US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've given you the words of the people attending the event you pointed to. I've given a poster that looks down on gay people that are too "het". I have given you the historical relationships between similar movements, both ideologically and geographically. I have explained why all of the definitions you listed supported my understanding. And you claim I have zero willingness to listen. You are ignoring all of the evidence that either of us has presented in support of the narrative in your mind.
You already clearly want to be rid of problematic elements in a movement you support, pushing off certain things as fringe and wishing them away. Just take that to its conclusion and throw away all the baggage.
Hate is a strong word. Prejudice and discrimination don't need to be some form of active, intentional dislike.
What is anyone supposed to say when homosexuality is always framed in a negative? That's whether it's misrepresentation of what "pride" means to present them negatively, selective representation of the Pride festival to present them negatively, believing homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry, that they shouldn't serve in the military, they they shouldn't adopt because apparently they're unfit to raise children, that sodomy is inherently sinful, and so on.
Coming out with statements like that they are no less important in their fundamental humanity or that God loves them as much as any other human doesn't really cut it. So too will the Taliban assure us how much they respect women.
The issue here is the opposite, I would say. The slightest implication that homosexuality or the culture formed around it has something negative about it sets all of you into defense mode. Some of the negatives are inherent, and you being defensive is meaningless, a same-sex couple won't create children between them and that is a negative, but that's reality so I don't care if you accept it or not. Far more important are the things that aren't inherent, the culture and social problems.
Like, when the book This Book is Gay is getting pulled from middle school libraries, people come to its defense. Within that book is a section on losing virginity, and one of the stories is about a boy who flirted with a much older, married man until they had sex on literally the day he turned 16 (the age of consent there). That is just genuinely a story about cheating and grooming being represented as a normal way to "figure out what your preference is". That's bad.
Harvey Milk had close ties to the Jonestown massacre. He and his associates used religious cults to win elections and bolster their political career. That's bad. That's the historical place that the pride flag comes from, it comes from manipulative cult leaders. (Also, it's just genuinely ugly).
These aren't criticisms of homosexuality. Lolita also shouldn't be in middle school libraries. People with bad political connections unrelated to sex get reevaluated on them regularly. Because they are things that are gay, you are going to reflexively come to their defense and accuse me of only caring out of prejudice, but really you'll only defend them based on your perception of prejudice. If they weren't gay things we wouldn't have this conversation because we'd all agree they are terrible. That's how you identify prejudice, flip the subject of conversation and see whose opinion changes, it isn't me.
Honestly, my favorite part of all of this is that you all are so much more conservative than you're willing to admit. The defense is the insistence that its not just about sex, that there's love and romance and meaningful relationships, and that gay people are really just the same as straight people but attracted to different people. I'm sure you all believe that, I'm glad that you do, I hope that you can all make that reality. But that hasn't been true for everyone, and it's not going to be if you can't cut the ties to the weirdos. AIDS didn't spread among gay men because of homophobic prejudice, or because of God's smite, or because they were gay at all. It spread wildly among a subculture that was keen on having many, many sexual partners. It's not a criticism of homosexuality to think that's bad, they didn't do that because of same-sex attraction, they did it as part of a specific social movement that you don't have to defend, and an honest assessment of would look back at say "oh, that was a mistake".
I like to believe everyone here telling me Pride isn't really about sex can make that assessment. You can even blame the straight people if you want, say gay men acted that way only cause they were ostracized and it's not really their fault. Go ahead. But if you can recognize "oh, there were some really problematic social dynamics at play here", and you want to say there aren't anymore and it's not a weird sex thing, stop using their name and flying their flag. Like, if someone flies the Confederate flag and tells you it's not about slavery or racism, it doesn't really matter if they believe it, it only says whether the fly it out of malice or ignorance. You can insist all day that pride is only about good things, and the only question left is whether you do so from malice or ignorance, because intentionally or not, you are carrying water for historically problematic people.
Your views on homosexuality thus far are not proportionate, fair or constructive. The fact you cannot see that may indicate more about you than us.
After all, people would point to facts like the lower technological development of Africa compared to Europe, lack of great art and science produced by black people, their lower socioeconomic status in the West and studies indicating black people had lower IQ for certain conclusions. So too might they have claimed that others who disagreed with their conclusions were just defensive, oversensitive and didn't want to accept the truth.
Last edited:
Which did not match what you said about pride.
Which was irrelevant. You're not trying to prove that some of them were mean or rude. Some were, well done.
You have given a potted description of your narrow understanding of those relationships.
You simply imposed meaning onto them that categorically was not there.
You indeed have zero willingness to listen. None of this has been substantial. Some of it has been outright hallucinated, like the guff about the dictionary definition meaning things it simply did not say. Some of it has been merely irrelevant, like examples of people being rude.
All the while, you have refused to listen to the descriptions and explanations of people who are actually involved and engaged. In favour of this image you've crafted from the perspective of someone with zero experience and some enormous prejudices.
Including 95 Democrats with Jefferies leading the charge. A fucking clown show. Even if you do think Socialism is Bad, who the fuck cares? Don't you dorks have anything better to do in The House?
This is nothing more than another distraction, and meant to get a rise or give those who don't even know what socialism is. Giving the latter a nice stiffy, thinking they accomplish something.
Those are arguments used to support the idea that black people are inherently inferior, where I think we would both agree those are all caused by social or historical circumstance rather than race. If someone saw those things and felt motivated to rectify them, you would have no complaint.
I tell you that I'm criticizing aspects that are also circumstance uncaused by sexuality itself, I am being consistent. Yet you have complaint.
Are you involved at engaged in 1980, Silvanus? What you want to exist now is irrelevant when I'm telling you what was. You can claim the Confederate flag is all about southern heritage now, that doesn't change the history, which you are sticking your fingers in your ears to ignore.
On the contrary: initially you were trying to convince us of what pride means in general, arguing that my notion was one that came up within the last decade. And i was engaged with it over a decade ago.
Yet you have failed to acknowledge even the nature of pride today. You seem to want to characterise the entire thing by your notion of what it was like in the 70s and 80s.
And on that movement of the 70s and 80s, sure, neither of us have direct experience. I have experience of the movements and groups that developed from them, and have studied them at H.E. level, and you have jack shit. And we've both looked at their recorded words and actions-- but whereas i am willing to listen to those words themselves, you insist on imposing meaning to them that simply isn't there.
And since the word came into being centuries ago.
That is worse than knowing nothing, in this case, as your studies were assuredly on activism rather than history.
If the word 'pride' was understood differently centuries ago-- something you also haven't substantiated, nor even tried-- that would anyway be irrelevant to how it's understood and used today (or even in the 70s and 80s). And it would be doubly irrelevant to how we view a movement that happens to use the word. If you want to argue all modern language is wholly defined by the etymology of each word, be my guest, but it's not going to be a winning approach.
Of course: Any study that doesn't reconfirm your existing prejudices must be lying, and your own complete lack of relevant experience or engagement is perfectly sufficient to ignore or dismiss anyone who has more of them.
Last edited:
It's not a secret that academics and journalists see themselves in current times as agents of change rather than purveyors of truths.
It's not a secret that you have not the slightest idea what my study entailed, and are concluding this solely because it doesn't confirm to what you expect.
If I haven't the slightest, that's because you've failed to express it. If your education has details to dispute me, let the ideas speak for themselves, don't just declare your authority.
The so called house of cards are falling apart at the seams.
www.cnbc.com
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene will resign after fallout with Trump
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene supported a bill compelling the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files by the DOJ, putting her on the bad side of President Trump.
www.cnbc.com
I am still baffled out of my mind that the clinically insane Green turns out to be the principled and ''sane'' one here. It really shows how far the US has fallen. Its also the only respectable thing she ever did and I'll give her some props for that at leastThe so called house of cards are falling apart at the seams.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene will resign after fallout with Trump
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene supported a bill compelling the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files by the DOJ, putting her on the bad side of President Trump.
It's not hard to be "the sane one" when you're standing in a group of people desperately trying to convince everyone that raping a 15-year-old totally isn't pedophilia.
I have not declared authority; merely experience that you lack. And nor am I in any position to take you in-hand to the archival resources that study involves. I brought it up not to prompt you to simply defer, but in the hope you might recognise that other people have better engaged with the topic than you. Humility is something you clearly struggle with.
But of course, we do have access to the publicly-available materials from the pride movements of the time, some of which have already been provided. They talk about equality, human rights, an end to legal discrimination. Absolutely nothing about being "more important". But at each point, you have merely pointed to irrelevances-- like the fact people kissed in public, or that they were sometimes rude-- to substantiate your claim anyway. You're not in any position to approach materials rationally; you will force them to fit your pre-existing prejudices regardless of how tortured or stretched the rationale.
I have seen people say that she is mostly on a vendetta after Trump and co did not support her candidacy for senator and wanted to sideline her.
Not sure, if true.