempt to poison the well. The argument isn't that activists are undermining their own causes, it's that because some of them are unsympathetic, all activism is bullshit. The point of this line of thought is to rationalize your indifference to the causes themselves. I think this is especially clear when the weird, dumb generalizations come out - activists are "postmodernists" and everything they want is "identity politics". It makes me think of Jordan Peterson saying he opposed gay marriage not because of any animus towards gay people, but because it was ceding to the demands of radical neo-Marxists.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 14 October 2021, 17:35
by PopTart
Derek wrote:Here's a little trick. If you don't think you're part of the problem, then don't take it that way.
I do get where you're coming from, but I think you regard such claims as being largely rhetorical, far removed from the everyday. Ideas and concepts that only really have bearing on the intellectual level and in intellectual pursuits.

But I'd say that isn't the case, because such ideas are far removed from being rheotrical devices or a lens through which to look at history, with renewed sight. They are becoming foundational in the implementation of social changes and political policy. All such things that impact everyone. I'm no longer convinced that the answer is to "just ignore it"

Derek wrote:If you understand history, then you can understand the perspective of aggrieved groups without feeling personally targeted. You can understand the rhetoric without making the entire issue about yourself.
I dunno, I feel like this is one of those instances in which, someone uses language that has clear meaning. But they say it doesn't actually mean what they said. Like when someone says "Kill all white people" and when white people are understandably shocked :wide-eyed: the speaker in question laughs half heartedly and says, "oh no, ofcourse I don't meaaan kill all white people, no, I mean, dismantle their institutions of power and decolonise our culture of their toxic, masculine influence" :toogay:
Right... It's just a rhetorical device... that everyone is very adamant about and also seems to be featuring prominently in the formulation of social and political policy. :nag:

Derek wrote:I guess I'll repeat what I said earlier in this thread, the thing about the process of divorcing meaning from history as a way to justify one's antipathy. Lots of activists are annoying. Many aren't. Every movement that has ever existed has contained the full gamut of human foibles.
So people are people? Yeah, I'm down with that.

Derek wrote:What I keep seeing in this thread is the cherrypicked construction of a narrative that demands the least possible of our consciences. Enormously complex issues with far-reaching consequences boiled down to personal interactions and petty resentments.
Funny, because that's what we have been saying :P That activism seems to have become precisely this. It is about petty grievances, personal interactions all trumping the enormously complex issues that they purport to be about. You would think that feminists would welcome male voices to their cause. But no, men are toxic, and are the source of a history of grievance for which, they must be punished. Exiled not only from the "movement" but from percieved instittions of power. Preferably from the democratic process and if God were a kick ass female, from the gene pool aswell.

Similarly, white people can't have a say in the policy around race, because white people, somewhere once had policies that weren't great for people who weren't white, so they must be reminded of this historic failure and told to step aside, be it in the race debate or even in pursuit of job vacancies.

Activism is about grievance and it is about punishment and retribution. It's no longer about alleviating suffering, but about inflicting it on someone else.


Derek wrote:No history, no politics, no big picture, just annoying people on both sides
Totally agree with this, sure. But one side is the "revolutionary" actor and one side is the "reactionary" actor. I'll let you decide which one is which in my estimation.

Derek wrote:You say
Activism used to be about inclusion, about being heard. Now it's about who you are and what that means for how much you can say before having to be quiet. It's exclusive and it's about silencing plurality of thought, in favour of in-group orthodoxy.

And to that, I'd say... which activists? What are their names? What do they believe and what do they want? I don't think it matters. It's about reducing everything to whatever asks the least of us.
Stonewall, Stonewall and those that were part of it, stood for something and they were decent people. Few amongst them would have turned aside straight male supporters. They were true advocates of inclusion, for gay people being afforded the same rights, liberties and privileges as everyone else. At no one elses detriment. They recognised the value in having people fight for their cause, who were diverse in opinion and identity. You know what? They succeeded!

And they didn't need to resort to the kind of divisive identity politics, the radical, adversarial, exclusionary activism that engenders todays activism (and sadly todays Stonewall, redundant as it is here in the west, hard to fight for equal rights when you have them)

The unvarnished reality is, that it was traditional liberalism, with it's concepts of universal liberty and rights under the law, irregardless of ones identity or social group, that presided over the greatest advances of the various rights movements in human history, not the current ages radical identity based, grievance focused, activism, which has done more to undo liberalisms successes, than any action of the right. That really does say something.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 14 October 2021, 17:37
by poolerboy0077
Derek wrote:The argument isn't that activists are undermining their own causes, it's that because some of them are unsympathetic, all activism is bullshit.

Was it, though? I recall Claudio just saying he wasn’t feeling a desire to be openly active in such circles due to the particular climate while still being supportive in the underlying causes.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 14 October 2021, 18:40
by Derek
poolerboy0077 wrote:
Derek wrote:The argument isn't that activists are undermining their own causes, it's that because some of them are unsympathetic, all activism is bullshit.

Was it, though? I recall Claudio just saying he wasn’t feeling a desire to be openly active in such circles due to the particular climate while still being supportive in the underlying causes.

I'm not talking about Claudio. There's plenty of nonsense in this thread.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 14 October 2021, 18:41
by PopTart
poolerboy0077 wrote:
Derek wrote:The argument isn't that activists are undermining their own causes, it's that because some of them are unsympathetic, all activism is bullshit.

Was it, though? I recall Claudio just saying he wasn’t feeling a desire to be openly active in such circles due to the particular climate while still being supportive in the underlying causes.

The causes themselves are just and worthwhile. It's the approach that has become something else. I'm reluctant to say that activism has been hijacked, because it makes it sound like a concerted and intentional effort. I do believe that there is a radical driving element within activism that sees activism and it's identity based focus as a useful vehicle for driving radical social change. These are the intellectually inspired people, who are ardent proponents of philosophies stemming from post modernism. Inclusing critical race theory, gender theory and queer theory.

I think this coincides with plenty of white, middle class, guilt laden people, eager to flagellate themselves in exculpatory endeavours to salve their egos and still others who recognise the opportunity to garner moral currency in a society that places much value on being seen to support minority rights.

Such that activisms for a given group, no longer seems to about equality under the law, it no longer always seems to be about the group it claims to be about, but instead is about wider grievances and political ambitions and not being about equality, it is free to conduct itself in iniquitous ways.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 14 October 2021, 18:48
by PopTart
Derek wrote:
poolerboy0077 wrote:
Derek wrote:The argument isn't that activists are undermining their own causes, it's that because some of them are unsympathetic, all activism is bullshit.

Was it, though? I recall Claudio just saying he wasn’t feeling a desire to be openly active in such circles due to the particular climate while still being supportive in the underlying causes.

I'm not talking about Claudio. There's plenty of nonsense in this thread.

Likely meaning me,
Derek wrote:You can criticize that behavior on its own terms. I think this is especially clear when the weird, dumb generalizations come out - activists are "postmodernists" and everything they want is "identity politics".
Oh yeah, definately me ;)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 14 October 2021, 22:44
by pozzie
Well, being that I live outside of Portland - you know the one, Trump sent his goon squad here because of our activists - this has been something I've had to spend plenty of time wrapping my head around. The initial protests were very focused: George Floyd's death was entirely preventable and policing institutions need to be accountable. We had protest after protest, night after night. And unlike the misguided former president chose to believe and promote, they weren't organized by a group called Antifa to bring about global anarchy.

But when we step back and look at what was happening, we saw a lot of different causes coming together and at times making similar points about how the power of the establishment wasn't working for classes of people. then came the 'counter' protests or rallies in support of the police and president and their attendant counter-protests and heavy handed police tactics and viola! you've got violence in the streets. Yes, there was also the issue of anarchists and other destructionists using the various protests as cover for mayhem, vandalism, and destruction. It was a real mess. A real mess. And we're no where recovered from it at all.

One of the suspicions that I'm increasingly comfortable accepting is these protests - and activism in general - take on a life of it's own because they are social activities and when people come together, they have this habit of using ideas, concepts, or visions to differentiate the us from the them. Half the time they - the protestors and activists from the left and the right - were going out to be with their pals and confront their opponents. So the social aspect became just as important as the underlying cause that brought them together.

But the Summer of Discontent morphed into the the Year of Rage and much of the time we didn't know who was protesting for what cause - well, other than fighting against the policing bodies, or fighting against those fighting against the police, or fighting against those fighting against those fighting against ... oh fuck it, hopefully you get a sense of the morass.

But we have to also separate the human foibles shown in great display nightly on the streets of Portland from the underlying messages. I don't doubt that many people were going out with a specific goal in mind, but part of the problem is that goal gets lost in the general cacophony of all the other goals being expressed. And thus we ended up with the "blame Antifa" campaign and activists are bad. Doesn't seem particularly helpful to paint with such broad strokes but it's easy to understand why it happens.

Part of the difficulty in po-mo activism is the concept that everyone's a leader and every voice counts. We, mainly on the left, don't have a leader - like MLK - espousing a platform and rallying the people to come out and support Plank X in Portland next weekend. Just look at what happened with the whole Occupy movement.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 16 October 2021, 22:26
by AGIS
I posted something along these lines ages ago in a forum (it could have been this one even) and got absolutely chewed for it. I feel like the issue of Feminism is way to closely tied to the LGBT movement, and I don't feel like feminisms stands for equality anymore. It's simply another work for misandry for many bitter women. Do women deserve equal rights? Yes. And they got it. Theres no rules or laws dictating one sex can do something, while another cant purely based on sex alone. Feminism isn't about equality imo. If they wanted equality, they'd have been fine with the word "egalitarian" these days. After all, thats the true center word for equality.

Ever see the movie "The Red Pill"? The director was a feminist, and she sought to "expose" men in the Mens Rights movements as bigots. Through out the production, she realized she actually agreed with them, and saw things through their eyes. She completely changed the topic, name and general nature of her documentary. Very interesting stuff.

Andrea Dwokin killed Feminism.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 16 October 2021, 22:32
by AGIS
pozboro wrote:Well, being that I live outside of Portland - you know the one, Trump sent his goon squad here because of our activists - this has been something I've had to spend plenty of time wrapping my head around. The initial protests were very focused: George Floyd's death was entirely preventable and policing institutions need to be accountable. We had protest after protest, night after night. And unlike the misguided former president chose to believe and promote, they weren't organized by a group called Antifa to bring about global anarchy.


Those guys were sent in because once you start looting stores and burning down buildings, it's no longer an "activist" event, it's a riot. I saw the exact same thing happen in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Saw the burning police cars, all lined in the streets, and all the crazyness. Then media calling it a "peaceful protest", completely ridiculous. As for Antifa, I'm assuming they're all over Portland. Those goons need to be classified as a terrorists, they literally fit the exact definition. It's just violence and hatred under the guise of anti-racism. Hatred with a pretty bow-tie. They cause more problems than anyone else. Not to mention many of them are admitted Communist, which is just absolutely horrific.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postPosted: 16 October 2021, 22:38
by Derek
AGIS wrote:Andrea Dwokin killed Feminism.

How'd she do that?