#HetrosexualPrideDay
- Thread starter Parasondox
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Quite true.Phasmal said:
This whole topic just made me reflect on the fact that without Loving Vs. Virginia I would have to hide my relationship, not be able to marry the one I love and possibly be assaulted, jailed or even killed. Some of these things happened even after those laws were declared unconstitutional. These things sound an awful lot like what LGBTQ people have suffered. While I can not say I have experienced the things the LGBTQ community has I think I can see where they are coming from and can empathize.
It took Alabama until 2000 to finally repeal it's laws officially and over half a million people voted to keep those laws at that time. Previous repeal attempts failed due to a majority of people voting to keep those laws.
I was not trying to make less of what LGBTQ people have suffered. It just made me think of one group of straight people (I'm sure interracial LGBTQ have it even worse) who had plenty of that treatment as well (we got a 40 year head start of the basics of legality).
We still get stared at, people react badly in public (and this is in the northern states), you hear comments.
It also lets you see how fucking all over the place racism still is. The two of us can go in the store and one will be followed around as if they need to keep an eye on "the good silver" and the other will be treated like some kind of visiting royalty (slight exaggeration). This happens in every part of the US and in every kind of store. A true eye opener and sign of the quality of management.
lol, Not sneaky but a reeding comprehenshun failure. Having re-read I'm still not entirely sure what you meant, care to dumb it down for me?Setec Astronomy said:Either you just missed my point completely, or you're being sneaky at roughly this level:
I mentioned the Asian site because you brought up "International Fetish Day" and I noticed The Escapists/other ad services label me an Asian fetishist because I view asian porn on occasion.kurokotetsu said:
As for the hate crime statistics, I already stated I knew they'd lead that category so I'm not why why you're pointing it out to me. My main argument in all of this is being against us all separating off into little camps, playing the blame game and fighting amongst ourselves whilst the powers that be laugh at our antics...whilst nothing really changes.
That's not really what you asserted. You split it purposely now to make them seem unrelated and all true on their own. Assertation was that he can not understand how it is to not be protected due to him being rich and thus protected. It is completely false and anyone that would take a minute to look at Freeman's life can see that, me included.Thaluikhain said:
Problem being acting hostile towards people that make asshat pranks instead of directing the militant attitude toward actual threat. Antagonising somone that does at least try with "you're not trying hard enough!" all the while person next to him completely and uncontestedly does opposite of efforts and results you demand will not help you achive them.Thaluikhain said:
That's something anyone with 2 or more kids or who is responsible for managing bigger team of people understands eventually. It applies here as well.
No, it's not simple mindless labelling things as 'nazism'. I called it up as an example of how badly can end up 'justified' causes of victimized groups of people if they start to feel entitled to more than equality - in short when they turn into exact mirror image of thing they fight against. And then might take a step further. It was ment as simple fact from history to learn on, not as a deterioration.Thaluikhain said:
However you bring up a valid point for driving analogy further. The 'other side' to nazis where communists and vice versa. They did wind up one another but suprisingly victims of this conflict (regardless of who won in the particular country) where bystanders. Indifferent people who dared to not participate or mocked their 'righteous' efforts. Majority.
Freeman did not postulate 'not doing anything'. On contrary he does speak up when things are done wrong against people and their human rights (i.e. Baltimore). He spoke against 'special treatment', favourism and any form of new segragation from stand point of someone who did experience poverty and racial discrimination. I have a lot respect to a man who can tell a difference between having equality and taking 'revenge' for lack of equality. Especially that he could have personal grounds to follow the latter sentiment, yet he follows principle.Thaluikhain said:
Sure I could argue that had he failed in life he would have been bitter and follow the suit with 'equality' via compensation route. However that is denying the man higher moral grounds based on presumption. Lastly should we really follow advices of bitter failures or successful kind people (however annoying their attitude may feel to someone 'less fortunate').
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character" looks like mr Freeman lives up to Martin Luther King Jr's words and carries on his legacy. Although he preached colour-blindness, so in current 'activist' standards making him a racist had he been white. I would not bring up this american civil rights hero trying to justify anyone's actions right now. Simply because as you noticed he is dead. He did not have a chance to see how things play out. Neither with civil rights fight nor with states trying to implement socialism and communism in practice. He did not see Mugabe's reign of terror or indifference and cowerdice of Dutch soldiers in face of genocide in Srebrenica. Neither I or you can tell how that would shape him. I just hope that neither of it would break him and make give up on his dream.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
No it's don't cry 'I'm going to die!' because you got standard coke instead of light. Sure it's a problem to you and sure there could be worse situation than this. Just explain you got treated wrong (because hey unlike kids dying out of drought in Africa, you have all the possibility to do so, even if sometimes you get to hear 'f-ck off' instead of getting new coke). If you aren't complete dick about it, there's higher chance you may get a new coke... without a spit in it.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
On more serious note, I explained this in previous post.
War-like not military. Here we have conscription for males so everyone able is or was in the force, so I don't see why you bring it up. Being in military doesn't mean you've been to war which you try to imply.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
That's true what you say about nationalists to a degree (some patriots are nationalists but not extremists). Extremists/fundamentalists do act violently because they are minority and eventually they don't see any other possibility to change majority but to enforce their 'rightous' way on them.
Either way perhaps war-like wasn't a suitable choice of words. Confrontational and needlessly pathetic would be better. Talks about 'fights' and 'struggle' and 'systemic opressions'... when they live in countries offering them civil rights protection and possibility to take their case to court when it gets slighted. That's like telling that I fought a noble battle against tooth ache, suffering struggles on my way to state funded dentist... ok I took it too far the other way but you get the point I hope.
Absolutely! I should've just say be careful not to strike up a revolution where peaceful evolution is already in works.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
People ridiculing your goals and methods? Good, play along. Perhaps reflect on why they did that not just assert they are vile enemies (sexist, homophobes etc.) you need to confront.
I'm pointing toward 'outrage' over hashtag prank campaign. In my opinion counterproductive and fuelling confrontational sentiments whereas it could have been treated as nothing more than a stupid goof.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
I don't even know or care, which of 'you here' are LGBT activists. Nor it matters, since its just a label and another unnecessary division line.
One quote does not undermine what he actively preached and arguably the rhetoric for which he was shot for. Secondly, how does any of that undermine the moral pursuit of equality before the law? Whether we like it or not, the world is dominated by party organisation.Jamcie Kerbizz said:
And when it represents uniform patterns of incorrect attitudes set against a person simply for who they are? That's garbage and you know it. When you have institutional disenfranchisement written into the laws and its praxis. In 39 US states, a trans person has to consider coming out of the closet solely because their freedom of contract isn't protected in housing, education, employment and even medical care. You have government legislation that allows businesses and private individuals to perform unfair dismissal of contracts based simply on sexual preference and gender identity.
Community engagement has been a potent tactic. Perversion of equality before the law, it requires community engagement. That gives you the most chance to get a new coke.
No, but it does mean that I signed up with the explicit agreement I'd help kill for the state (actually war-like, not hyperbole). And I've seen people take that with a zeal far and beyond merely a contractual agreement of service I signed into.
Or you can just own up to your hyperbole. Please show me these 'war-like' words. I'm sure I can find more public attitudes in my living experience that outstrips it. Ones that actually advocate for hostilities far and beyond a trans activist demanding equal opportunity in housing, employment, education and access to medical care.
Failure to provide as such does violate multiple human rights articles and conditions set aside in the ICCPR.
What seems more pathetic is that people use moral relativism as if to whitewash systemic inequality. Just because it's worse in other places does not make community engagement of people bad. It's the whole reason the West isn't like those other places. After all, in living memory, the West has been just as atrocious a place to live. If you recognize systemic inequality exists, you're not moral for pointing out that atrocities happen elsewhere as a reason to stop people fighting for collective agency against that which seeks to hurt them.
But peaceful revolution requires community engagement. It is peaceful, because people are able to collectively organise and protest. If Marcos just executed people left, right and center, the PPR would have become a shooting war. You're labouring under a false idea that people demanding equality start violent revolution. It is more often the case where it is the state that overreacts to a perceived threat to its existence.
When governments overreact, that's when bodies hit the floor. We've seen this time and again. Has very little to do with blatantly homophobic/xenophobic/tranbsphobic/etc people being called out on their garbage.
And since when did internet outrage equate war? Also, what's an unnecessary division? Frankly, your arguments above prove that community engagement is a better answer. Apathy and whitewashing gets people nowhere.
Just go that extra mile and have White Pride, or whatever the fuck else. At some point you're either stubbornly missing the entire concept to make a child's point, or it's the cheapest and most transparent shield ever.
Look, if only thing you can do is to make small twists on my wording, like eg. this
Cheers.
and then argue with non existing statement/sentiment. Then we're done. If you're interested in a discussion, reply again without resorting to this nonsense, 'cause this leads nowhere.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Cheers.
I'm just saying that the point of pride parades is protection and tolerance in a world of intolerance. It's saying that there's nothing wrong with them even though their sexuality is atypical. It's just difference and not to be ashamed of like society has tried to make them.
Heterosexuality is normative. By default every parade is a straight-pride parade unless specifically designated otherwise. I've seen arguments here that people are complaining about the claim that a group needs to undergo some oppression for a pride parade to make sense and that's correct. A pride parade is a parade for something about you that society has told you that you can't have pride in. That's shameful. If you're in the vast majority then a "pride" parade is just nonsense.
The real crux of the issue isn't just that one group is having a pride parade. It's that this is being done to trivialize gay pride parades as a sort of volley back. If I believed that people were really feeling ashamed of their heterosexuality then it wouldn't seem like one group is just being lashed out at for doing something that at one time was quite brave.
Heterosexuality is normative. By default every parade is a straight-pride parade unless specifically designated otherwise. I've seen arguments here that people are complaining about the claim that a group needs to undergo some oppression for a pride parade to make sense and that's correct. A pride parade is a parade for something about you that society has told you that you can't have pride in. That's shameful. If you're in the vast majority then a "pride" parade is just nonsense.
The real crux of the issue isn't just that one group is having a pride parade. It's that this is being done to trivialize gay pride parades as a sort of volley back. If I believed that people were really feeling ashamed of their heterosexuality then it wouldn't seem like one group is just being lashed out at for doing something that at one time was quite brave.
This is utter nonsense and it's some of that progressive crap I'm tired of hearing to excuse the entitlement some of them have.Lightknight said:
Why do many kids become goths, join gangs, pretend to be gay or trans, or try to find any other culture when they happen to be straight as well?
Straight is not a tribal identity like gay has become so the idea that it's celebrated is complete and utter shit.
If people felt like it was being celebrated then they would be joining straight groups to feel included rather than feel the need to find something else.
You seem to have a disconnect with the actual situation being talked about.Gengisgame said:
First, I'm just going to point out that implying people are "joining LGBT groups to feel included" is an interesting combination of insulting and diminishing the experiences that LGBT people undergo.
Secondly, maybe the reason that "gay is a tribal identity" is because the LGBT community was forced into it? Perhaps if they had been as accepted as easily as straight people were (instead of beaten/killed/ostracized/abused/etc) there would have been no need for "tribalization" to have occurred. Other posters have tried to point out to you that the need for gay pride comes from the manner in which people have throughout history and (sadly) continue to today try to strip LGBT people of their pride and even basic human rights.
When a group of people is treated like shit due to certain characteristics(ie: LGBT), they generally band together for mutual support. Those groups will, of course, identify themselves based on said characteristics. The pride aspect comes from members deciding to embrace themselves and tell the world they aren't ashamed of it (Gay Pride).
I know exactly one person who is celebrating, and she vocally opposes gay marriage. She posted something saying "It's natural, we've been doing it for thousands of years and it makes babies #StraightPrideDay"
It is logically possible for this not to be a middle finger to gay pride, but given the timing coming right in the middle of a lot of attention being given to injustice against gay people, and the homophobic support of it, it seems very unlikely it was born of anything positive.
People easily forget how recently gay marriage was made legal, how it was made legal in a time where the majority opinion didn't support it, and how many gay people today were alive when castration was the punishment for homosexuality. Something like 42% of people in the US still believe that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Something like 25% believe gay people shouldn't be permitted to have sex. Who do you think is rallying the strongest behind "Straight pride"? It really seems like grasping at straws to assume that this occasion was meant to be anything but undermining.
It is logically possible for this not to be a middle finger to gay pride, but given the timing coming right in the middle of a lot of attention being given to injustice against gay people, and the homophobic support of it, it seems very unlikely it was born of anything positive.
People easily forget how recently gay marriage was made legal, how it was made legal in a time where the majority opinion didn't support it, and how many gay people today were alive when castration was the punishment for homosexuality. Something like 42% of people in the US still believe that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Something like 25% believe gay people shouldn't be permitted to have sex. Who do you think is rallying the strongest behind "Straight pride"? It really seems like grasping at straws to assume that this occasion was meant to be anything but undermining.
From my experiences even the occasional times when someone isn't trying to undermine LGBT pride, it seems to come from an almost child-like jealousy of "Mommy, they have one. I want one too!" Those cases result more often from ignorance rather than the malice that leads to the undermining.The Almighty Aardvark said:
1. I'm not implying, I'm stating a fact, many people join groups, especially popular groups to feel included (human nature) there is no straight club but there just like anyone else and need a group to belong to, you feeling insulted by this fact doesn't change it.Avnger said:
2. I'm not here to play the oppression game and I am not here to discuss why it's a tribal identity. It's a tribal identity, straight is not, many straight people (especially women) latch on to this group because they have none they strongly identify with. Pride exists for many reasons, all that really matters is the stated reason for attacking straight pride was pride is only for the oppressed, the reason not stated it because many of them see it as an attack on there tribal identity (human nature again).
3. So what your saying is that if your a gay person who hasn't suffered oppression your not allowed pride? not really a fan of what you people consider pride.
It's not about me feeling insulted (I'm actually straight, white, cis, and male mateyGengisgame said:
). I'm actually curious here. Do you honestly consider LGBT to be a "popular group" (ignoring the truth that LGBT is no more a "group" than blue eyes is a "group" or brown hair is a "group").So, you're interested in having a discussion (or why else would you be posting in this thread) about how Gay Pride is, according to you, nonsense, but you don't want to discuss why Gay Pride is actually a thing? This isn't about having an "oppression olympics;" the discussion is about the very real fact that Gay Pride is a result of oppression. I attempted to inform you why LGBT might be a "tribal identity," but you don't want to listen to why (see literally 2 sentences ago).Gengisgame said:
No where in any statement that I made was the concept that "pride is only for the oppressed." I tried to explain to you that Gay Pride comes from being oppressed; that doesn't mean that all pride must come from such oppression.
Also, did you really just say that people fake being LGBT to fit in, especially women? Because if I did interpret that correctly, it's no wonder that you seem to be unable to understand Gay Pride... I'm also 100% going to need a source, actually , like several of them, for such a ridiculous claim.
No one has said that you can't feel pride about being straight, but they have questioned what the point is? Are you proud that you don't suffer from hate crimes due to your sexuality? Are you proud to be part of a majority? Are you proud to be considered the "default" and "normal?" I'm honestly asking you here. Speaking for myself, I sure don't feel any pride about being straight; I'm not ashamed about it either. It's just a fact of my life and who I am, no different than my hair color.
Again, the LGBT identity as a whole has been oppressed. Numerous statistics prove this to be indisputably true. A single outlier in a data set does not invalidate measurable patterns contained within that set (eg: a best-fit line does not have to cross through every single point on a scatter plot fir it to be useful).Gengisgame said:
I'm doubting based on your "oppression olympics" statement that you will actually do so, but here is a nice link to the LGBT Hate Crime and Violence Report by the Human Rights Campaign to learn some things about this issue.
tldr: It is impossible to separate the oppression that the LGBT identity has and still does experience from the idea of Gay Pride. On the other hand, there is no such cause for Straight Pride which is why people treat you oddly when you bring it up. However, Straight Pride not being a concept in no way means you are obliged to feel shameful about it (if that is what you are getting caught up on).
"...pretend to be gay or tans..." Did I miss something?Gengisgame said:
Being straight is not a tribal identity because it is so normative. The sum total of the LGBT community isn't even 10% of the population. When something is so prevalent as to be taken as the granted state before additional information is obtained then it isn't part of your identity because it doesn't distinguish you from the norm. Identity is most commonly derived from ways you are different and heterosexual is a key feature in the overall survival of our species so it is sure as heck the norm.
So yeah, gay is a distinguishing characteristic and straight is not even close to being as descriptive. Saying someone is straight rules out around 4% of the population (assuming we include the whole LGBT denotation in case the person speaking doesn't know the difference between gay and bi and trans). Saying someone is gay rules out something like 96% of the population.
So can you at least agree that being gay is somewhat worth remarking on as a distinguishing characteristic? I wouldn't see an albino dwarf committing a crime and omit either of those characteristics from the report. It's noteworthy.
Again, it's normative. The normal festivals and parades and whatnot are already assumed straight. That's not even a slight against LGBT, that's just pure statistical normality when you're having an event with people that isn't intended for a specific special interest group.
He actually doubles down on this in his next post.Lightknight said:
Complete honesty here: I think this is the first time that I've actually heard that claim... He's not even saying that LGBT is a lifestyle, just that people pretend to be so for the purpose of being accepted o.0Gengisgame said: