Smilomaniac said:
That's not really my point. I agree, you can't teach those who don't want to learn, but non-allies and LGBT aren't all like that, obviously. This con should be a gate to non LGBT gamers who can meet us on common grounds, at least if the education part of it is sincere. It's a nice opportunity to engage others, but it seems very much like a closed event.
The purpose of the con is for LGBT gamers to have a place to meet. The education bit is a statement of intent, one that is secondary to providing the LGBT community a safe place to get together and talk about games. Everything you're saying is contemplated, and straight people are allowed to go and educate themselves, but it's not a primarily educative con. It's not about straight people and I frankly don't think it should be about straight people. Again, it's supposed to be about LGBT people having a gamer con, not about educating straight people. We already have programs and initiatives for that.
Smilomaniac said:
I'd expect a lot of dumb questions if I invited ignorant guests over, to teach them about my group. That's the point.
As for disrespect, that's not exclusive to LGBTs or minorities. We deal with it like everyone else.
I hope you know that I don't mean that you're acting like a victim, just that this is something that some do, despite having no idea of what a victim is.
I have no problems with dumb questions. I have a problem with dumb questions wrapped in a package of arrogance and disrespect.
I know about victim mentality and learned helplessness. I know it's a thing that happens. Even if I thought a fellow LGBT person was suffering from such a state, I would still support their decisions because they're mature adults who ought to be given freedom of choice first and foremost.
Smilomaniac said:
It's not relative, it's fact. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history#2010s]
We're a LOT better off than all the generations behind us and we're helping the next ones have it better still.
The only kind of utopian description I've heard of is a friend who told me "It must be nice to get turned on by anyone and double your chances". It's an innocent comment, if a bit shortsighted
Still, I can't blame some straight/"normal" people for being tired of hearing minorities whinge. There are definitely some people in our midst who don't know when to shut up and take a look at the bigger picture.
You misunderstand. When I say it's relative, I meant that there is no objective measurement that we can use to determine when we've progressed enough or reached the threshold of equality. I'm not denying our progress, I'm saying that we're not at the level a lot of straight people think we are. They think that just because we've progressed to a certain point, we should stop fighting and shut up because we're annoying them (while we, of course, get labelled as overreactive oversensitive activists for saying that they should shut up when they say something offensive).
I mean, look at this whole thing: some LGBT people thought it would be a good idea to have their own con (which is something that, again,
harms nobody, and they have every right to do if they feel like it), and straight people started being smarmy asses (as illustrated by the comic), and then everyone just exploded because they felt they had every right to be smarmy asses! There was genuine curiosity by some posters, yes, but this was started by the straight community reacting to something that didn't concern them, wasn't harming anybody, affected them in no way, and then getting pissy when this was pointed out.
Smilomaniac said:
We all need eachother to grow. If we don't broaden our horizons with input, we can't learn or learn the sympathy that we want from others, assuming we don't just end up and congregate for ourselves.
An ignorant is a potential ally, so if he or she is willing to listen, then we should oblige them, especially if they have a genuine question, no matter how stupid it is.
If it's just someone barking for attention, we ignore them, as always.
I couldn't possibly disagree more. This learning that you speak of is not an imperative, it's a choice. We broaden our horizons because we want to, not because we must, and we do it on our own terms. This goes for straight people too and ties to what I said before. You cannot force education upon people. They have to want it, and you give it to them in their own terms.
And like I said, when someone has asked genuine questions, I've done my best to answer. Some questions are rhetorical, though, and they're instead used to disparage, disapprove of, or insult snidely.
Smilomaniac said:
I'm not sure we're aligned on this point. Take your example on your feminist friends that you mentioned earlier, my impression is that you're way beyond respectful or maybe you're over describing your interaction with them.
I'm friends with two feminists, but in the over-entitled femi-nazi meaning of the word, not the almost forgotten true gender-equality front fighter kind. They want equality while keeping their special status. Whenever we hit the subject, I flatten them out every single time, because they're being total bitches about it
If I approached them in a completely sober/respectful and objective tone and calmly discussed the subject with them, without "imposing" my opinions on them, they wouldn't learn anything, because I'd be forced to stop every time they were offended. They seem to get it, most of the time, that they have a skewed view on feminism, but they seem to forget it until the next time they're butthurt over something.
And what makes you think you're right and they're being unreasonable? Maybe it's my relativistic morality at work, but I live on the assumption that nobody's right or wrong. We all have our opinions and life philosophies, and we all believe in them with absolute fervour. I think that women (and especially feminists) know more about women issues than I do, and so they deserve to be treated like the authorities on the subject that they are.
I don't think I am entitled to have an opinion on whether their view of feminism is skewed or not, because it's none of my business. I wouldn't want them to criticise me on my views on LGBT issues, so out of courtesy and the Golden Rule, I don't do that to them. Likewise, I keep my mouth shut on race issues, because I am quite aware of my own ignorance on the matter and I would rather keep my opinions to myself than inadvertently offend a person of colour with a thoughtless remark. Besides, I know my opinions on racial matters are irrelevant, so I am aware that keeping them to myself is no great loss.
Smilomaniac said:
MY POINT is that I learn something new often, and that whenever I feel upset or agitated over something LGBT related, there's a friend to take me down a notch and remind me that I'm really not that bad off or that I'm being a *****.
If you can get on without those kinds of friends or any input from the outside, then you are most certainly a better man than most. But I can't use the kind of ally you describe, because they'd be useless to me, just another bobblehead nod-doll that isn't allowed to disagree.
And likewise, I already have the rest of the world to confront me on a daily basis and challenge my opinions, actions and decisions. A bobblehead nod-doll would be a welcome change.
Smilomaniac said:
I can't comment on the state of kyriarchy, you're obviously more knowledgable on sociology than I am
I don't get the context.
Of the kyriarchy? I have a post on that:
"The origin of kyriarchy comes from feminism, who started using the term 'patriarchy' to talk about how society has historically placed power on men and oppressed women. As issues of race, sexuality, class and the like began to rise in prominence, the feminists coined the term kyriarchy to define the system that connects all forms of society oppression. Kyriarchy is like the patriarchy in the sense that it's an institutionalised form of oppression, only instead of oppressing only women, the kyriarchy oppresses women, people of colour, LGBT people, the disabled, the lower classes and so on. Kyriarchy means "rule of the master", though a better definition would be, perhaps, "rule of dominance". The kyriarchy is a stroke of evil genius, if you think about it, because it not only keeps a large portion of the populace oppressed (much like in times of peasantry vs. aristocracy), but it also ensures that the oppressed keep oppressing each other, so that there isn't a single enemy they can unite against. Under the kyriarchy, a straight black man oppresses a gay white man, who oppresses a straight white woman, who oppresses a straight black woman, who oppresses a straight white man of lower class, who oppresses the straight black man from the beginning. It's an interlocking network of oppression who keeps us all fighting each other and preserving the status quo that only benefits a very small percentage of the population (the age-old aristocracy under another name)."
Smilomaniac said:
As for your final analogy, that really hits home on my point that our situation is not so special that we need to be treated with respect, just because we're part of a group, one that's(mostly) based on sexual orientation.
Not everyone in it has been subjected to discrimination and certainly not everyone fighting for its rights have either.
...besides, professors and teachers who treat their students as idiots, deserve no respect at all. No matter how knowledgable they are.
Everyone deserves respect, particularly in their area of expertise. I frankly disagree with you on your take on LGBT issues and the LGBT community. I would rather be a team player and stick to my people, regardless of how much I disagreed with them (case in point: I am not entirely convinced I support the con, but look at me fiercely defending it from straight people) because I'm not so self-centred as to think my individual views are more important than the problems of LGBT community. To me, it's more important to form a unified front and stand together than it is to squabble between ourselves.
But I respect that you feel differently and I won't try to change your mind. I'm just explaining to you why I can't agree with you or see it your way. It's a moral thing.
