|
The thing is the types of anti-gay Republicans we usually mock here usually are a small minority of dedicated ideologues and bigots who have disdain for the LGBT community, these aren't the sorts of people whose minds we are going to change in any great number. It's the large majority of people out there who are not hardcore ideologues and are open to changing positions on things with new experiences, these are the people whose hearts and minds have been changing on LGBT rights in recent years. So I don't really see the conflict between making fun of some truly vile, bigoted people and still being able to have a respectful conversation with someone who might disagree but isn't a lost cause. Our job is not to convince the Ted Cruzes of the world to love gays, that's a pointless endeavor, it's to educate Joe Sixpack who doesn't really have any strong opinions on the issue either way.
MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Apr 21, 2016 |
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
MaxxBot posted:The thing is the types of anti-gay Republicans we usually mock here usually are a small minority of dedicated ideologues and bigots who have disdain for the LGBT community, these aren't the sorts of people whose minds we are going to change in any great number. It's the large majority of people out there who are not hardcore ideologues and are open to changing positions on things with new experiences, these are the people whose hearts and minds have been changing on LGBT rights in recent years. So I don't really see the conflict between making fun of some truly vile, bigoted people and still being able to have a respectful conversation with someone who might disagree but isn't a lost cause. A large number of the ones who might not "be a lost cause" identify with the groups people often laugh at. The religious conservatives, for instance. Even if they aren't really part of that group, attacking the group they identify with can really turn some people off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:aww did I strike a nerve? You successfully trolled the marriage equality thread. Nice work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Artificer posted:A large number of the ones who might not "be a lost cause" identify with the groups people often laugh at. The religious conservatives, for instance. Yeah I would certainly agree not to paint entire groups with a broad brush, your average religious conservative is nowhere near as bad as their political leaders are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Artificer posted:A large number of the ones who might not "be a lost cause" identify with the groups people often laugh at. The religious conservatives, for instance. I spent easily ten years being the nicest, politest person around participating in these debates. For my trouble I generally got ignored and to this day don't know of a single person who changed their views based on what I said or posted. I'm sure there were a few, but I have no idea how many or of anything at all about them. This poo poo is grueling, unforgiving, tedious work that is not obviously superior to just disengaging and living your life or laughing at idiots on the internet. It's also ironic to me that the tone I'm getting here from people arguing for careful consideration of the idea that maybe i'm NOT actually a woman is itself very smug. Especially considering the long, successful history of things far more confrontational than telling off bigots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Stuff like: Did conversations started though, and helped end an "everything's fine in America" zeitgeist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I disagree people can't change, I certainly have seen some gross changes in my politics in the past 10 years (though that would have been from being an idiot teenager to getting to real world experience). The point is you can pleasantly push for rights while telling them to go to Hell if they dont "get it". It just seems uncouth to open up with that. Plenty of people can change. Plenty of people, also, should simply be shut out of the discourse when they can't. Curt Schilling, for example. No one needs to educate that fool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
The gay rights movement is not analogous to the black civil rights movement for a number of reasons, number one of which is that this country did not achieve its status as an economic superpower by exploiting gay people. The institutional racism that had to be dismantled in the civil rights movement (and of course which still exists in a different form today) is built into the very foundation of this country. And there's also the fact that you can almost always tell someone is black by looking at them, and that's not true for a ton of LGBT people (making it easier to convince people we're just like them). I'm not saying that LGBT discrimination doesn't or didn't exist. I've experienced it personally. But it's disingenuous and frankly disrespectful to say that our movement is the same as the civil rights movement. I also accordingly disagree that the same strategies used in the civil rights movement in past decades will work for ours. And Stonewall was absolutely not the beginning of the gay rights movement in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Stroop There It Is posted:But it's disingenuous and frankly disrespectful to say that our movement is the same as the civil rights movement. When someone does that, this will be a great point to make. quote:And Stonewall was absolutely not the beginning of the gay rights movement in the United States. Technically correct: the best kind of correct.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
You can't tell if a person is gay by looking at them but you can investigate their personal life and then jail them or fire them from their jobs when you discover that they're gay. This was a very common thing in the 50s and 60s, more federal employees were fired for being gay than being communists. Your sexuality is only really concealed from complete strangers.
MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Apr 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:You can't tell if a person is gay by looking at them but you can investigate their personal life and then jail them or fire them from their jobs when you discover that they're gay. This was a very common thing in the 50s and 60s, more federal employees were fired for being gay than being communists. Your sexuality is only really concealed from complete strangers. It's also really hard to conceal that you're gay if you're out in public with your partner.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Stroop There It Is posted:The gay rights movement is not analogous to the black civil rights movement for a number of reasons, number one of which is that this country did not achieve its status as an economic superpower by exploiting gay people. The institutional racism that had to be dismantled in the civil rights movement (and of course which still exists in a different form today) is built into the very foundation of this country. And there's also the fact that you can almost always tell someone is black by looking at them, and that's not true for a ton of LGBT people (making it easier to convince people we're just like them). I'm not saying that LGBT discrimination doesn't or didn't exist. I've experienced it personally. But it's disingenuous and frankly disrespectful to say that our movement is the same as the civil rights movement. I also accordingly disagree that the same strategies used in the civil rights movement in past decades will work for ours. (my post is also doing that, I'm aware. I just don't particularly care)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Stroop There It Is posted:And there's also the fact that you can almost always tell someone is black by looking at them, and that's not true for a ton of LGBT people (making it easier to convince people we're just like them). We're talking about trans discrimination here, where, umm. Yes. you absolutely can tell people are trans by looking at them (with varying degrees of success)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
My argument was that a higher percentage of trans people pass as cis than black people pass as white. But y'all are right that that's not necessarily a good reason to say the LGBT and black civil rights movements are not analogous. That wasn't my main point, though. There are a lot of good books on the history of gay rights in the US before Stonewall. Here's a review of one of them: http://prospect.org/article/it-didnt-start-stonewall Lyesh posted:We're talking about trans discrimination here, where, umm. Yes. you absolutely can tell people are trans by looking at them (with varying degrees of success)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
In any case, I'm aware there were plenty of LGBT rights things before Stonewall. It was still a huge deal and a moment that a lot of the movement crystalized around. I'm also trying to point to the large, large variety of tactics in civil rights battles that have been a hell of a lot more confrontational than people smugposting on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:In any case, I'm aware there were plenty of LGBT rights things before Stonewall. It was still a huge deal and a moment that a lot of the movement crystalized around. I'm also trying to point to the large, large variety of tactics in civil rights battles that have been a hell of a lot more confrontational than people smugposting on the internet. Fair enough. I think a part of the point was made that smugposting is also useless and often counterproductive to boot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Artificer posted:Fair enough. I think a part of the point was made that smugposting is also useless and often counterproductive to boot. I had alot more success when I finally gave up and started calling my family out for being shitstick hiillbillys than I ever did being patient and understanding. Nobody likes being a loser or being picked on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Yeah, I think sometimes being polite and understanding works, but other times you have to put your foot down and not let people walk over you. I guess you can both be polite and understanding and at the same time not let people walk over you but that's hard as hell. Honestly, I don't know what's the best method. I try to be more understanding with people whom I disagree with, other times I take to mocking and taunting people, if only because it helps embolden other people and make their views less tolerated in the social space. I think sometimes it helps to remember that if we're online, there's often people who are watching who we're not aware of. People sitting silently on the sides and watching and weighing things out for themselves. Generally online, the people we're arguing with won't be swayed. But people watching have a better chance to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:I had alot more success when I finally gave up and started calling my family out for being shitstick hiillbillys than I ever did being patient and understanding. Nobody likes being a loser or being picked on. The quickest way I got through to a former friend of mine was literally calling him "a loving homophobic piece of poo poo that I'm starting to seriously hate." One of the big issues is that the beliefs have often gone just plain unquestioned or are so common in a person's tribe that they're pretty much normal. Sometimes what you have to do is just call somebody a miserable rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Hey Ted gently caress you to hell https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/723294053056450560
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
I'm sure everybody in the thread has either seen this short documentary, or simply knows the history of these events through many other means. But just in case: https://www.yahoo.com/news/uniquely-nasty--the-u-s--governments-war-on-gays-191808993.html?ref=gs Having a respectful dialogue means jack and poo poo if you don't also wield sufficient political power to not have to care about the outcome. Your tone means nothing to people who believe you are a child predator who is destroying the 'moral fabric' of their country simply by waking up every morning and going to work. They are strongly motivated to throw you under the bus on a whim. They will only pretend to be your ally when it is convenient for them, unless you are monied and politically connected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Here's a revolutionary idea: maybe the truth is in the middle?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
I feel like one thing people don't often talk about is how when you're arguing someone, you're often also arguing with the community at large that they come from and whom they derive at least some of their beliefs from. People have a social stake in their beliefs--it's what keeps them a part of the community they care about. So that might be a contributing factor to why people can often be obstinate. Be nice if I knew any way to deal with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Here's a revolutionary idea: maybe the truth is in the middle? Take that Glibertarian rhetoric to the South Park thread k thx
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
EDIT: Walking away from this thread and this argument before I get even more mad than I already am. jivjov fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Apr 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
jivjov posted:So what do you do with people who literally threaten to beat any trans person they meet to a bloody pulp? You ignore them, because they're not remotely close to being the bulk of the opposition. You also don't bring them up as a weak-assed retort against the solid answers you've been given re: convincing the vast majority of voters who do actually matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 04:40
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
RE 'tone' and such... I have ostensibly made quite a few family gatherings awkward when someone at the table passes an ill comment about gay people, or poor people, or refugees or immigrants. My overwhelming experience is is that, even when faced with a cited example that overwhelmingly disproves the bigoted opinion, the individual spouting it will correspondingly dismiss it as 'my opinion'. Wilful ignorance often drives bigotry, and sometimes the only way to shatter it is to deliver it with such a shock that it causes the person to atleast consider the alternative. I've had people call me 'Intolerant' because I've not been tolerant of their belief that gay people should not be allowed to marry, or that refugees should all be deported. I couldn't care less about such crocodile tears, my hope is that the independent thinkers will see the passion and research the matter for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Perhaps prejudging others based upon our preconceived notions of how a person "like that" should be dealt with is a kinda crappy thing to do to people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Perhaps prejudging others based upon our preconceived notions of how a person "like that" should be dealt with is a kinda crappy thing to do to people. But how else will I be convinced that I am a better person than my opposition by every metric, whether or not those other things have anything to do with this thing???
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
People confident enough in their opinion to voice it aloud will double down on it no matter what rhetorical strategy you use. The silent audience of the conversation are the people you have a chance to convince in the medium term. Speaking from utterly moronic personal experience, a brutal and witty owning which doesn't seem to address all the questions or concerns raised by the own-ee will fail to convince many people, and maybe even cement their (my) idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:But how else will I be convinced that I am a better person than my opposition by every metric, whether or not those other things have anything to do with this thing??? I personally like it when me and my friends don't have to worry about being thrown out of the bathroom for violating gender norms. You're assuming that things are balanced here, and they aren't. LGBT groups aren't lining up in front of churches, protesting Christians for daring to worship their God. Or telling them they can't use bathrooms. Or anything else similar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:Actually from what I've heard from one of my friends who has celiac, it's a mixed bag in terms of food. Stores definitely carry more than they used to, and you can usually trust that, but anywhere claiming to prepare gluten free food, like restaurants and bars, is a huge crap shoot as to whether they actually do it or just claim to and don't take it seriously (or care about cross contamination), since most gluten free requests come from people who can't tell the difference. Making truly gluten free food is a huge pain in the rear end. To be absolutely sure you have to effectively stop production, clean down everything, and pull new utensils and fresh prepped ingredients (to avoid normally harmless cross-contamination). Every kitchen I ever worked in would be willing, but we couldn't be 100% certain. Hell, at the bakery we had a big sign on the door that said 'airbourne flour, if you have a gluten allergy enter at your own risk' just to avoid someone coming in and killing themselves because no air filtration will keep a working production bakery flour free.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 10:15
|
|
|
If I were to suggest that Muslims and immigrants need to be nicer and more understanding with Trump supporters I would probably be mocked. For some reason there is more of an expectation for LGBT individuals to be nice to people that hate them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
I think this bit from Letter from a Birmingham Jailis fairly relevant to the current discussion about the best way a Civil Rights Movement should go about confronting it's opposition.Martin Luther King Jr. posted:I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
Yes when I said to remember you're not better in literally all ways and that thinking a significant number of your opposition will explode in violence at the mention, what I really meant was civil rights can wait.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
EDIT: Walking away from this thread and this argument before I get even more mad than I already am. jivjov fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Apr 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
From Ted Cruz latest ad 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:From Ted Cruz latest ad Looks like me taking my daughter to swimming every week until she was 6.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
At least he got the Braille right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
Flobbster posted:At least he got the Braille right? Ted Cruz is a spiteful rear end in a top hat/half-melted goblin/smug turd (pick one, or two or all three as preferred) but he's also enough of a dork you can rely on him/his team to get the technical details right more often than not. It's why he's having such great success rules-lawyering as many delegates away from Trump as he can.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 17:31
|
|
