Support NeoGAF

[Aselith]

I'm definitely plenty angry. Sorry for getting worked up about injustice, I suppose. Does that offend you? Honestly, why do I sound like a lunatic? Because I say capitalism is bad? Or because I say things are really terrible and obviously what we're doing is working too slowly for all the people suffering and dying? Or something else. Explain it to me.

And this rage isn't unfocused, by the way - it's laser focused at the perpetrators of oppression, and I think that targeting it at groups you typically think of as the good guys is why you're uncomfortable with what I'm saying.

Well let's see so there's a thread to celebrate a win for equality and you come in to rant about how it's not enough help for LGBT people because they still have to deal with bullying. Ok.

So people say yes there are still places to go but this is a positive step. So you go into a conspiracy theory about our corporate masters letting us have the win even though it was a fight up until the very last with all classes of people. Ok.

So then you just go off on some wild ass tangent about injustices in general. Nothing to say just injustices are a thing, guys! Injustice! Ok.

You sound scattered in the most chaotic way, you are ranting about nothing, that makes you sound ever so slightly unhinged. People who are cogent usually have a point.

Settle down and compose something that you want to happen then make a post about it. If you rant about everything, you are saying nothing.

 

[Ragingbegal]

Love the counter signs.

I'm not with them and the Secretly gay with an arrow. Awesome.

The "I'm not with them" guy was dressed as Jesus.

 

[Soph]

LOL "God founded two nations - Israel and the USA" lol.... xD

This girl is funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6IMuR4GsSM

I never knew the United Kingdom was god, the more you know.

 

[Kevyt]

I honestly wonder when activists will run out of letters to add to LGBT... Call me old fashioned, but we only ever needed four letters.

Because we humans are always making new terms to refer to something we did not have a word for before - and or, make up new words to revise a term that we feel need to rename.

That's human language in a nutshell.

As far as the LGBTQIA+ acronym, from the LettersGaf community OP:

So…. What’s going on with the acronym? Well, we realize that human sexuality spreads across a broad spectrum where there are different variations and deviations. That is to say, that there are various sexualities and therefore, many terms that many people feel comfortable identifying with. For example, someone might identify him/herself as Pansexual, someone else might identify as a Pomosexual. There are many different terms that are constantly being created, and that is okay. We are constantly creating new terms to describe something new, or simply because we might feel comfortable identifying under a certain label (because identifying as gay is too mainstream yo!). Henceforth, the acronym stands for the following:

L - Lesbian
G- Gay
B - Bisexual
T - Transgender/Transsexual
Q - Queer/Questioning
I - Intersex
A - Asexual

+ - Any other terms that describe a certain type of sexual orientation.

 

[jackissocool]

I wouldn't say "lunatic" but you sound like many politically frustrated people that believe in violent revolution as a means of mass social change. Historically, they have always failed to maintain lasting change, or even at the least to effect the changes they promised. The Communist Revolution in Russia did not succeed in increasing the average quality of life in Russia to any sufficient standard. I suppose if you consider a roof, food and water enough for people to be content with without guaranteeing eventual counter-revolution.

Lasting change requires stability, and in general violent revolutions based solely on ideologies don't result in social stability. That's why Stalin had to be Stalin and Mao had to be Mao, for stability.

Well that's just not true at all. What about the American Revolution? Convenient how people ignore that one. And while Soviet Russia had a lot of problems, it certainly massively improved quality of life for most people. They went from a feudal society to an industrial one that reached space first in fifty years. They made enormous economic and scientific progress. They were huge on gay liberation, which seems pretty relevant to this thread. But defending the Soviet Union in this context isn't really important or something I have much interest in because its flaws weren't a result of a revolution but a poorly setup system afterwards. Like Stalin - the revolution wasn't built around him - his rise to power and prominence happened after the early Soviet Union was mostly stabilized. The vast majority of systemic change has been through violent revolution.

Well let's see so there's a thread to celebrate a win for equality and you come in to rant about how it's not enough help for LGBT people because they still have to deal with bullying. Ok.

So people say yes there are still places to go but this is a positive step. So you go into a conspiracy theory about our corporate masters letting us have the win even though it was a fight up until the very last with all classes of people. Ok.

So then you just go off on some wild ass tangent about injustices in general. Nothing to say just injustices are a thing, guys! Injustice! Ok.

You sound scattered in the most chaotic way, you are ranting about nothing, that makes you sound ever so slightly unhinged. People who are cogent usually have a point.

Settle down and compose something that you want to happen then make a post about it. If you rant about everything, you are saying nothing.

Definitely never said anything about bullying. And I stated that it's not a conspiracy theory but just a terrible, cruel system. No one is planning this stuff but it's set up to work this way.

My specific examples of oppression are just me shouting the word injustice? I have a point I've made pretty clear: this progress is great but if you want real lasting change for everyone then you need to abolish capitalism, and to do that is gonna require a revolution 90% of the time. I started this because people were talking about liberal politicians and whether or not they're sincere. I said no and people asked me to elaborate so I did.

Also you've never once addressed anything I've actually said but resorted purely to ad hominem attacks.

 

[excelsiorlef]

The "I'm not with them" guy was dressed as Jesus.

Even better

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

It's almost like she's putting up a show. It looks like she doesn't believe what she's saying. At least, I'm hoping she's more intelligent than that... I:

Oh, her ass is definitely putting on a show, and probably making a little bit of money off of it.

She probably does believe in everything she's saying though, just amplifying it up bit to make her stand out to the crazies(and the people in this thread, apparently).

 

[TheHeretic]

Because we humans are always making new terms to refer to something we did not have a word for before - and or, make up new words to revise a term that we feel need to rename.

That's human language in a nutshell.

As far as the LGBTQIA+ acronym, from the LettersGaf community OP:

Yeah, I mean no offence but I think the other letters are pure nonsense. Questioning? Asexual? Thats not what we were fighting for all these years, frankly it reminds me of the kind of indulgent excess that set us back (and got so many of us killed) in the first place.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Because we humans are always making new terms to refer to something we did not have a word for before - and or, make up new words to revise a term that we feel need to rename.

That's human language in a nutshell.

As far as the LGBTQIA+ acronym, from the LettersGaf community OP:

Add Undecided and rearrange and you got QUILTBAG+

XD

Sorry I just love QUILTBAG

Yeah, I mean no offence but I think the other letters are pure nonsense. Questioning? Asexual? Thats not what we were fighting for all these years, frankly it reminds me of the kind of indulgent excess that set us back (and got so many of us killed) in the first place.

Fuck you I got mineism?

No unsure queers allowed?

 

[ThisGuy]

I know and understand why this really is a conservative victory - we're heteronomatizing ourselves. That's the thing though - that's what most of us want.

Would you explain this a little bit? I want to understand how this is a conservative victory. I'm not familiar with this.

 

[Zornack]

Because we humans are always making new terms to refer to something we did not have a word for before - and or, make up new words to revise a term that we feel need to rename.

That's human language in a nutshell.

As far as the LGBTQIA+ acronym, from the LettersGaf community OP:

When a seven letter initialism needs a + to cover anything extra than it's not a good initialism. What's needed is a single word that covers every non-typical orientation/lifestyle/gender.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Would you explain this a little bit? I want to understand how this is a conservative victory. I'm not familiar with this.

The argument is that it conforms queer sexuality to the standards and practices of heterosexual dominant status quo culture.

When a seven letter initialism needs a + to cover anything extra than it's not a good initialism. What's needed is a single word that covers every non-typical orientation/lifestyle/gender.

QUILTBAG! I say again.

 

[Kevyt]

Yeah, I mean no offence but I think the other letters are pure nonsense. Questioning? Asexual? Thats not what we were fighting for all these years, frankly it reminds me of the kind of indulgent excess that set us back (and got so many of us killed) in the first place.

Well the LGBTQIA+ movement is very inclusive, and in my opinion is a good thing. It's what makes the community strong. Others respectfully disagree and that's fine. With that said, I'll disagree with you. I don't think the other letters are pure nonsense.

Add Undecided and rearrange and you got QUILTBAG+

XD

Sorry I just love QUILTBAG

I like QUILTBAG too!

Oh, her ass is definitely putting on a show, and probably making a little bit of money off of it.

She probably does believe in everything she's saying though, just amplifying it up bit to make her stand out to the crazies(and the people in this thread, apparently).

Yeah, it seems like she over-exxagerates and adds crazy conspiracy theories to rile up her viewers. It's working because she does get views and she even has her own website and sells things there, like mugs, lol.

When a seven letter initialism needs a + to cover anything extra than it's not a good initialism. What's needed is a single word that covers every non-typical orientation/lifestyle/gender.

It's all about inclusion. Hence the +

 

[jackissocool]

The argument is that it conforms queer sexuality to the standards and practices of heterosexual dominant status quo culture.

Exactly.

That's not what he's saying, he's saying there's a tendency in liberal societies to allow through the "democratic process" eventual, gradual reforms only after the oppressed sufficiently conform themselves to whatever is comfortable enough to the majority, and that in doing so you run the risk of impeding further progress because once the glamorized goal is achieved the majority will forget about it. There's no "conspiracy", it's just an aspect of how liberal democracies function, since liberal democracies have checks and balances and cautious natures as part of their foundations.

This is rather obviously what happened with the civil rights movement and the subsequent lack of progress on that front, even regression on that front, in the last few decades. That's not to say that it would be preferable to not have this progress made (since he mentioned how accelerationism is a stupid idea), but it's a critique of the liberal system and a plea to remember that there is more to be done. Much more to be done.

Oppressed people should always have the right to be angry and demand speedy progress. It ought not be up to them to make the oppressors comfortable. Whether or not you think that it is preferable in the final analysis to push for slower reform within the system (which doesn't guarantee that the system will change or won't revert) or shoot for the moon and carry out revolution (which guarantees that the system will change but leads to a host of other risks) comes down to whether you are a capitalist or a socialist.

Even if you don't understand the desire of some for revolution, you should at least lay off on digging into someone for being passionate about radical progress, since at the very least radicalism helps push the overton window to the left, frankly. Even if revolution isn't realistic (and as a communist, I don't think it is in the US - there's too much of a risk for an American freikorps), it's only by pushing the boundaries in discourse that we remind ourselves of what is to be done. Criticism and self criticism are good things.

I've seen your avatar but didn't know if you were a comrade or not. You are <3

Yeah I don't think America is ripe for a revolution any time soon (probably) but other parts of the world are pretty close and we should certainly still strive to spread radical ideology.

 

[sphagnum]

Well let's see so there's a thread to celebrate a win for equality and you come in to rant about how it's not enough help for LGBT people because they still have to deal with bullying. Ok.

So people say yes there are still places to go but this is a positive step. So you go into a conspiracy theory about our corporate masters letting us have the win even though it was a fight up until the very last with all classes of people. Ok.

That's not what he's saying, he's saying there's a tendency in liberal societies to allow through the "democratic process" eventual, gradual reforms only after the oppressed sufficiently conform themselves to whatever is comfortable enough to the majority, and that in doing so you run the risk of impeding further progress because once the glamorized goal is achieved the majority will forget about it. There's no "conspiracy", it's just an aspect of how liberal democracies function, since liberal democracies have checks and balances and cautious natures as part of their foundations.

This is rather obviously what happened with the civil rights movement and the subsequent lack of progress on that front, even regression on that front, in the last few decades. That's not to say that it would be preferable to not have this progress made (since he mentioned how accelerationism is a stupid idea), but it's a critique of the liberal system and a plea to remember that there is more to be done. Much more to be done.

Oppressed people should always have the right to be angry and demand speedy progress. It ought not be up to them to make the oppressors comfortable. Whether or not you think that it is preferable in the final analysis to push for slower reform within the system (which doesn't guarantee that the system will change or won't revert) or shoot for the moon and carry out revolution (which guarantees that the system will change but leads to a host of other risks) comes down to whether you are a capitalist or a socialist.

Even if you don't understand the desire of some for revolution, you should at least see the positives in someone being passionate about radical progress, since at the very least radicalism helps push the overton window to the left, frankly. Even if revolution isn't realistic (and as a communist, I don't think it is in the US - there's too much of a risk for an American freikorps), it's only by pushing the boundaries in discourse that we remind ourselves of what is to be done. Criticism and self criticism are good things.

 

[TheHeretic]

Fuck you I got mineism?

No unsure queers allowed?

I consider queer a slur, but a "questioning" gay man will either become gay, straight or bisexual. Why they need their own letter is beyond me. I don't think it really matters.

 

[Dai101]

Stop trying to make QUILTBAG happen. Is not going to happen!

 

[nailbombxx]

Except for most people in the world, this isn't the good. It's the good for a tiny minority while everyone else suffers. I'm not saying this is bad (I've made that pretty clear) but I'm saying that bu settling with what liberal politicians give us, we cripple ourselves. We aren't getting "the good" we're getting "the still really terrible awful but now a tiny bit less so". Why settle for that? Why not actually go for the good? Cause it's hard?

I'd say these aren't steps towards total liberation (the goal) because they often prolong the system. Now I'll never advocate for accelerationism because it's terrible and ineffective, but we need to be willing to aim higher and work harder for more. Things like this are important because they improve the conditions of some people but everyone still needs to stand in the fight for true liberation for all people.

You seem to talk about true and total liberation a lot, but I don't recall you explaining what this really means. What would life be like for the truly liberated?

 

[Kevyt]

Stop trying to make QUILTBAG happen. Is not going to happen!

If it gets enough support, it could be a thing!

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Well that's just not true at all. What about the American Revolution? Convenient how people ignore that one. And while Soviet Russia had a lot of problems, it certainly massively improved quality of life for most people. They went from a feudal society to an industrial one that reached space first in fifty years. They made enormous economic and scientific progress. They were huge on gay liberation, which seems pretty relevant to this thread. But defending the Soviet Union in this context isn't really important or something I have much interest in because its flaws weren't a result of a revolution but a poorly setup system afterwards. The vast majority of systemic change has been through violent revolution.

Uhhhh. No, lol. The USSR criminalized homosexual relations and sodomy from 1933 onward, as well as officially classified homosexuality as a disease. They did enforce these laws and imprison thousands of LGBT people over the course of the USSR's history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_...s_following_the_Revolution:_1917.E2.80.931933

Furthermore the American Revolution was fundamentally different in nature than the kind of revolution you are talking about. The American Revolution was a war fought for the independence of specific territories of a larger political body. It was not an ideological revolution in the same way Communist or Fascist revolutions are. Sure, social change has occurred in large spurts with violent revolutions, but more often than not these changes increased injustice rather than eased it. The American Revolution for example bough the USA many more years of slavery than the colonies would have had if they had remained part of the British Empire, which made slavery illegal earlier than the US.

 

[excelsiorlef]

That's not what he's saying, he's saying there's a tendency in liberal societies to allow through the "democratic process" eventual, gradual reforms only after the oppressed sufficiently conform themselves to whatever is comfortable enough to the majority, and that in doing so you run the risk of impeding further progress because once the glamorized goal is achieved the majority will forget about it. There's no "conspiracy", it's just an aspect of how liberal democracies function, since liberal democracies have checks and balances and cautious natures as part of their foundations.

This is rather obviously what happened with the civil rights movement and the subsequent lack of progress on that front, even regression on that front, in the last few decades. That's not to say that it would be preferable to not have this progress made (since he mentioned how accelerationism is a stupid idea), but it's a critique of the liberal system and a plea to remember that there is more to be done. Much more to be done.

Oppressed people should always have the right to be angry and demand speedy progress. It ought not be up to them to make the oppressors comfortable. Whether or not you think that it is preferable in the final analysis to push for slower reform within the system (which doesn't guarantee that the system will change or won't revert) or shoot for the moon and carry out revolution (which guarantees that the system will change but leads to a host of other risks) comes down to whether you are a capitalist or a socialist.

Even if you don't understand the desire of some for revolution, you should at least lay off on digging into someone for being passionate about radical progress, since at the very least radicalism helps push the overton window to the left, frankly. Even if revolution isn't realistic (and as a communist, I don't think it is in the US - there's too much of a risk for an American freikorps), it's only by pushing the boundaries in discourse that we remind ourselves of what is to be done. Criticism and self criticism are good things.

And there is a very real fear that now that same sex marriage has been acquired HRC and co will wholesale abandon trans folk, queer folk of colour and queer folk in poverty because a significant part of the movement are white gay men.


Will that happen? Who knows but it's a real possibility

 

[TheHeretic]

The argument is that it conforms queer sexuality to the standards and practices of heterosexual dominant status quo culture.

Just to add more context, history will probably mark down a battle between gay activists and religious conservatives, but those of us who lived this back in the 90's know that isn't true. In hindsight, amazingly, the truly difficult part was convincing gay men in particular to abandon the kind of lifestyle that led to the aids epidemic and embrace monogamy and commitment.

Once that was locked in place the argument ended almost immediately, for reasons I don't fully understand, frankly. I am grateful though. Many of us fought for this for our dead friends.

As for why its a conservative victory, there was an ideological battle between what can loosely be defined as the left and the right. The left was suspicious of marriage as a patriarchal institution and wanted to liberate people from gender and sex roles. The right wanted homosexuals to emulate heterosexual couples with marriage and child rearing. The latter was extremely unpopular at first, many gay people didn't even want gay marriage not so long ago.

 

[Shig]

Like I said in my response to that post, I'm not dismissing this progress. But I'm saying that a real radical movement would have achieved more significant and lasting progress. This is great but if we stepped outside the bounds we set for ourselves in what we look at as acceptable means of protest and political action, more could have been done sooner. Or, at the very least, that the time for that radical action is getting closer.

Radical movements are a fine line. You go too hard with your dissent and it's really easy for the people who could be swayed to either side to back away from you, and those are the allies that win wars of public opinion.

And unfortunately the opposition is really good at obfuscating and amplifying any "these folks are getting too worked up" seed into a "HEY SHUT UP YOU HIPPIES" tree.

 

[sphagnum]

Uhhhh. No, lol. The USSR criminalized homosexual relations and sodomy from 1933 onward, as well as officially classified homosexuality as a disease. They did enforce these laws and imprison thousands of LGBT people over the course of the USSR's history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_...s_following_the_Revolution:_1917.E2.80.931933

Furthermore the American Revolution was fundamentally different in nature than the kind of revolution you are talking about. The American Revolution was a war fought for the independence of specific territories of a larger political body. It was not an ideological revolution in the same way Communist or Fascist revolutions are. Sure, social change has occurred in large spurts with violent revolutions, but more often than not these changes increased injustice rather than eased it. The American Revolution for example bough the USA many more years of slavery than the colonies would have had if they had remained part of the British Empire, which made slavery illegal earlier than the US.

The American Revolution was absolutely an ideological revolution - the ideology was liberalism in contrast to its ancient original enemy, monarchism. To say otherwise is ahistorical. The fact that it wasn't 100% ideologically because they were racists doesn't mean they didn't believe in liberalism/capitalism, though these ideas were still in formation and not totally solidified.

The American revolutionaries fought for independence of their territories because they believed in a liberal economic and political system in contrast to how they felt they were being treated as subjects of the monarchy.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Stop trying to make QUILTBAG happen. Is not going to happen!

come on it's perfect, you can make a rainbow quilt and it gives you something carry it or other things aroundi in . It's all inclusive.

QUITLBAG for a new generation of queer rights.

 

[Poltergust]

Can someone rainbowify my avatar?

It's Yoshi, so I'm expecting some crazy ones. =)

 

[jackissocool]

You seem to talk about true and total liberation a lot, but I don't recall you explaining what this really means. What would life be like for the truly liberated?

That's a big question! I will try and answer briefly and would be happy to elaborate if you'd like to know more.

Essentially, my argument rests on the idea that capitalism is an inherently oppressive system. This is based on Marx's theory of exploitation. Therefore, people cannot be liberated (not oppressed) until capitalism ends. Capitalism and other forms of oppression (racism, sexism, heteronormativity, etc.) are all linked and reinforce eachother. For example, racism reinforces capitalism by helping create a permanent underclass of people who "deserve it" (part of the neoliberal ideology that capitalism is an effective meritocracy). That then feeds back into racism - if black people are disproportionately poor, they must be inferior! This generally applies across all forms of oppression. Therefore, in order to end one, you need to end them all.

Now, what would a society like that look like? It would be based on socialism (and eventually, long from now, communism). That's not government control of the economy, but worker control of the means of production. Essentially, it's extending democracy to the economy. Since politics and economics are functionally one and the same, they must both be made democratic for either to be democratic. Therefore, in order to achieve true democracy, we must move towards socialism. Liberation requires democracy, because anyone who does not have a say in their life is oppressed.

If you'd like to discuss it more let's do it via PM or another thread because this is getting a little too off topic, I think.

Radical movements are a fine line. You go too hard with your dissent and it's really easy for the people who could be swayed to either side to back away from you, and those are the allies that win wars of public opinion. And unfortunately the opposition is really good at obfuscating and amplifying any "these folks are getting too worked up" seed into a "HEY SHUT UP YOU HIPPIES" tree.

Definitely! I don't think the American people are ready for revolution. The ideology must be a mass movement. It's a difficult line to walk. I'm not calling for murdering the rich in the streets because it would be really counterproductive. But in the long run, true social change will take a revolution.

Exactly. I think this is the point that jackissocool is trying to make and people should be more understanding of the necessity for further agitation. Just because we have swayed the Democrats to our side for now does not mean they will push for these other things. The Democratic party is primarily an opportunistic organ that exists to continue its own existence, and they have only latched onto gay marriage so strongly now because it has become the cause celebre. It took a long time to get gay marriage to be acceptable and that's only accepted now because it is considered palatable after - quite frankly - a decade or two of a barrage of media propaganda (in the good sense) showing that gay people can be "normal" (i.e., conform to traditional white-defined beauty standards, etiquette, family structures, etc.).

Liberals can be used, but they cannot be trusted. That's the basis of the relationship those who wish to see liberation must have with liberalism.

Listen to this guy.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

The American Revolution was absolutely an ideological revolution - the ideology was liberalism in contrast to its ancient original enemy, monarchism. To say otherwise is ahistorical. The fact that it wasn't 100% ideologically because they were racists doesn't mean they didn't believe in liberalism/capitalism, though these ideas were still in formation and not totally solidified.

The American revolutionaries fought for independence of their territories because they believed in a liberal economic and political system in contrast to how they felt they were being treated as subjects of the monarchy.

You're the one being ahistorical. Democracy and anti-monarchism had nothing to do with the earliest impetus of the revolution, and were in fact not popular notions among the general colonial populace until just months before the signing of the declaration of independence. The original push for revolution came from the merchant class and urban populaces because they felt that, as Englishmen, they were being denied their basic rights by being subjected to taxes without political recourse. The liberal swing of the Revolution was a galvanizing narrative because it was easy to convince colonists unsympathetic to the mere tax argument that they were fighting for something more. As a result of this, a liberal/democratic society was the inevitable outcome as it was the majority paradigm of those who fought the war.

 

[sphagnum]

And there is a very real fear that now that same sex marriage has been acquired HRC and co will wholesale abandon trans folk, queer folk of colour and queer folk in poverty because a significant part of the movement are white gay men.


Will that happen? Who knows but it's a real possibility

Exactly. I think this is the point that jackissocool is trying to make and people should be more understanding of the necessity for further agitation. Just because we have swayed the Democrats to our side for now does not mean they will push for these other things. The Democratic party is primarily an opportunistic organ that exists to continue its own existence, and they have only latched onto gay marriage so strongly now because it has become the cause celebre. It took a long time to get gay marriage to be acceptable and that's only accepted now because it is considered palatable after - quite frankly - a decade or two of a barrage of media propaganda (in the good sense) showing that gay people can be "normal" (i.e., conform to traditional white-defined beauty standards, etiquette, family structures, etc.).

Liberals can be used, but they cannot be trusted. That's the basis of the relationship those who wish to see liberation must have with liberalism.

 

[Beloved]

Stop trying to make QUILTBAG happen. Is not going to happen!

 

[Koomaster]

Stop trying to make QUILTBAG happen. Is not going to happen!

First time I heard QUILTBAG it sounded dirty to me for some reason. Still sounds dirty; I feel weird using that term. ^___^;

 

[sphagnum]

You're the one being ahistorical. Democracy and anti-monarchism had nothing to do with the earliest impetus of the revolution, and were in fact not popular notions until just months before the signing of the declaration of independence. The original push for revolution came from the merchant class and urban populaces because they felt that, as Englishmen, they were being denied their basic rights by being subjected to taxes without political recourse. The liberal swing of the Revolution was a galvanizing narrative because it was easy to convince colonists unsympathetic to the mere tax argument that they were fighting for something more. As a result of this, a liberal/democratic society was the inevitable outcome as it was the majority paradigm of those who fought the war.

This is still ideological, that's the point I was making. When I say liberalism I don't just mean "democratic" (since, of course, most of the Founding Fathers weren't fans of "democracy" anyway, but of a republic), I mean the whole concept of a society based on property rights and the relations between people and government that come with that. Yes, the roots of the rights of Englishmen go back much further than the liberal period, but the ideas about government powers requiring the consent of the government (in this case taxes) are a particularly post-Lockean thing.

 

[Necromanti]

Yeah, I mean no offence but I think the other letters are pure nonsense. Questioning? Asexual? Thats not what we were fighting for all these years, frankly it reminds me of the kind of indulgent excess that set us back (and got so many of us killed) in the first place.

Could you elaborate on this sentiment?

 

[TimeEffect]

The most popular catholic forum is pissed.

"evil"
"degenerate"
"damned to hell"

Note that each poster has a tag for their religion, and the one person happy about it is an agnostic lol

What's truly funny is that Catholics are considered to be more "liberal" on the internet, unlike the fundies in the U.S.A. Yet these people still bring the same nutjob arguments and preach the same song and dance.

This is just one area that Catholics and more fundamental christians are totally in sync with

 

[Yagharek]

Ha i am a huge huge bleeding heart liberal. If there ever was a "christian holocaust" i would go and join the equivalent of the SS responsible for it in a second.

What a dumb post. You don't have to agree with Christian conservative fruitcakes, but they don't deserve subhuman treatment.

Just encourage the moderate Christians you know to be more outspoken against bigotry.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

This is still ideological, that's the point I was making. When I say liberalism I don't just mean "democratic" (since, of course, most of the Founding Fathers weren't fans of "democracy" anyway, but of a republic), I mean the whole concept of a society based on property rights and the relations between people and government that come with that. Yes, the roots of the rights of Englishmen go back much further than the liberal period, but the ideas about government powers requiring the consent of the government (in this case taxes) are a particularly post-Lockean thing.

I guess I was kind of splitting hairs with what I meant by "ideology" so fair enough. Ultimately, though, I won't agree on moral grounds that violent coercion should be used as a means of social change, even if I were to benefit from it.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Can someone rainbowify my avatar?

It's Yoshi, so I'm expecting some crazy ones. =)

QUILTBAG APPROVED RAINBOW SPIRAL YOSHI

 

[jackissocool]

I guess I was kind of splitting hairs with what I meant by "ideology" so fair enough. Ultimately, though, I won't agree on moral grounds that violent coercion should be used as a means of social change, even if I were to benefit from it.

My response would be that violence is a appropriate response to violence. Capitalism is maintained by violence and to end it will probably require some bloodshed. If not, great, but I wouldn't count on it.

You're essentially saying the American revolution was unjustified because it was violent and violence can never be justified.

 

[Prinz Eugn]

This shows an enormous lack of perspective on the conditions of most people in the world, which is utter destitution.

Yeah, no. Development is extremely uneven and exploitation is common, but this ironically close to a colonialist sort of perspective on the world, just with a different motivation.

"Oh the Other, how much worse things must be than here!"

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

Except for most people in the world, this isn't the good. It's the good for a tiny minority while everyone else suffers. I'm not saying this is bad (I've made that pretty clear) but I'm saying that bu settling with what liberal politicians give us, we cripple ourselves. We aren't getting "the good" we're getting "the still really terrible awful but now a tiny bit less so". Why settle for that? Why not actually go for the good? Cause it's hard?

I'd say these aren't steps towards total liberation (the goal) because they often prolong the system. Now I'll never advocate for accelerationism because it's terrible and ineffective, but we need to be willing to aim higher and work harder for more. Things like this are important because they improve the conditions of some people but everyone still needs to stand in the fight for true liberation for all people.

Whatever your final goal, you will never reach that point in one massive step. You go for 1. When you get 1, you go for 2. You don't say "give me 100 or fuck you." I understand wide-eyed idealism. But it needs to be tempered with an understanding of how things actually work and a willingness to work within those confines. It took human civilization a good number of years to get this fucked up. It'll take many more to unfuck ourselves.

If LGBT marriage rights are one tiny step forward, I say celebrate. Celebration does not mean settle. It means take a moment to bask in how far we've come before moving forward. Because even a tiny, microscopic victory is still a victory.

And to those who fought for years or even decades to see this day come, the forward motion brought on by this ruling was anything but small.

 

[sphagnum]

I guess I was kind of splitting hairs with what I meant by "ideology" so fair enough. Ultimately, though, I won't agree on moral grounds that violent coercion should be used as a means of social change, even if I were to benefit from it.

Another difference between liberals and socialists. =) We tend to have different definitions for the same words, like ideology/ideological, private property, etc.

And I'd agree with what jackissocool just said, violence can certainly be a moral response to violence, although I think it just ultimately comes down to whether it's strategically the right response. The proper response to Nazis for example isn't to argue with them, it's to kill them. But if you can't muster the power to do it, then other avenues have to be taken.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I consider queer a slur, but a "questioning" gay man will either become gay, straight or bisexual. Why they need their own letter is beyond me. I don't think it really matters.

I say again: That's fuck you got mineism.

Then again you since went on to slut shame non monogamous queer folk and identified them as the reason gay rights were bad in the 90s sooooooo....

 

[blackflag]

My response would be that violence is a appropriate response to violence. Capitalism is maintained by violence and to end it will probably require some bloodshed. If not, great, but I wouldn't count on it.

You're essentially saying the American revolution was unjustified because it was violent and violence can never be justified.

I think violence is appropriate when necessary. However, if you want change you have to settle for these small slow incremental changes.

Be realistic. there's not going to be a revolution against the U.S. Govt. by its citizens. That isn't going to happen. You can either understand and accept that or not I guess. Seems it would be better to accept it and to make change via other, slower methods.

 

[jackissocool]

I think violence is appropriate when necessary. However, if you want change you have to settle for these small slow incremental changes.

Be realistic. there's not going to be a revolution against the U.S. Govt. by its citizens. That isn't going to happen. You can either understand and accept that or not I guess. Seems it would be better to accept it and to make change via other, slower methods.

I keep saying exactly that. We're not close to ready (probably). But we should move towards revolution, violent or not. Nobody's calling for open warfare against the U.S. military. I'm calling for radical social and systematic change that will probably require some level of violence because the ruling class won't just give up their power.

Yeah, no. Development is extremely uneven and exploitation is common, but this ironically close to a colonialist sort of perspective on the world, just with a different motivation.

"Oh the Other, how much worse things must be than here!"

Please. I'm explicitly saying colonialism is the problem and you want to say calling for the oppressed peoples of the Global South to take power into their own hands is somehow paternalistic? They don't need me to tell them because those movements are growing just fine without western guidance or support. I'm just saying I support them and that we should do the same here, in the center of capitalist hegemony.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

My response would be that violence is a appropriate response to violence. Capitalism is maintained by violence and to end it will probably require some bloodshed. If not, great, but I wouldn't count on it.

You're essentially saying the American revolution was unjustified because it was violent and violence can never be justified.

I'm not saying violence can never be justified, I just don't believe it's an appropriate method for instigating social change. There's never going to be some kind of marxist, wholly equitable utopia. Human nature will never allow for it. So, you're just killing people for a cause that can never wholly be realized anyway. If you want to solve injustice forever, you're going to have to basically render the human race extinct.

Another difference between liberals and socialists. =) We tend to have different definitions for the same words, like ideology/ideological, private property, etc.

And I'd agree with what jackissocool just said, violence can certainly be a moral response to violence, although I think it just ultimately comes down to whether it's strategically the right response. The proper response to Nazis for example isn't to argue with them, it's to kill them. But if you can't muster the power to do it, then other avenues have to be taken.

Well, the nazi analogy is a bit different, because violence was used to defend from social regression. Social progression to the point where true equality existed may as well not use violence, because human nature won't allow true equality to ever exist to any degree of permanence.

 

[TheHeretic]

I say again: That's fuck you got mineism.

Then again you since went on to slut shame non monogamous queer folk and identified them as the reason gay rights were bad in the 90s sooooooo....

I didn't slut shame anyone, the amount of unprotected casual sex going on in gay bath-houses and clubs was a major contributor to the aids epidemic in the gay community. Do you seriously disagree with this?

 

[Zornack]

I keep saying exactly that. We're not close to ready (probably). But we should move towards revolution, violent or not. Nobody's calling for open warfare against the U.S. military. I'm calling for radical social and systematic change that will probably require some level of violence because the ruling class won't just give up their power.

When you envision the ruling class who are you picturing?

 

[jackissocool]

When you envision the ruling class who are you picturing?

The people who own the means of production and use it to expropriate labor from the working class, and the government that supports and protects them. Aka the bourgeoisie. I have a pretty specific definition.

I'm not saying violence can never be justified, I just don't believe it's an appropriate method for instigating social change. There's never going to be some kind of marxist, wholly equitable utopia. Human nature will never allow for it. So, you're just killing people for a cause that can never wholly be realized anyway. If you want to solve injustice forever, you're going to have to basically render the human race extinct.

You did not honestly just make the human nature argument, did you?

Good lord. Please define and provide evidence for your concept of human nature and explain why it prevents us from achieving an egalitarian society.

 

[Darksol]

The most popular catholic forum is pissed.

Thanks for that. I'll be sharing things I like periodically

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Thanks for that. I'll be sharing things I like periodically

Pretty sure their pope just told them to stop breeding like rabbits.

The people who own the means of production and use it to expropriate labor from the working class, and the government that supports and protects.

You did not honestly just make the human nature argument, did you?

Good lord. Please define and provide evidence for your concept of human nature and explain why it prevents us from achieving an egalitarian society.

Because humans evolved as resource hoarding apes governed by their need to survive and successfully reproduce and not by some kind of logical apparatus. Selfishness isn't a learned behavior, it's coded into our genes.

Exhibit A: On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin