In a Washington Blade column, Mark Lee points out that Gay groups taking on gun issues could backfire:
Do gay activists and organizations run the risk of fracturing equality efforts and the continuing support among constituents for their work by engaging on other political issues, especially when many potential topics enjoy much less than universal, or even broad, support?
Well, yes. But they see their mission as enlisting LGBT brigades to fight for the progressive agenda.
Also on the activists front, the Washington Post reports that LGBT-friendly Asheville feels the impact of the ‘bathroom bill’ boycotts. Gay-owned and gay-friendly businesses in North Carolina are feeling the pain in places that are overwhelmingly liberal like Asheville, and in Charlotte where the transgender-inclusive bill was passed (triggering the state legislature to overturn it and decree that for public schools and government buildings people must use restrooms that correspond to the gender on their birth certificates—leading to the calls to boycott businesses in the state).
If you’re gay or gay-supportive, it’s probably the gay and gay-supportive businesses for whom you’d be a likely customer. Those are the ones you’re now being told to boycott so as to punish North Carolina, in a collective-guilt sense.
Activism can be necessary and productive in the fight for civil rights and equality before the law. It can also be, and increasingly seems to be, about signaling self-righteousness and political correctness.
Relatedly, Cathy Young on feminist male-bashing:
Male faults are stated as sweeping condemnations; objecting to such generalizations is taken as a sign of complicity. Meanwhile, similar indictments of women would be considered grossly misogynistic.
This gender antagonism does nothing to advance the unfinished business of equality. If anything, the fixation on men behaving badly is a distraction from more fundamental issues, such as changes in the workplace to promote work-life balance.
It’s all about one-upping each other on the ideological purity scale.
More. Black Lives Matter Toronto staged a sit-in during the city’s Pride march, halting the procession for 30 minutes before organizers signed a list of demands, including “A commitment to increase representation among Pride Toronto staffing/hiring, prioritizing black trans women” among others, and, more ominously, “Removal of police floats in the pride marches/parades.”
Global News reports that despite the pledge to “purge the parade of police marchers,” that “Officers will still be present to enforce security at future parades.”
Via The Star, “Police also wouldn’t be allowed to have booths at future Pride celebrations, if the demands are met.” Inclusion!
Furthermore. Via Walter Olson:
If you thought blackmailing gays was a thing of the past, you didn’t reckon with BLM. … It so typifies 2016 that the ones to shut down a gay pride parade would be on the Left, and that no one would tell them off.
And from James Kirchick:
Gay groups honored Black Lives Matter with prominent roles at their pride events, and Black Lives Matter returned the favor by hijacking those events to further their own anti-cop agendas. Condemning the police as an inherently racist, homophobic institution is not only false and counterproductive, it denigrates the many LGBT officers whose participation in these festivities would be annulled if the activists got their way.
Take back Gay Pride from the left-progressive haters, in NYC and Toronto!
65 Comments for “Unintended Consequences”
posted by TJ on
Frankly, it is pretty heartless and dishonest to suggest that transgender people wanting to be able to use a bathroom — without, you know, being arrested or harassed — is simply a matter of outrageous and silly political correctness.
Some LGBT rights groups take a position on gun policy, and others probably don’t. Pink Pistols (as an example) is certainly making the case that gun policy is a gay rights issue. So, are you really suggesting that gay rights groups NOT take a position on gun policy, or is it OK as long as its your position?
When Charleston Heston was running the NRA — not too long ago — he probably didn’t help the NRA’s standing with the LGBT community. He generally seemed to feel that the NRA needed to take a policy stand against “godless infidels”.
Personally, I think it might be best to highlight the fact that gay people — as people — have a range of different views on gun policy (much like straight people).
Then again, I tend to be turned off by the polarizing attitudes that seem to dominate the entire gun policy debate (largely, because the media wants to make money and knows what sells).
posted by Houndentenor on
In the bizarro world in which Stephen and other homocons live, the right wing backlash if the fault of liberals. Even they know that they are getting nowhere on getting the right to come around on lbgt issues. So they blame liberals. To them we make conservatives be antigay by…well I’m not sure how that’s supposed to work and neither does anyone else because it makes zero sense. If Stephen and other gay conservatives spent 10% as much energy working on getting Republicans to back off on the anti-gay bigotry as they do blaming liberals for their own failure, they might accomplish something.
posted by TJ on
Far too many people invoke “gestapo” or “Nazi” when its not appropriate.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Gay-owned and gay-friendly businesses in North Carolina are feeling the pain in places that are overwhelmingly liberal like Asheville, and in Charlotte where the transgender-inclusive bill was passed (triggering the state legislature to overturn it and decree that for public schools and government buildings people must use restrooms that correspond to the gender on their birth certificates—leading to the calls to boycott businesses in the state).
Sensible local ordinances in several cities reflecting the political will of the local communities “triggered” an absurd and nonsensical law that blew out of the ass of Christio-Republican fringe. And the reactionary law, which is direct government discrmination and is so moronic that it mandates a result in which male transgenders are forced to use women’s bathrooms, in turn “triggered” outrage and a boycott, harming businesses in North Carolina, some of which are owned by gays and lesbians. And where does StephenWorld™ lay the blame for the reactionary law and the resulting boycott? On “progressive” gays and lesbians, of course.
Oh well, we have all learned over the years that “StephenWorld™ logic” is an oxymoron.
Do gay activists and organizations run the risk of fracturing equality efforts and the continuing support among constituents for their work by engaging on other political issues, especially when many potential topics enjoy much less than universal, or even broad, support?
Of course. But, as TJ pointed out, opinion on gun control issues is as diverse among LGBT’s as it is among straights, so there is no getting around the “risk of fracturing” if an LGBT organization takes a position. That doesn’t mean that the organizations shouldn’t take positions. And, as far as I’m concerned, those of us who don’t like the positions taken don’t have to support the organizations.
Pink Pistols has endorsed candidates and “supports the Second Amendment” (as they understanding it) as well as “the rights of consenting adults to love each other however they wish”. I’d be loath to condemn Pink Pistols for taking either position, or endorsing candidates, and it isn’t my business. Ditto for HRC, Gays Against Guns, Log Cabin Republicans and a host of other LGBT organizations. I’m not a member of any of these organizations, nobody is forcing me to join, and none of them speak for me.
I think your fear that the LGBT movement will be “fractured” is misplaced. The gay rights movement has always been fractured, so has been in the 40+ years I’ve been involved with it. The gay rights movement has always been disorganized and fractious. I can’t think of a single issue over the years where we’ve had anything close to unanimous agreement, either on goals or tactics. The “grassroots” has often been at odds with the “leadership” on issues, including important issues like marriage equality (where the “leadership” was advocating a careful, state-by-state strategy, and the “grassroots” were insisting on “Get this done, dammit!”).
I don’t see any reason why it will be any different going forward, or should be any different.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
Sometimes, such as right now, after Tom Scharbach has posted a comment of refulgent clarity and reason, it occurs to me that nothing else really needs to be said about the topic (which I realize has no bearing upon whether anything further will, in fact, be said. But I thought I might take advantage of just such a moment and ask for some background information from those of you more familiar with this blog than I. Does anybody within blog-shot know who Stephen H. Miller is? Age, occupation, hometown? Does anyone know with any reasonable certainty that he is gay? Does anyone know of any specific, positive, constructive positions he advocates, or ever has advocated, toward the betterment of life for lgbt people? Does anyone know of any specific actions or tangible activities that he has ever carried out, other than voicing his opinion, toward the betterment of life for lgbt people? Just wondering,
posted by Jorge on
Does anybody within blog-shot know who Stephen H. Miller is?
There used to be a picture and a brief bio on the old website. The picture would seem to place him at the border of baby boomer and Gen X.
Does anyone know with any reasonable certainty that he is gay?
I think that’s a silly question. I don’t know with any reasonable certainty that any so-called gay columnist, blogger, or other media personality is gay. In fact the only media personality whose romantic inclination I have ever seen evidence of is Megyn Kelly (she has an interview of her husband on Youtube).
Does anyone know of any specific, positive, constructive positions he advocates, or ever has advocated, toward the betterment of life for lgbt people?
He has a libertarian bent (I think that was part of his old bio), and such ideas as the betterment of life of a delineated group of people are a little alien to that ideology.
He takes a very harsh position on the theology and politics of the Catholic Church that I think is a misrepresentation.
I’m pretty sure this was one of the sites that was critical of the footdragging on the DADT repeal.
posted by JohnInCA on
Perhaps this is unfair, but did Miller (not IGF in general, which used to have a much more diverse cast of bloggers) ever say a word about Obama before 2009?
posted by JohnInCA on
D’oh, just realized I wrote “Obama”. Meant “DADT”.
posted by Houndentenor on
Please, no doxxing. The blog posts can be discussed without any personal information. The writings here are not any more or less valid depending on who is writing them.
posted by JohnInCA on
I have no reason to doubt Mr. Miller’s identity, and no interest in verifying it. That said, if he has been lying this entire time, then he would shift from merely being wrong on a great many things to being malicious on the same.
If he has been lying, then his calls for “too much, too soon” are plausibly attempts at achieving “not now, not ever”.
If has has been lying, then pleas for gays to vote Republican regardless of equality are arguably not attempts to change the Republican party, but just attempts to sucker in more gay votes for anti-gay candidates with no intention or desire to change.
So yes, no need to dox the man. But have no doubt, his identity does matter. It’s the difference between simply being wrong, and being bad.
posted by TJ on
I think he claims to be a former progressive, who “saw the light” and become a conservative Republican.
Somtimes he flirts with the libertarian party, but mostly he recites partisan talking points all while pretending that he cares about being independent.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
There used to be a picture and a brief bio on the old website.
Here’s the bio.
Some of the referenced articles (e.g. “Who Stole the Gay Movement?“) were republished in the early days of IGF and are available in the archives.
Stephen is not a poser. We don’t need to fall down the rabbit hole into doxxing, and shouldn’t. His thinking has been consistent for close to 25 years now, and speaks for itself. I don’t agree with his thinking, but he has been an active commentator on the gay scene for a long time.
posted by Jorge on
Memories are funny things. I guess what I was remembering is how allergic I was to his postings.
posted by Jorge on
Random acts of disruption + expanding to gun control, eh?
To them we make conservatives be antigay by…well I’m not sure how that’s supposed to work and neither does anyone else because it makes zero sense.
Part of what makes it work is going activist by hiding behind platitudes instead of telling the real reason why activism is necessary.
If Stephen and other gay conservatives spent 10% as much energy working on getting Republicans to back off on the anti-gay bigotry as they do blaming liberals for their own failure, they might accomplish something.
Sorry, I think that is wrong on principle.
What use is it to convince leaders of a party that believes in personal responsibility to grant privileges to a group that passes off its responsibilities to a disfavored minority?
What you’re asking is kind of like Moses asking God to spare the cities of Sodom and Gemorrah when there are only five good people between them. God grants the request… by removing the few good people and destroying the cities anyway. Perhaps if Moses had spent his efforts convincing the people to ask God themselves, he would have been more successful.
This is not in any way intended to imply that homolibs have no clout because they live in a bizarro world.
With all due respect Tom, you make a very good argument. I would like to point out where to attack it.
Sensible local ordinances in several cities…
Tom Scharbach thinks trans-inclusive bathroom laws are sensible.
No, that’s unfair. We went through this whole song and dance in Houston already.
Tom Scharbach thinks its sensible for city administrators to tell restaurants how to run their bathrooms, plus the usual bakers, florists, and whatever I usually call the NY example. To which I say, so what? What’s the big deal? And I expect to get some abstract lecture on equality–because that’s the reason the HERO was repealed. Only as these laws are repealed have we begun to have a discussion of why the bathroom parts of them impact quality of life in ways that are important to lots of individuals. Only with their repeals have we heard (though really only with the bathroom part) about whether there are ways to ensure ensure these laws do not get abused to harm good and fair people.
…And where does StephenWorld™ lay the blame for the reactionary law and the resulting boycott? On “progressive” gays and lesbians, of course.
There’s been a lot of nonsense in gay rights laws for about a year now. Why trust this or that city’s law? It’s a bad idea to fix things that aren’t broken anyway; why not rectify that by unfixing it?
If we pass laws on the strength of progressive self-talk alone, we shouldn’t be too surprised when those laws are repealed on the strength of conservative self-talk alone.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
LGBT-friendly Asheville feels the impact of the ‘bathroom bill’ boycotts.
Why don’t you read the ordinances, Jorge? Then you don’t have to trust them?
Here’s Charlotte’s ordinance, the one that sent the North Carolina’s Christio-Republicans into such a frenzy that they just had to pass a “corrective” law in one day flat, without legislative hearings or any of the normal consideration methods. You might want to read the accompanying FAQ, too, while you are at it. It might calm you.
It’s a bad idea to fix things that aren’t broken anyway; why not rectify that by unfixing it?
Sure. All you have to do is to demonstrate that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression in North Carolina is so uncommon as to be no problem.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Something happened to my clip of Jorge’s comment. “LGBT-friendly Asheville feels the impact of the ‘bathroom bill’ boycotts.” should read “There’s been a lot of nonsense in gay rights laws for about a year now. Why trust this or that city’s law?”
In any event, I generally try to read the actual law/ordinance in question before going off half-cocked about it. It is a practice that has served me well over the years.
posted by Jorge on
Why don’t you read the ordinances, Jorge? Then you don’t have to trust them?
I’m not the one you need to convince. “It’s sensible, read the bill” is a strong argument, if it’s attached to something more. That’s why I got around to reading the HERO. That didn’t break my neutrality toward its opponents, though (see last week’s episode of Millerworld to learn how to do that).
Sure. All you have to do is to demonstrate that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression in North Carolina is so uncommon as to be no problem.
Before I accept your request for North Carolina to assume the burden of proof from Charlotte, I think the local bill’s supporters should at least be able to argue there is a rational basis for it. And if the state wants them to prove that their method is narrowly tailored to solve a compelling problem, that shouldn’t be too difficult, either.
Now is when I look something up: the actual debate and testimony of the state bill.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/24/471700323/north-carolina-passes-law-blocking-measures-to-protect-lgbt-people
“Over the course of 12 hours, the state legislators introduced, debated and passed the bill, and Gov. Pat McCrory signed it into law.”
Hmm!
A link on the same article points (eventually) to coverage stating the bill was not posted until the special session devoted to it began.
Okay, never mind. Let the governor twist in the wind and reap the rewards of his renowned wisdom. Do be careful about cornering a rat, though.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Okay, never mind. Let the governor twist in the wind and reap the rewards of his renowned wisdom. Do be careful about cornering a rat, though.
How about just fire him in November’s election?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: Sure. All you have to do is to demonstrate that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression in North Carolina is so uncommon as to be no problem.
Jorge: Before I accept your request for North Carolina to assume the burden of proof from Charlotte, I think the local bill’s supporters should at least be able to argue there is a rational basis for it. And if the state wants them to prove that their method is narrowly tailored to solve a compelling problem, that shouldn’t be too difficult, either.
It isn’t at all hard to demonstrate that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression is significant in many/most areas of the country, and in particular in a state like North Carolina, which has a long history of animus towards gays and lesbians. In North Carolina’s case, just start with the infamous “gay purge” in Greensboro, work your way forward through the legislature’s refusal to repeal the state’s sodomy laws, Amendment One, and so on. It is child’s play. Hell, if you want something recent, just read your own post about the “one day, no hearings” frenzy in the North Carolina legislature that led to the law we are currently discussing. I don’t think that we’ve seen anything that blatantly based on animus since segregation days.
As to your appeal to the “compelling interest, narrowly tailored” leg of Sherbert/Yoder, the Rehnquist Court rendered that standard moot in the case of “neutral law of general applicability”, such as public accommodations laws, in Employment Division, Justice Scalia writing for the majority. Specific laws (e.g. RFRA at the federal level, and similar state laws) have attempted to restore the Sherbert/Yoder test, but “compelling interest, narrowly tailored” isn’t a constitutional requirement when it comes to religiously neutral laws of general application.
posted by Jorge on
Hell, if you want something recent, just read your own post about the “one day, no hearings” frenzy…
I had to abandon defending my argument when I looked that up 🙂
I don’t think that we’ve seen anything that blatantly based on animus since segregation days.
Ehhh, I think the local officeholders managed to squeeze out the traditionalist excuse of, “I don’t have anything against transgender people, but we can’t have a law that allows real sexual predators into women’s bathrooms.” There was at least a dim awareness that there were actually two sides.
North Carolina certainly sounds like a state given to reactionary closed-mindedness, though. Perhaps someone should sue it and force it to consider evidence that is laws are irrational. Nah. People should just lobby the officeholders instead.
You think I should help fire the governor? He’s up for re-election this year?
I think that’s a great idea!
His opponent being the Attorney General creates a tricky situation, though. Is he refusing to defend the law because he thinks it’s unconstitutional or because he’s running for political office? No matter, the rest of his comments on it are good enough.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
North Carolina certainly sounds like a state given to reactionary closed-mindedness, though. Perhaps someone should sue it and force it to consider evidence that is laws are irrational.
The constitutionality of HB2 is the subject of both federal (five to date that I know about) and state (three as far as I know) lawsuits. I dead certain that North Carolina will not prevail and that HB2 will be history within a couple of years. The law is that bad.
posted by Walker on
Why don’t you people get your own blog? You spend thousands more words answering miller then he writes himself. And any actual engagement with his argument is lost in the torrent.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Actual engagement? If only. Stephen never chimes in or upholds his side. Tom, Lori and Houndentenor constantly do a point by point rebuttal and just slay him with facts. And no input from Stephen. Nada. Goose egg. Does he even read our comments? No, he just does his drive by garbage installment and moves on. As odious as Gay Patriot is, at least the author puts in his/her two cents worth (I don’t know the sex of V the K, but the person isn’t gay). So no, at least I’m not going to start my own blog. Lori has one. C’mon Stephen: engage, talk, critique, anything to let us know you’re in contact with us.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Jim, Stephen engages in an indirect manner. In many posts, he post-comment amends the original post several times as comments are posted, inserting the changes in obvious response to comments/criticisms.
Take the immediately preceding post, for example. Over the course of several days, “was led by a banner” morphed into “prominently featured a banner”, as Jorge caught him. The post contains numerous other additions/rebuttals, none of which appeared in the original. Sentences appeared/disappeared as if by magic. Slippery.
Stephen obviously reads the comments and responds in his own way. He just doesn’t engage directly.
posted by Jorge on
Sure, it might be a better idea to just go to church instead, or watch TV, or do some other more wholesome activity than obsessing over the minutae. Maybe someday I will. Not yet.
posted by Houndentenor on
Stephen isn’t interested in engagement, but the people who respond here are. So we respond to each other. Why is that a problem?
posted by JohnInCA on
I’d say it’s a mixture of “human nature” and “a comment section is an invitation”.
Human Nature
Humans are social creatures and generally speaking, we prefer interactive experiences over passive ones. It’s why we have things like movie nights and book clubs that take what is mostly a passive experience and turns it into a social/interactive experience. Because even the introverts among us want someone to validate the way they understood Abigail’s actions in Live Is But A Dream. It’s why we hand off books and comics to our friends, because we want them to not only enjoy what we enjoy, but we want to talk about it.
Blog posts and news articles are pretty similar. We read, and then we think, and we want to share our thoughts with others who have read the same. Hence, comment section. Any engagement with the author themselves is pretty incidental, as the main driving force is just to interact with other people who have read the same thing.
A Comment Section is an Invitation
Regardless of whether he responds directly, Miller, or whoever makes such decisions for IGF these days (I assume Miller because posts from anyone else are so rare these days) maintains the comment section, and by doing so expresses an interest in either hearing what people have to say or at least giving people the opportunity to hear what eachother have to say.
And lacking specific direction from the owners/maintainers of the site, there is no reason to believe that the posters here, even the ones very very critical of Mr. Miller, are unwanted.
So there you have it. Two more reasons why people, even people that don’t agree with the original blog posts, might continue to read and comment.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Relatedly
It would do you a lot of good to bust out of the gay bubble for a while and get to know what non-feminist women think and say about men. It would be an eye-opener, I suspect. An awful lot of ordinary women think men are basically dolts.
The teacher I had 2nd through 8th grades used to say, “If the shoe fits, wear it.” If female criticism is on target, take it seriously and do something about it. If not, ignore it.
posted by Jorge on
An awful lot of ordinary women think men are basically dolts.
They needn’t worry; the feeling is mutual.
posted by Lori Heine on
Personally, I get along very well with most men. And as for dolts, I’ve met plenty of both sexes. But then again, I find that I’ve gotten along with men much better since I came out–and with women somewhat less well. Sexual/romantic tension undoubtedly has a lot to do with that.
The weird thing is that I still get asked out (by men) probably a couple of times a month. If I wanted a husband, I could get one in three months. WHERE ARE ALL THE WOMEN???!!
I’d settle for a dolt-ette. As long as she was congenial. I just want to know where the hell she’s been all my life.
posted by Houndentenor on
I have the same (opposite) experience with women. I have no shortage of women who would go out with me if I asked. Why? Because I’m not the least bit interested. People want what they can’t have and your lack of interest in those men makes you more attractive. Yes, it’s messed up but it seems to be hard wired into our thinking. That which is off limits must be of greater worth. it’s best to find it amusing, because it is rather hilarious.
As for men. Yes, a lot are dolts. It’s not that they are the majority, it’s that they seem to be the loudest. The same goes for women. People out making fools of themselves are always the easiest to notice. People minding their own business tend to stay under the radar.
posted by Jorge on
“The fixation on men behaving badly distracts from more fundamental issues…”
Is that so?
I think gender inequality and social patriarchy is a fundamental issue for feminism, as indeed the article points out. I would say that the tone (“treating men badly”) distracts from the substance.
It’s not hard to see why. The substance is subtle, complicated, and fiercely dissented from in many particulars. Berating men has the benefit of being simple and difficult to dissent from without appearing to be a sexist. But conservatives, as they often do, eventually figure out how to say, “The ‘men behaving badly’ meme is really a screen for radical notions of gender equality.” This leads eventually into conservatives advancing the defeat condition of the progressive movement, in this case, an intellectual defense of social patriarchy. Then, when feminists cry “Sexist! Man behaving badly!”, the conservative says, “You see?”
In the gay, lesbian, transgender and possibly bisexual communities as well, this folly stems from an unwillingness to lose, an unwillingness to consider the possibility that one might be wrong. This is where pride leads to sin. I would add what is also missing is a certain reverence for history, a trepidation upon realizing that oppression has served a social or economic function. The task of the activist is not just to show that oppression is wrong, but to show how it is obsolete.
“Yet it is not too far-fetched to see the pro-Donald Trump sentiment as fueled, at least in part, by a backlash against feminism.”
Indeed it is not.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If you’re gay or gay-supportive, it’s probably the gay and gay-supportive businesses for whom you’d be a likely customer. Those are the ones you’re now being told to boycott so as to punish North Carolina, in a collective-guilt sense.
That’s simply not true, Stephen. Nobody is telling anyone to boycott “gay and gay-supportive businesses”.
And while it is true that travel boycotts, like rain, affect the good and the bad alike, actions have consequences, intended and unintended.
I wonder what would have happened if Republicans in the legislature had taken the time to consider the possible economic impact of HB2 on North Carolina (holding hearings for example), instead of pushing through this moronic legislation in a single day, or if Governor McCrory had followed Lori’s “stop, breath, think” advice before signing the bill in the dead of night.
“LGBT Progressives” didn’t pull HB2 out of their ass. Republicans did. The boycott and other reactions to HB2 were entirely predictable (see Arizona and other states).
If you don’t think that the boycott is a good idea (opinions differ), then travel to North Carolina and spend. Boycott the companies that are pulling out of North Carolina (GE, Dow, Pepsi, Hyatt, HP, Choice Hotels, Levi Strauss, American Express, Bloomberg, Capital One, Campbell Soup, Estée Lauder, John Hancock, Kohler, Logitech, REI, The Hartford, Time-Warner Cable, United Airlines, Visa, and so on) or otherwise taking action that you disagree with (e.g. Target) by selling their stock and investing in other companies. Support groups like the Keep NC Safe Coalition with your contributions.
You don’t have to stand helpless.
posted by Houndentenor on
Toronto Pride caving to BLM demands is shameful. Banning the gay cops from marching does nothing to help relations between the black community and the police. In fact, it probably makes things worse. But some elements on the left, like many on the right, don’t want to make things better. They just want to shout and drown out everyone else.
posted by Jorge on
“Removal of police floats in the pride marches/parades.”
Gee, it’s like the St. Patrick’s Day parade all over again.
Well, their parade, their rules. If I attended a pride event and something like that happened, it would be my last year attending.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
CBC News is reporting that Pride Toronto denies that it agreed to exclude police from the parade:
I’m glad to hear that. I don’t, for the life of me, understand why Pride Toronto or any other LGBT group organizing a pride parade would ban police from marching in the parade.
posted by Jorge on
Eh, police-(minority) community relations can have a lot of ups and downs.
You don’t know how tired I am of witnessing how every time some bad pattern happens somewhere, the local community will not be satisfied without the police or municipality reinventing the wheel for police-community relationships. But they are entitled to their opinion.
The problem is where, as here, a local minority community tries to apply an expectation for a cross section of society to be just as demanding, even where 1) the privileged are not themselves experiencing poor relations with the police, or 2) the injury the local community has suffered is very local. Better to trade BLM joining Pride events for the GLBT community joining BLM; not keeping Pride events intact in exchange for the GLBT community breaking itself up.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Jillian Johnson, a lesbian and Durham City Council member, has an interesting reflection on the North Carolina boycott. She writes about the costs of the boycott to North Carolina, and the consequences, both positive and negative, on North Carolina and Durham.
It is well worth a read for those interested.
A paragraph that struck me:
posted by Houndentenor on
Hardly a week goes by without a conservative (usually social conservative) group calling for a boycott against some pro-lbgt company or other. Those boycotts are generally ignored because they don’t work. So the panic about the NC boycott is interesting. Given the hoopla here and elsewhere it seems to be having an impact. What seems clear is that people are not going to stop shopping at Target because there might be a trans person using a different restroom than someone thinks they should (something that given the number of Target stores vs the number of trans people must be quite rare), but they are concerned that right wing demagogues are stirring up fear and anger towards trans people in a way that makes their lives even more prone to violence than before. So, no I will not call for a rollback of the NC boycotts because they are working. If NC wants them to stop they have a simple solution to stop them. Republicans are caught in a difficult position these days on social issues. Gay people are not easy targets today like we were 20 years ago and the shift from gay to trans people has backfired. I honestly couldn’t have imagined this 20 or 30 years ago but I am quite happy that I lived long enough to see the tide turn in our favor.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The President Presumptive weighed in yesterday, reversing his position:
NBC, Today, April 21: “North Carolina did something that was very strong and they’re paying a big price. And there’s a lot of problems. Leave it the way it is. North Carolina, what they’re going through, with all of the business and all of the strife — and that’s on both sides — you leave it the way it is. There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. There has been so little trouble. And the problem with what happened in North Carolina is the strife and the economic punishment they’re taking.”
The News & Observer, July 5: “I’m going with the state. The state, they know what what’s going on, they see what’s happening and generally speaking I’m with the state on things like this. I’ve spoken with your governor, I’ve spoken with a lot of people and I’m going with the state.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Take back Gay Pride from the left-progressive haters, in NYC and Toronto!
If you, Olson, and Kirchick are anywhere near as successful as you all have been in bringing the conservative movement around, the “left-progressive haters” will double down next year. Twits, the lot of you.
posted by Jorge on
The President Presumptive weighed in yesterday, reversing his position:
Like a balloon filled with hot air.
“I’ve spoken with your governor, I’ve spoken with a lot of people and I’m going with the state.””
I’m filled to the brim with pride that Donald Trump believes states’ rights begins and ends in majority party statehouse rule.
That’s right, I’m a Trump apologist, and admit it, that was a good one.
Take back Gay Pride from the left-progressive haters, in NYC and Toronto!
This is bold enough for me to object that pride is one of the seven deadly sins. We should instead respect both the good and the evil.
We should experience horror and self-loathing at the very nature of mankind. Why not experience that with fellow gays? The left-progressive haters are part of the gay out identity. Their very existence is powerful testimony on the frailty of free will in the face of powerful social forces. Where there are chances to achieve and experience better things than hatred and division, then that should be cherished and sought out.
Really, the gay rights movement would be better off if we all just laid down and did nothing than if we fought against our internal divisions. It would not be such a bad thing if every single year BLM stopped the Toronto Pride Parade and every single year GLBT cops rode a float anyway.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Meanwhile in Ohio, a baker just refused to make a birthday cake — because the person ordering it is in a same-sex marriage:
http://www.13abc.com/content/news/Same-sex-couple-denied-a-birthday-cake-by-local-bakery-385783221.html
Spin that religious freedom / expressive services bullsh*t Stephen.
posted by Lori Heine on
And this individual couldn’t simply go to a different bakery?
HORRORS! Government must act immediately! It’s an emergency!
Have you never heard of the Internet? You must have, because you’re on it all the time. This incident is obviously being publicized online, or you would never have heard about it. The Gestapo do not need to be called in to handle the situation.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Gestapo do not need to be called in to handle the situation.
Do you know who the Gestapo was, Lori? And the role that the Gestapo played in Nazi Germany? I assume you do.
But fear not. Despite “libertarian” hysteria, we do not have the equivalent in our country. Nobody is polishing up the boxcars to haul away Christians, Tony Perkins’ opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.
So you can sleep quiet, tonight anyway. Twinkle, twinkle …
posted by Doug on
It sickens me that so many in the LGBT community have so little self respect that they are willing to accept being discriminated against.
I don’t give a damn what your religion is, if you open a business that caters to the general public you damn well better serve ALL of the general public.
posted by Jorge on
It sickens me that so many in the LGBT community have so little self respect that they are willing to accept being discriminated against.
Your intestinal purity is unimportant. I have self-respect enough that I do not need to let the startlingly high possibility that God condemns homosexual inclinations to such a degree that at a time not of my own choosing he exert a tyranny so uncompromising that time itself will come to a stop dictate whether I am satisfied with living my life as a self-affirming gay man. Religion speaks of obedience vs. disobedience to God, but the truth is that merely to live is to act in a manner that is different from God.
I have no need to eliminate my own identity by adhering to the false choice of whether to obey or defy another person just because he can be described as “discriminating against me for being gay”.
posted by Jorge on
This country was founded on the principle that it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be imprisoned.
You are asking for the inverse: let 100 innocent people suffer so that not 1 guilty person goes unpunished.
The right to worship as one pleases against the government’s punishment is a fundamental right. The right for one’s property to be secure in one’s own possession against the government’s confiscation or destruction, except through just cause and a valid process, is a fundamental right. These rights both exist in the Bill of Rights in our nation’s Constitution.
These rights exist because our fathers contemplated the almost universal historical reality that governments use their institutional powers toward unjust and intolerable ends against the citizen. They realized that when governments carry out an injustice, it is often with a decisiveness and a finality that leaves the citizen with no recourse to correct the injustice, or even any ability to recover to point where he can live his life again the same as before. It is so important that we protect these rights.
In an age of duels, the right for one man to have legal redress against another for harms committed was viewed as less important when the grieveant could simply resolve the injustice himself through ritual combat. The mere threat of challenging someone to a potentially lethal duel created enough social order that one could ignore minor offenses with a veiled threat to escalate the situation.
In this corporate age, the boycott has replaced the duel in all functions.
In attacking the institutions of religious freedom and freedom of expression, you are in effect making an appeal to awaken the government beast against a man or a woman who has refused to bake a birthday cake for a gay man.
But this comes in the midst of an out of control abusive government regime that has confiscated money and destroyed business because people have engaged in constitutionally protected religious expression.
Your audacity in asking for the government to make war on people for such small trifles when it has yet to answer for its extreme abuses is truly astonishing.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Your audacity in asking for the government to make war on people for such small trifles when it has yet to answer for its extreme abuses is truly astonishing.”
As is their amnesia. Whenever people they don’t like–who don’t like them–get ahold of the power to do the things they want “their” leaders to do, they are dismayed at the result.
But of course they’ll use emotion to overwhelm logic. We must be very careful what words we use, or they will be fair game for the game.
Twinkle twinkle.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But of course they’ll use emotion to overwhelm logic. We must be very careful what words we use, or they will be fair game for the game. Twinkle twinkle.
It doesn’t take all that much care to avoid direct references to Nazi Germany, Lori, when describing those with whom you disagree. Not much at all. You are a writer. You know damn well what “Gestapo” means and connotes, and you used it with intent. So don’t go all innocent on us, playing the victim.
posted by Lori Heine on
The word has come into the American vernacular, and is routinely used by those on both the political left and right. When the left uses it, we’re all just supposed to accept that it is used as a term that has come to mean, “police state thugs.” But when the right uses it–oh, the intent!
My intent was the same as it is when a leftist uses it. I was using it to mean “police state thug.” If I’m to be taken to task for using a word that has come to be commonly accepted in that capacity, then so, too, is everyone else who does it.
posted by Lori Heine on
Of course Our Betters have now informed us that “thug” is “racist.”
Now there will likely be outrage over that.
I’m damned sick and tired of being told what words I can use and what words I can’t. Yes, I’m a writer. And freedom of speech is something I’ll fight to the death to protect.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m damned sick and tired of being told what words I can use and what words I can’t. Yes, I’m a writer. And freedom of speech is something I’ll fight to the death to protect.
How noble.
posted by Lori Heine on
Nobler, certainly, than trying to silence people for having used the “wrong” word.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And I tried to silence you, how?
By challenging your ill-tempered, ill-advised hyperbole?
By pointing out that the word “Gestapo” has connotations, despite your insistence that you and the others who toss the the word around like candy have so removed the word from its historical context that it no longer carries those connotations?
How, exactly, did I silence you, other than to criticize?
posted by JohnInCA on
Oh please Lori, he tried to “silence” you the same way you’re trying to “silence” him. Shame.
It’s a perfectly ethical and defensible use of Free Speech.
posted by JohnInCA on
“But this comes in the midst of an out of control abusive government regime that has confiscated money and destroyed business because people have engaged in constitutionally protected religious expression.” [Citation Needed]
That said, as soon as Christians start campaigning to strip religion out of the Civil Rights Act (1964) and all similar legislation, the argument that it’ll scar your soul to bake a cake will be a lot more reasonable.
posted by JohnInCA on
But remember, it’s just participating in the ceremony they object to. And providing medical care for our children, fixing our cars, printing t-shirts, using the same bathroom as us, letting us teach, being included in popular TV shows, parades, sex toy stores…
I’m sure I’m forgetting something. But the point is, if it weren’t for marriage equality, this wouldn’t have happened. Obviously. Because that’s all their objections are about. Just marriage.
posted by Lori Heine on
How is it “silencing” someone to suggest that certain words should not be off-limits?
It also means that Tom’s free, in my opinion, to use any words he chooses. It takes a huge stretch of the imagination to claim that this is “silencing” anybody.
The You-Can’t-Say-That Brigade is having an increasingly difficult time getting people to respect its self-proclaimed authority. If you want to see the fact that I consider that a good thing some evidence that I’m down with “silencing” people, then your reasoning is bizarre indeed.
posted by JohnInCA on
Hrm… he doesn’t think you should use Nazi-references so casually, you don’t think he should think that.
Both of you are trying to get the other to behave as you wish through the use of persuassive language and social pressure.
As I said, he’s attempting to silence you as much as you’re attempting to silence him. So if by your estimation, he’s trying to silence you, then you’re trying to silence him. If by your estimation he’s merely trying to persuade you, then you’re merely trying to persuade him.
Make it as malicious or innocent as you like, I don’t care, but don’t think that, fundamentally, you’re doing anything different.
posted by Lori Heine on
Tom is perfectly welcome to think whatever he chooses. You are distorting the conversation.
If he’s merely trying to persuade me that Gestapo is a word no one should ever use in political conversation, he has failed. No one should censor him or try to stop him from making the attempt, but no one is obligated to see to it that he succeeds.
posted by TJ on
Lori
If you rush to call everyone you disagree with a Nazi, that may explain many things about you.
Earlier, you mentioned being single…
posted by Lori Heine on
Yes, and of course I call all the women I date Leni Riefenstahl.
Totally explains it.
The fact that you take cheap shots at other people for revealing personal information about themselves reveals a whole lot more about you, TJ. And none of it’s good.
posted by TJ on
1. Showing that gay people have the same range of opinions on gun control, is probably better than just assuming that every gay person is going worship the NRA.
2. as a movement Black Lives Matter has several valid complaints to make. Sometimes their strategy is counterproductive and amateurish.
3. Big companies leaving a State has an economic impact. I doubt that too many regular people – who have planned a trip to State ‘x’ – will rewrite their entire vacation over a “bathroom Bill”. Unless they are transgender.
I wasn’t planning on taking a trip down South before the boycott, and have no plans to do so now.
So, I wonder how many people actually change their vacation plans over the boycott?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Big companies leaving a State has an economic impact. I doubt that too many regular people – who have planned a trip to State ‘x’ – will rewrite their entire vacation over a “bathroom Bill”. Unless they are transgender.
I think that the cause/effect is more subtle, TJ.
North Carolina is taking a hit, economically, deriving primarily from three sources: (1) corporate pressure (curtailing operations, cancelling plans to build/expand facilities in the state, and so on), (2) entertainment, convention, events cancellations, and (3) travel bans/restrictions from governments and government agencies. Loss of federal funding for certain programs is a possibility. It all adds up.
The effect of individual tourism decisions is harder to quantify. While you are probably right that few people will change travel plans, it doesn’t follow that people making plans won’t write off North Carolina and elect to go someplace else for vacation. Who knows how that will affect the state’s tourism industry, and who knows whether any losses will be offset by conservatives making it a point to visit and spend money in North Carolina.
The available facts, though, seem to support the idea that North Carolina is taking a measurable economic hit. And although the economic impact of boycotts and similar actions fall on the just and the unjust alike, “business as usual” almost certainly will not lead to change, and boycotts and other similar actions might.
Most likely, though, it will be the courts and the Constitution that “tears down the wall” in North Carolina, as seems to be happening in Mississippi. I can’t imagine that 4th Circuit is going to find direct government discrimination constitutional.