|
I'm not very fond of liberalism or centrism, but I can't exactly say that the left or the right has done very much good for LGBT people, y'know, historically. If the left wants to get people on board it's not going to do it by yelling "shut up about your sexuality it's not important". OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Sep 24, 2016 |
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
It's not even as if it's difficult to integrate what generally falls under the label of "identity politics" into a common Marxist outlook. You take the premise that people are entitled, by virtue of being human, to a good standard of life, and those that use established power to suppress others are wankers and need to be toppled, and you extrapolate from there. People are entitled to be who they want as long as they don't unreasonably infringe upon others in doing so, capitalism absolutely stands in the way of that, but so does bigotry and the two are not the same thing. While some areas of identity politics have an economic component, it's simply not true that economic solutions will solve all forms of inequality. At the time Marx was writing he wouldn't have had much concern for those other forms of inequality other than from a general economic perspective, and nowadays that's an important omission. I really think you have to approach Marx from a general egalitarian standpoint and understand that while his ideas are an excellent descriptor of economic inequality and how it perpetuates, it doesn't describe the entire world.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Also please stop trying to put the entire forum off Marxism by being a massive bellend because it's really very good if you use it within its applicable scope and don't try to use it to explain everything in existence.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Nobody could tell, he had a very effective beard.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
A class based analysis of society that ignores any classes you don't personally like is a woefully inadequate one.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Samovar posted:Maybe it's because of the leftists I hang out with (and I admit, I am saying this from a middle-class, white, straight, male background) but I have always associated leftist movements as granting rights deprived to LGBT peoples, and not claiming they were a distraction. Also, they were a general mix of sexes, genders as well as straight and LGBT. Leftism often correlates with social liberalism but not always, economic leftists can still be very authoritarian and very regressive on social issues.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
the moose posted:So what does lgbt rights have to do with Marxist Revolution? Like I'm pretty sure you can have full lgbt rights within capitalism. It just seems kind of odd to force economic system stuff into lgbt rights. It doesn't, other than as a function of LGBT people being on the same lovely end of the stick as everyone else in terms of economics, and I suppose the unique issues of LGBT poverty which lead to increased homelessness due to lovely parents disowning their kids, and the like. But I would argue that if someone is economically left as a result of a desire for greater equality they also need to support LGBT equality and racial equality as far as they are distinct from economic equality. Not everybody does, however, because some people read "no war but class war" as an exhortation to ignore everything except economic issues. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Sep 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
A Pale Horse posted:That may well be, but anarchy is not a real political system any more than atheism is a religion. It's simply not workable except as a gently caress the man rebellion by extremists and more often gently caress you dad teenagers (at least the modern version of it). I'm not saying the left-right axis is completely irrelevant, just that I don't understand the hatred liberalism gets from the LGBT community when its what's made any sort of progress of our rights possible. I'll admit, I'm fairly well off now, but I haven't always been and all the money in the world won't alleviate a lack of freedom to live as who you really are. Its better to be free and poor than rich and oppressed, at least in my eyes. I know those aren't exactly the options right now and unchecked liberalism in the form of globalization is exploitative, but from a purely selfish perspective, its good for our community. And capitalism isn't all bad. The corporations have become so powerful that they can now exert force rivaling that of government which can be beneficial for gay people. Look at the blowback RFAs in Indiana and Mississippi have gotten, not to mention the tornado of poo poo and piss that's been raised around Pat McCrory over HB2 and will likely lead to him being blown out of office like a discarded fast food wrapper come November. Those are mostly corporations exerting that pressure, and raising that shitstorm. Maybe not for altruistic reasons, but results matter more than motive in my opinion. I really don't want to poo poo up this thread further by turning it into communism chat but trying to reduce the entire political spectrum to "freedom vs oppression" is going to be either extraordinarily difficult or extraordinarily wrong. All forms of social organization oppress people, the difference is in who they oppress and for what reason.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
You could always go for circles of fraud ironic punishment, which isn't really very ironic. "Being hit with sticks for all eternity by a demon in a magistrate's wig."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Does it count as closeted if you just let people assume you're straight because once they make that assumption they feel uncomfortable asking you to clarify things that might contradict it?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Best wishes Mr and Mr Penguin.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
Well, the G part may have some inertia, at least.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
The hell is with these goddamn freaks who can't be bothered to look after their kids but sure as gently caress want a legal say over their ability to look after themselves. Like pick one or the other you massive weirdo. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Nov 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:I am shocked, googling Overwatch led me to believe that they were all lesbians, or some kind of weird grim reaper ghost, or an obese biker. I would be inclined to suggest that there's perhaps a subset of people who think that lesbianism is great when it's for men's tittilation but not when it's a decision made by the woman in question. E: is that bomber jacket permanently fused to her because I do not see how you could put it on otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:Yeah pretty much, no kidding there's A Thing of guys wanting pretty ladies in their games to ogle, which sucks as usual, but you can come around to the idea that guys in games being hot isn't solely for straight guys to wanna be them anymore too. It's been this way for a while despite how much people wanted to disbelieve or 'jokingly' downplay it, but a whole, WHOLE lot of women and LGBT people play games, it's not even a stretch to imagine a lot of dudes in games can be/are designed to appeal to them as well as power fantasies and junk. I mean drat, Square Enix doesn't even try to hide it anymore that they make pretty dudes for ladies when it comes to Final Fantasy for instance. The industry is improving, slowly and sporadically, but I would be reluctant to say that it does not remain thoroughly eclipsed by the masculine perspective governing the overwhelming majority of everything it produces.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Ah yes, ROYGLBBIV And people say LGBT people do silly things with acronyms.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
It does not entirely gel with the concept of LGBT either, as necessarily that is a coalition of allies, because the issues that face L G B and T people are not the same.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Especially bisexuals, I experience literally none of the issues that gay and lesbian people do because I have an opposite sex partner. Socially I am barely distinguishable from a heterosexual, so by that logic I am most definitely in the ally category.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
there wolf posted:I really want someone to actually say what disparate interests the G, L, B, and T have that make joint political action ridiculous instead of just acting like it's an accepted truth. None, the point is that it requires a conscious willingness to understand the needs of others which may differ from yours, those needs are not, or should not be obstructive to your own needs, but it still requires you to support people in their own pursuit of liberation when it may have no benefit to you. As any good political union should.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
What is a political issue if not a societal problem though? All things are societal problems and we use politics to solve them because the apparatus of the state is the strongest single force over society. A systemic lack of education would appear to be a manifestly political issue because the state has great control over systemic education.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
I would worry about striking it from things like the DSM because yeah, that would immediately end up with a certain sort of person coming out with "well there's nothing wrong with you* just deal with your own problems" *except morally, evil sinner etc. Which seems unhelpful. Things that need care carry an inherent stigma unfortunately and I don't know how you get rid of one without the other without a general mental-health-positivity change.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Public perception can be individual perception as well, it's not very nice to tell people they're mentally ill regardless of how it should not be a stigmatized thing. Even less so when you're essentially telling them how they feel about a thing. To some people, clinical recognition for the distress their condition causes can be a good thing, for others it may be dehumanizing. Being prescriptive about it either way is probably not going to do much good. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
If I had to make a suggestion, fight for the clinical recognition of the disorder but avoid telling people they definitely have it and are definitely mentally ill. Care and support must be available to those in need or want of it but there's not really a need to tell people outside of the context of that legislation/medical categorization that there's something wrong with them, which is unfortunately what you risk saying by pushing it individually on people. There's an obvious dichotomy between being mental health-positive and avoiding sticking people with the extant stigma associated with it, but individual people going through rough poo poo probably don't need to be on the firing line of that debate. If people want to participate then good on them but I wouldn't shove people into it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:What exactly is gained by doing so? It seems to me that you're just creating unclear definitions and generating a new edge case for the sake of avoiding a label. "Avoiding a label" is a quite significant thing when dealing with gender. Labels can be quite deleterious to people's wellbeing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:But how can you remove the label without removing access to appropriate care? Especially considering the incoming administration. I agree that it is a fine goal and should be what we eventually push for. But what can we do right now? As I said, you can fight for whatever practical tools you can to make sure people have care as available as it can be, but there's no reason to go around telling people who are already having a rough time "yo you're hosed in the head lol" because that's not going to do much good. Mental health positivity is something you can direct primarily at people who don't actually suffer from mental illness, because it's not primarily mentally ill people who are responsible for the stigma attached to it and seeking care for it. The first target should not be to get everyone struggling with their own thoughts and feelings to embrace the mental illness label, even if they did, what difference do you think that would make? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:So is your answer to make things like hormones available over the counter and do surgery on an advised consent basis? Well ideally my suggestion would be to universalize healthcare and have it include reassignment treatments but obviously the US isn't going to do that. Medication in general should be used under medical supervision.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
I concur, as long as medical care is privately funded a key priority of any initiative to facilitate access to it must have a pragmatic approach until the problem can be addressed at the source.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Taitale posted:Even public systems need the medical justification to fund treatments. It just shifts the problem from insurance companies to the government departments that determine what is funded. It's why New Zealand funds virtually no bottom surgery for trans people, they determined it wasn't a significant enough issue, both in terms of severity and then number of people seeking it, to fund it properly. I know, I live in a country with one, but generally for a lot of things you can go to the doctor and say "I'm having problems with this" and they go "Ok we'll send you for treatment" They don't generally spend a lot of time trying to prove you aren't lying about your condition before they treat you. Because the doctor isn't paying for it. With an insurance company, they are, so they will try to avoid paying for it if they can.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:An app for internalized homophobia -- neat!0 Eh, gayness has a culture associated with it that might seem like an awful lot of work if you don't live in a place that actually has access to it, it's nice to use the term just to describe someone's kinsey rating but there's a lot more stuff associated with the word that's probably a bit of a departure from your life in bumfuck nowhere, so I can't really poo poo on people for not feeling able to identify as gay.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
I don't think it's necessarily homophobic to not feel able to identify as a thing you have no experience with. Like yeah if I'm going to be a cynic then sure all hicks are homophobic assholes but if I'm going to try and be charitable to people grappling with their sexual identity then maybe "being gay" does connote more than just "man who has sex with men" because its historic ostracism did lead to the development of a complex culture associated with the sexuality and still has people both gay and straight who, not unreasonably, view that culture as being a very important part of gayness. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jan 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Maybe I'm a big babby then because mostly I just feel bad that there's some poor fucker going around terrified 24/7 of being a sissy-fag. Not least because it's actually quite nice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
... What? I said I feel sorry because people are that self loathing. Because they shouldn't feel that way, because there's no good reason to...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
I'd at least be leery of assigning that belief personally to the person in question, as I would be, and frankly am infinitely more concerned that whatever my own views might be, others may not be so considerate. It's why I like being able to hide without effort.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:If you are bisexual and you are in an opposite sex relationship do you or do you not have implied access to heterosexual privilege? You get to have people assume you're straight for as long as they only see you in opposite sex relationships. Whether that is good for you is rather up to you. It depends on how comfortable you are being defined by public perception. I suppose if you're never planning on having a same sex relationship then you don't have to worry about the backlash you'll get when you do?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Eimi posted:I barely ever drink actually. I think it's stupid more because I'm scared of it due to an alcoholic parent. And the whole logic that I really want to get blackout drunk, which is an idea I have, so it's bad. You could settle for sing song drunk and cry a lot, I think that's the slightly more respectable alternative to blackout drunk while still being an entirely appropriate response.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:homo privilege is having to explain that "no, I'm with you because I want to be not because I'm waiting for the right opposite sex person to come along so I can dump you for a more widely socially acceptable relationship." Ah yes the lovely "how can you not want to cheat on someone if you want to gently caress people of the other sex" "I don't know, how do you manage not to do it when presumably you want to gently caress people of your preferred sex?" It's not as if it's a particularly difficult concept to grasp, I don't know why so many people seem to have trouble with it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jan 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Well I guess I really lust for the pizza I'm going to have for tea and then I'm lusting forward to having a good sleep. Depraved pizza and sleep.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
I dunno, gun toting isolationism might make a pretty effective beard.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 20:44
|
|