|
Wow I'm really starting to think that these white cis het men who never post about LGBT issues except for one thread in GBS about Caitlyn Jenner might not be here to talk about this in all good faith.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
straight people never have gay family members, or gay friends, or gay co-workers, therefore they should stay out of supporting pride.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
.
unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jul 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
THC posted:Wow I'm really starting to think that these white cis het men who never post about LGBT issues except for one thread in GBS about Caitlyn Jenner might not be here to talk about this in all good faith. I think you'll find that they are just very upset that their opinions are being excluded/ignored/diminished, this is a little outside of their experience, so they're getting very frustrated that you're not accepting their wisdom with the reverence and respect to which they're accustomed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Actually neosegregrationism. Astonishing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Lol consent
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:no true queerman I figure this should stay here since you don't want it to
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
It'd be amazing if any leftwing protest for any reason in any location in north america in the past couple years wouldn't lead to endless discussions about if it was really the best time, location, or people to inconvenience and how, really, identity politics are what's killing the left. It's the most tired poo poo to read and maybe the actual problem is the droves of people who go "well, I don't think that particular protest was justified" and never end up actually doing anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:I figure this should stay here since you don't want it to
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
The ottawa one last year lead to questions about fraud and financial mismanagement so there's that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
But actually it is what's killing the left.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Daynab posted:It'd be amazing if any leftwing protest for any reason in any location in north america in the past couple years wouldn't lead to endless discussions about if it was really the best time, location, or people to inconvenience and how, really, identity politics are what's killing the left.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:My post wasn't empty snark. Pride is a queer space. I'm not interested in hearing straight peoples' opinions about how we should run it. There's a debate to be had about inclusion or exclusion of groups like police in Pride, but we've got it covered without y'all's opinions and concerns about tactics or respectability. It's a massive and widely publicized parade attended by everyone from the mayor up to the Prime Minister. Obviously the Queer community should be in charge of managing the parade but this idea that no one else gets to have a legitimate opinion or any input whatsoever on the political significance of a major public event is kind of ridiculous. I don't understand how you could coherently apply that standard to every other major group or subgroup within society without essentially destroying any meaningful concept of the "public". At the risk of sounding a bit shrill what you're advocating seems to drift dangerously close into the Thatcherite idea that there is no such thing as society, only private individuals forming their own private groups that should be run however the private group wishes. Is there really no room left for the idea of a public space in which people can comment on socially significant events regardless of their own positionality?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
a fleshy snood posted:drat, check out the comments on that video. Where are all of these trash tier Canadians coming from? I don't know but a group of (ostensibly Mohawk) protesters burnt a flag at the Canada Day march here in Kingston and the amount of SHEER FROTHING HATRED people have been spilling onto the comment pages has been pretty distressing, between that and the BLM thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH8QHETu418
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:But actually it is what's killing the left. I disagree. The class-oriented organized left died a while ago, and part of it was that minorities felt it was always leaving them behind, whether that is true or not (in my opinion, it is.) That doesn't mean that leftism is dead, because of all these so called "identity politics activists" many are anti-capitalist but focus on problems they feel they can actually tackle for now. Intersectionalism is supposed to unite people by saying "you're oppressed by the system, so are we, so are they. Let's team up." Maybe it doesn't always work out in practice, that's a fair criticism to have.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
I understand the theory, but it seems like Inter-sectionalism mostly ends with "You're oppressed by the system, so are we, but we're more oppressed so you have X privilege."
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
No, see, our very public demonstration to and communication with the greater public should be entirely exempt from feedback. This is a one-way street!Daynab posted:It'd be amazing if any leftwing protest for any reason in any location in north america in the past couple years wouldn't lead to endless discussions about if it was really the best time, location, or people to inconvenience and how, really, identity politics are what's killing the left. It'd be amazing if the left stopped its headlong plunge into authoritarianism, tokenism, and attention-seeking. There seems to be little motivation for the left to expunge people like the leaders of BLM-TO who are using it as a vehicle for personal ascension and social ladder-climbing. Daynab posted:Intersectionalism is supposed to unite people by saying "you're oppressed by the system, so are we, so are they. Let's team up." Maybe it doesn't always work out in practice, that's a fair criticism to have. In my experience as a Deaf person, intersectionality has exclusively been used as a bludgeon to marginalize or silence me. It had noble intentions when it was conceived but is now used as a rhetorical weapon (much like privilege theory, now that I think of it).
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
The left died for so many different reasons that you can kind of assemble your own convenient just-so story about why if only people had followed your own vision things would be different (I say this as somebody who has indulged in that kind of thinking in the past). However, identity politics does tend to dovetail with a kind of postmodernist anti-foundationalism that makes any kind of broadly based political project seemingly impossible to carry out. It used to be that leftists championed Enlightenment principles and talked about all humans have inherent capacities for reason and compassion and which held out for the possibility of democratically reaching socially optimal outcomes through vigorous debate within a public sphere of society that transcended local differences and appealed to our universal human instincts or identities. It used to be conservatives who argued that each community is irreducibly unique and should be left to its own devices and allowed to police and manage itself without any outside commentary or oversight. Now the positions seem to be reversed -- it's conservatives who talk in broad universal terms and who invoke ideals like "freedom". There's arguably a very conservative tendency within (some strains of) identity politics that, at least intellectually, seems to close off the prospect of any kind of genuinely democratic society being possible because in practice it all comes down to competing group claims. In principle there's no reason that these tendencies couldn't be reconciled but I think that there's huge pressures in our economy for groups to chase the same shrinking basket of resources, so in practice people who might be allies end up as rivals. Meanwhile the right has used the universalist language that the left abandoned to great effect in advancing a neoliberal agenda under the guise of enhancing human freedom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
are you guys high this thread is more unrelentingly stupid than usual
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It's a massive and widely publicized parade attended by everyone from the mayor up to the Prime Minister. Obviously the Queer community should be in charge of managing the parade but this idea that no one else gets to have a legitimate opinion or any input whatsoever on the political significance of a major public event is kind of ridiculous. I don't see why that's even a tiny bit ridiculous. It's a queer event. If cishet people want to have their voices heard, they have plenty of venues that aren't Pride. We don't expect that bosses will be consulted in the organisation of a May Day parade, and nobody was phoning Rachel Notley to ask her opinion about Québec's Fête nationale. quote:I don't understand how you could coherently apply that standard to every other major group or subgroup within society without essentially destroying any meaningful concept of the "public". Come the gently caress on. Subgroups of society have particular experiences and concerns that get drowned out when considering society as a whole, and it's not a loving Thatcherite plot to want a space for those particularities to be able to exist and considered in and of themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Political movement gets unduly political at political event, impolitically. Panic ensues as lines are drawn, sides are taken, barbs are hurled as everyone mistakes City of Toronto toleration of an event as having real meaning. However, if Black organizers can't stand up and make a fool of themselves, the parade, or whoever you believe suffered, then the event has no meaning because political action doesn't stop at the door of a party and politely excuse itself. It's a party that gets yearly media attention. Everyone is invited, even people with a mind to disrupt as a tactic (which BLMTO favours, hence the #blockorama), because that's what the Charter guarantees. Hell, even homophobes can attend as long as they thread the needle on hate speech laws.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Political movement gets unduly political at political event, impolitically. Panic ensues as lines are drawn, sides are taken, barbs are hurled as everyone mistakes City of Toronto toleration of an event as having real meaning. However, if Black organizers can't stand up and make a fool of themselves, the parade, or whoever you believe suffered, then the event has no meaning because political action doesn't stop at the door of a party and politely excuse itself. Cool story bro
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The left died for so many different reasons that you can kind of assemble your own convenient just-so story about why if only people had followed your own vision things would be different (I say this as somebody who has indulged in that kind of thinking in the past). I understand that point of view and don't necessarily disagree with all of it (and you are much better at articulating ideas than I am), but at the same time I don't see how a return to focusing on class could ever work. My hope is that people form groups and organizations (much like BLM organizations, gay organizations for example) that are strong and then ally with others to form a cohesive front against oppression. Maybe it's idealistic or naive, I dunno. I just don't see the old way working.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:The ottawa one last year lead to questions about fraud and financial mismanagement so there's that. "Backdoor dealing" was right there man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:Cool story bro Thought you would appreciate nihilism as law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:The ottawa one last year lead to questions about fraud and financial mismanagement so there's that. Well that explains BLM's opposition right there! If I pilfered a quarter million dollars and claimed two thousand hours of overtime (on a single day) I would feel oppressed by any organization that opposes corruption! #giveyourmoneytome
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
New Pride rules; you must be this gay to have a float.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
I'm sure there's already a dismissive term for bisexuals currently in heterosexual relationships.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
I'm going to have to be lame middle ground here but I think it's proper that the lgbtq community decides how the pride should be run and which group to include. However, I find it ridiculous that any suggestions and/or criticism from an outside group as to how they run it is automatically invalid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
A handful of rabid lunatic hyperliberal queer posters: were not totally comfortable with heterosexual cis police officers marching in Pride. They can still be there, we'd just prefer if they watched from the sidelines. Let us explain why- Intellectually honest individuals with no ulterior motives: so what you're saying is that all straight people are banned from Pride forever??? Wow nice, Frosted Flake posted:I'm sure there's already a dismissive term for bisexuals currently in heterosexual relationships. There is, it's "heterosexual"  Turns out that bisexual invisibility is nowhere near as cool as it sounds. Angry Diplomat fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Jul 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Pintrest Mom you're just making things worse by saying only LGBT people can have a say. Isn't the whole aim to get people to not draw lines? All as one? Love is love?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Angry Diplomat posted:There is, it's "heterosexual"
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Pintrest Mom you're just making things worse by saying only LGBT people can have a say. Isn't the whole aim to get people to not draw lines? All as one? Love is love? No more than May Day is about workers and bosses finding common ground.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
and i get a custom title for editorializing my own race gently caress you loving white people
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Daynab posted:I understand that point of view and don't necessarily disagree with all of it (and you are much better at articulating ideas than I am), but at the same time I don't see how a return to focusing on class could ever work. My hope is that people form groups and organizations (much like BLM organizations, gay organizations for example) that are strong and then ally with others to form a cohesive front against oppression. Maybe it's idealistic or naive, I dunno. I just don't see the old way working. I don't think a strict focus on class would work, and I think that when you examine the actual history of leftist movements they are always tied up with a set of local issues of grievances (the history of nationalism in the 19th century or decolonization in the 20th are good examples of how local issues that don't necessarily have any organic connection to leftist ideals can become part of a left-politics agenda). On the other hand I think the left needs to seriously engage with economics and economic issues in a much more serious manner. That wouldn't mean returning to some kind of unreconstructed 20th century vulgar Marxism, but it probably would involve abandoning some of the more extreme forms of philosophical post-modernism that left-wing intellectuals became so enamored with post-1968. Pinterest Mom posted:I don't see why that's even a tiny bit ridiculous. It's a queer event. If cishet people want to have their voices heard, they have plenty of venues that aren't Pride. We don't expect that bosses will be consulted in the organisation of a May Day parade, and nobody was phoning Rachel Notley to ask her opinion about Québec's Fête nationale. It's a major public event for which they shut down parts of the city and it's attended by everyone from local City Councillors up to the Prime Minister. This isn't about "cishest people want[ing] to have their voices heard", it's a question of who is apparently allowed to have legitimate opinions on how a public event is run. I would propose a counter example: when Quebec proposed a charter of values that was widely seen as discriminating against Muslims then leaders from the rest of Canada were quick to condemn what they viewed as a form of racism. Would it really have been reasonable for Quebec to say "Who are you to judge our values charter? You're not Quebecois." To me it just seems like part of democracy is that people are going to have opinions on events of public significance. Let's try to imagine a slightly different scenario where Toronto's Jewish population has a huge parade which shuts down the city and draws huge amounts of national and international attention. If the Jewish organizers of the event decided to make pro-Israeli political viewpoints a prominent part of the parade then am I not allowed, as a gentile, to have an opinion on this? A group is using the public space of my city to spread a particular message. I'm not saying I should get to control what they do but isn't my existence as a citizen of Toronto already enough for me to have a legitimate opinion on how my city's public spaces are used? quote:Come the gently caress on. Subgroups of society have particular experiences and concerns that get drowned out when considering society as a whole, and it's not a loving Thatcherite plot to want a space for those particularities to be able to exist and considered in and of themselves. I think people should be allowed to organize politically based around their cultural or sexual or ethnic identity. There's nothing wrong with that. And there's nothing wrong with the idea that the Pride Parade should be organized and managed by the Queer community. I hope that this isn't controversial. But the Pride Parade is a public event. It has political significance. It inevitably advances a certain set of interests. So it seems reasonable that people should be free to debate and discuss controversial questions like "should the police be represented at the Pride Parade"? I think invoking positionality is a reasonable tactic within a debate, but it's not an excuse to avoid having the debate altogether. You can and should discuss the way that each persons' unique perspective will influence their beliefs. It's legitimate to argue that groups with systematically over looked beliefs should be given additional resources so that they can participate in public debate. But the idea that we can have public events where the majority of the public has no right to even form an opinion seems like a much more extreme position than you're willing to acknowledge. Honest question: do you really not see how your statements could be interpreted as a supremely anti-political position which would seem to strip civic events of any sense of true "publicness" (for lack of a better term)? It would be nice if we could at least understand each other's positions, I really hate how quickly debates on this topic can become acrimonious and bitter. At the very least can you give me a sense of how you would balance between the priority to protect certain viewpoints and the necessity of having some kind of abstract space in which public policy issues can be discussed in a hopefully democratic fashion?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:and i get a custom title for editorializing my own race
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
I don't think bisexuals are gay enough to have a valid opinion on the pride parade. There needs to be a gayness scale so that the king gay can be reliably appointed and from whom we can receive decrees on the matter of pride parades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
well then i grant you absolution Deus, Pater misericordiarum, qui per mortem et resurrectionem Fílii sui mundum sibi reconciliavit et Spiritum Sanctum effudit in remissionem peccatorum, per ministerium Ecclesiae indulgentiam tibi tribuat et pacem Et ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. shithead
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
aren't bisexuals vichy france or something
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Oh... Oh, jeez. I don't think you're queer enough to have a valid opinion on Pride, unfortunately. Man, at least put some effort into it. We had a pretty good dialogue going, so if we're gonna derail into shitpost hell, they should at least be pretty good shitposts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:42
|
|