Annals of Intersectionality

by on

For the progressive LGBQT+ movement, any issue on the left is now a LGBTQ+ issue. which is part of the ethos of intersectionality that only a racist, sexist, classist, transphobe would dare to object to.

Among recent examples:


For a different view of net neutrality:

,
Obviously, it’s an issue that well-meaning people can disagree about, except if you do, you’re a racist, sexist, classist, transphobe.

Another example:

As the Blade reports:

Laura Durso, vice president of LGBT research and communications for the Center for American Progress, said the package “will have massively negative implications for LGBTQ people” especially as a result of ending the individual mandate for health care.

The advantages/disadvantages of ending the individual mandate that Americans must buy expensive Obamacare policies or pay a tax penalty is also a matter that’s debatable, except when it isn’t.

And this:

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has projected the package would add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over the course of 10 years, or as much as $2.2 trillion. As a result, the national debt — which is now $20.6 trillion — would double by 2027.

There is room for argument over whether the bill will stimulate economic growth to compensate for lower rates, but progressive groups were silent on the debt issue while under the sainted Obama the national debt grew by about $9 trillion, or an increase of 86%.

The point is not to convince those on the left that net neutrality, the individual mandate or letting people save and invest more of their own money is good or bad, it’s to point out that for those in leadership positions within the LGBTQ+ activist movement, to take the wrong side of these issues is to be ant-gay and, well you know the rest of the litany.

12 Comments for “Annals of Intersectionality”

  1. posted by David Bauler on

    This comes from a homocon who has zero problem tying various pet right-wing causes to be part of gay rights. The hypocrisy is just so shameful.

    Killing off Net Neutrality is going to undermine Free Speech . Its going to do lots of things that will hurt quite a few people.

    • posted by Doug on

      The only thing Homocon’s really care about is tax cuts and now they have bought big tax cuts for the wealthy with borrowed money. How fiscally conservative of them.

  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    According to LCR (which most definitely does not embrace intersectionality, except in the ironic sense of the word), the following are the important LGBTQ+ issues:

    — limited government
    — a strong national defense
    — confident foreign policy
    — low taxes
    — personal responsibility and individual liberty

    LCR supported elimination of net neutrality regulations, applauded elimination of the individual mandate, and supported the tax bill that President Trump signed into law the other day.

    And this is not intersectionality?

    LGBTQ+LCR Americans, politically aligned or not, like straight Americans, take a wide variety of positions on issues of the day, arguing those positions from a number of different perspectives, including differing takes on how particular laws and regulations will affect the LGBTQ+LCR community. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

    • posted by Jorge on

      — limited government
      — a strong national defense
      — confident foreign policy
      — low taxes
      — personal responsibility and individual liberty

      I don’t know about low taxes, but if you can’t see after all these years on this site how the other three are LGBT issues, I don’t know what to tell you.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I don’t know about low taxes, but if you can’t see after all these years on this site how the other three are LGBT issues, I don’t know what to tell you.

      Not knowing what to tell me is nothing new. Completely missing the point is nothing new, either.

  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Obviously, it’s an issue that well-meaning people can disagree about, except if you do, you’re a racist, sexists, classist, transphobe.

    Stephen, do you just make this shit up?

    I read the GLAAD statment you linked, as well as all the links in the statement. I can’t find anything remotely close to your “racist, sexists, classist, transphobe” characterizaion in any of those links. I didn’t find it in the CATO article, either.

    So where do you get this stuff? Milo? He’s quick to make crazy-ass, divisive statements for the sake of building his following. But you? Do you really need to demonize gays and lesbians who disagree with you?

  4. posted by Lori Heine on

    I, for one, am overjoyed that I may now, again, be able to afford health insurance. The individual mandate would have ruined people like me, who work in the gig economy and don’t make lot of money.

    Not surprising that the Babbitts and other phony-baloney “progressives” don’t like it. They have nothing but contempt for anyone who makes less money than they do.

    The statist Left is a gigantic fraud. So is its partner in this con game, the statist Right. Everyone who buys into this crap ought to rot in hell for what they’ve done to the rest of us.

  5. posted by Jorge on

    which is part of the ethos of intersectionality that only a racist, sexist, classist, transphobe would dare to object to.

    But isn’t everyone a racist, sexist, classist, transphobe anyway? Progressives’ mistake is in making the list too short.

    Oh, that?

    Yes, the gay community has long since sold its soul to the idea that the movement should follow the random passions of the individual.

    Net neutrality in my opinion helps the gay community disproportionately more than the country as a whole because it takes power away from President Trump and places it in the hand of big business. The latter is more LGBT-friendly.

    It’s also no small boon that big business does not have to give equal internet rates to hate sites. Big business is slightly more gay-friendly, and a lot more LGBT-friendly, than mainstream America (mainly because they’re the first ones to get sued).

  6. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    There is room for argument over whether the bill will stimulate economic growth to compensate for lower rates …

    President Bush 41 called the theory behind the tax cut “voodoo economics”, but it could work this time around, I suppose. Never has in the past, at the national or state level. I have a nasty suspicion that 1.5 trillion means 1.5 trillion.

    … but progressive groups were silent on the debt issue while under the sainted Obama the national debt grew by about $9 trillion, or an increase of 86%.

    The deficit grew rapidly during the first two years of President Obama’s term in office, but rapidly dropped thereafter as the economy stabilized. Over all, President Obama didn’t do too badly.

    • posted by Doug on

      Tom, you neglected to mention that the reason Obama’s first two years of huge deficits were to clean up the economic mess left to him by George W. Bush, a Republican.

    • posted by Tom Schharbach on

      Tom, you neglected to mention that the reason Obama’s first two years of huge deficits were to clean up the economic mess left to him by George W. Bush, a Republican.

      I did. I assumed that IGF readers (by and large an informed lot) remember why stimulus spending was put in place during the early years of the Obama administration. But maybe not.

      Deficits under President Obama were high (8% to 9% of the GNP) during the first few years of his administration, a result of high stimulus spending combined with a drop in the GNP, but dropped to 2.4% of the GNP (slightly below the 40-year average) during his last years in office, as the economy recovered and government spending returned to normal levels.

      President Obama’s experience mirrors that of President Reagan, who similarly faced an economic downturn (not nearly as severe, but still a downturn) in the early years of his administration.

      In response to the economic downturn, President Reagan used deficit spending during his first two years in office to stimulate the economy, resulting in a deficit of roughly 6% of GNP, but reduced deficit spending to 2.5% (the 40-year average) during the later years of his administration.

      Conservatives love to use deficit spending as a hammer against Democrats. It is an old saw, and a stupid saw, as the similarities between deficit spending patterns under the Obama and Reagan administrations make clear.

      However, I don’t expect conservatives to stop yapping about “TAX and SPEND Democrats”. It is embedded in conservative political DNA at this point, like “WEAK on Crime, WEAK on the Border, BAD for our Military and our great Vets, BAD for our 2nd Amendment”, and all the other knee jerk slogans that don’t make much if any sense.

      Listening to conservatives is a bit like having to listen to the boorish, loud-mouthed uncle nobody wants to come to Thanksgiving. Speaking of President Trump …

  7. posted by David Bauer on

    The reality is that many homocons don’t object to intersectionality, but want to pretend that they do, because, um, reasons. Instead of trying to sell us on the idea that Internet censorship or denying people health insurance are things LGBT should support, we get this “oh, we should oppose intersectionality”.

    Lori; Most people are that I know would not have health insurance without the Affordable Care Act. Large numbers of poor and working class people , and their families, now have access to something that they didn’t have, but is kinda important.

Comments are closed.