I know you're really mad at this but consider the forum you're on is fairly left leaning and the people who you are engaging with supported what happened
Please don’t do this, repeated explanations that “no we’re on your side despite saying what we want is better” is pretty condescending to people’s actual concerns.
Its wonderful to be told “No, we are good allies!” When someone in the community is explaining the way they were failed by said allies.
Especially when they try to lecture you how sound their methods really were, surely.
At some point it starts to feel less like they want to be allies and more like they’re interested in defending their label of being an ally.
Lanz on
+11
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I don't think anyone gets to call themselves an ally when their position boils down to "You can have some of the same rights as me, but not too many!"
It feels weirdly petty especially after we have marriage equity!
Like again, this entire segment we’re on right now is fascinating to me because like, this shit is settled and apparently there are still folks who think that civil unions was the better avenue to pursue! Except it went utterly nowhere and it was the LGBT community fighting for actual marriage equality that actually won the day!
What the fuck are you talking about? We are talking about our feelings at the time, when there was no equity. We didn't know which would be better, because we can't see the fucking future.
Don't have to see the future to understand that "separate but equal" is bullshit.
Civil unions only after an abolition of government marriage wouldn't have been "separate"
you can’t guarantee that would have happened
How the fuck long were we supposed to bear our segregated status if you had your way?
That would be why it was one of several strategies proposed. Because you don't have to concentrate on one thing at a time.
I don't think anyone gets to call themselves an ally when their position boils down to "You can have some of the same rights as me, but not too many!"
It feels weirdly petty especially after we have marriage equity!
Like again, this entire segment we’re on right now is fascinating to me because like, this shit is settled and apparently there are still folks who think that civil unions was the better avenue to pursue! Except it went utterly nowhere and it was the LGBT community fighting for actual marriage equality that actually won the day!
What the fuck are you talking about? We are talking about our feelings at the time, when there was no equity. We didn't know which would be better, because we can't see the fucking future.
Don't have to see the future to understand that "separate but equal" is bullshit.
Civil unions only after an abolition of government marriage wouldn't have been "separate"
you can’t guarantee that would have happened
How the fuck long were we supposed to bear our segregated status if you had your way?
That would be why it was one of several strategies proposed. Because you don't have to concentrate on one thing at a time.
How long were we supposed to bear our segregated status, Sax?
+9
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I don't think anyone gets to call themselves an ally when their position boils down to "You can have some of the same rights as me, but not too many!"
It feels weirdly petty especially after we have marriage equity!
Like again, this entire segment we’re on right now is fascinating to me because like, this shit is settled and apparently there are still folks who think that civil unions was the better avenue to pursue! Except it went utterly nowhere and it was the LGBT community fighting for actual marriage equality that actually won the day!
What the fuck are you talking about? We are talking about our feelings at the time, when there was no equity. We didn't know which would be better, because we can't see the fucking future.
Don't have to see the future to understand that "separate but equal" is bullshit.
Civil unions only after an abolition of government marriage wouldn't have been "separate"
you can’t guarantee that would have happened
How the fuck long were we supposed to bear our segregated status if you had your way?
You can't guarantee anything will happen, friendo.
You can't guarantee our current SCOTUS won't decide to take up the inevitable challenge on OvH and then redact their previous ruling on religious freedom grounds.
And then right back to square one.
Not being psychic is a hell of a critcism.
+8
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I don't think anyone gets to call themselves an ally when their position boils down to "You can have some of the same rights as me, but not too many!"
It feels weirdly petty especially after we have marriage equity!
Like again, this entire segment we’re on right now is fascinating to me because like, this shit is settled and apparently there are still folks who think that civil unions was the better avenue to pursue! Except it went utterly nowhere and it was the LGBT community fighting for actual marriage equality that actually won the day!
What the fuck are you talking about? We are talking about our feelings at the time, when there was no equity. We didn't know which would be better, because we can't see the fucking future.
Don't have to see the future to understand that "separate but equal" is bullshit.
Civil unions only after an abolition of government marriage wouldn't have been "separate"
you can’t guarantee that would have happened
How the fuck long were we supposed to bear our segregated status if you had your way?
That would be why it was one of several strategies proposed. Because you don't have to concentrate on one thing at a time.
How long were we supposed to bear our segregated status, Sax?
To say nothing, nothing of the fucking gross level of patronizing bullshit that comes with the fact that the community voiced, countless times, that what we wanted was marriage equality. Not Civil Unions, not the dissolution of civil marriage. We wanted marriage equality.
And y’all couldn’t fucking listen
You're not it by yourself, friend.
She’s right though.
This is a common view amongst my queer friends, including me, and our worthwhile allies
I know you're really mad at this but consider the forum you're on is fairly left leaning and the people who you are engaging with supported what happened
Please don’t do this, repeated explanations that “no we’re on your side despite saying what we want is better” is pretty condescending to people’s actual concerns.
Its wonderful to be told “No, we are good allies!” When someone in the community is explaining the way they were failed by said allies.
Especially when they try to lecture you how sound their methods really were, surely.
At some point it starts to feel less like they want to be allies and more like they’re interested in defending their label of being an ally.
You have a pattern of apocalyptic grudge-bearing in every topical thread, at some point it's fair to just out and say that you just want to argue with conservatives and, finding none, are going to No True Progressive progressives.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
I don't think anyone gets to call themselves an ally when their position boils down to "You can have some of the same rights as me, but not too many!"
It feels weirdly petty especially after we have marriage equity!
Like again, this entire segment we’re on right now is fascinating to me because like, this shit is settled and apparently there are still folks who think that civil unions was the better avenue to pursue! Except it went utterly nowhere and it was the LGBT community fighting for actual marriage equality that actually won the day!
What the fuck are you talking about? We are talking about our feelings at the time, when there was no equity. We didn't know which would be better, because we can't see the fucking future.
Don't have to see the future to understand that "separate but equal" is bullshit.
Civil unions only after an abolition of government marriage wouldn't have been "separate"
you can’t guarantee that would have happened
How the fuck long were we supposed to bear our segregated status if you had your way?
That would be why it was one of several strategies proposed. Because you don't have to concentrate on one thing at a time.
How long were we supposed to bear our segregated status, Sax?
Until we won.
How. Long.
+6
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I don't think anyone gets to call themselves an ally when their position boils down to "You can have some of the same rights as me, but not too many!"
It feels weirdly petty especially after we have marriage equity!
Like again, this entire segment we’re on right now is fascinating to me because like, this shit is settled and apparently there are still folks who think that civil unions was the better avenue to pursue! Except it went utterly nowhere and it was the LGBT community fighting for actual marriage equality that actually won the day!
What the fuck are you talking about? We are talking about our feelings at the time, when there was no equity. We didn't know which would be better, because we can't see the fucking future.
Don't have to see the future to understand that "separate but equal" is bullshit.
Civil unions only after an abolition of government marriage wouldn't have been "separate"
you can’t guarantee that would have happened
How the fuck long were we supposed to bear our segregated status if you had your way?
That would be why it was one of several strategies proposed. Because you don't have to concentrate on one thing at a time.
How long were we supposed to bear our segregated status, Sax?
Like, do any of you actually understand what it was like to be queer in America? And to know that your rights were non-existent? To know your best hope was to compile a shitton of legal contracts that vaguely approximated what marriage might give you? To know that those could easily be torn asunder by anyone willing to stage a fight over it? To know that the life of LGBT couples was often filed with nightmare and loss, of being denied the most basic rights y’all Cisgender and Straight folk so easily take for granted?
Do any of y’all understand even an ounce of that pain?
Or do you just care about being seen as “a good person” and “an ally” and so set in your ways you’ll time and time again try to dictate what’s best for a marginalized community to us and just brush off every way we try to tell you you aren’t listening?
+11
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I don't think anyone gets to call themselves an ally when their position boils down to "You can have some of the same rights as me, but not too many!"
It feels weirdly petty especially after we have marriage equity!
Like again, this entire segment we’re on right now is fascinating to me because like, this shit is settled and apparently there are still folks who think that civil unions was the better avenue to pursue! Except it went utterly nowhere and it was the LGBT community fighting for actual marriage equality that actually won the day!
What the fuck are you talking about? We are talking about our feelings at the time, when there was no equity. We didn't know which would be better, because we can't see the fucking future.
Don't have to see the future to understand that "separate but equal" is bullshit.
Civil unions only after an abolition of government marriage wouldn't have been "separate"
you can’t guarantee that would have happened
How the fuck long were we supposed to bear our segregated status if you had your way?
That would be why it was one of several strategies proposed. Because you don't have to concentrate on one thing at a time.
How long were we supposed to bear our segregated status, Sax?
I don't think anyone gets to call themselves an ally when their position boils down to "You can have some of the same rights as me, but not too many!"
It feels weirdly petty especially after we have marriage equity!
Like again, this entire segment we’re on right now is fascinating to me because like, this shit is settled and apparently there are still folks who think that civil unions was the better avenue to pursue! Except it went utterly nowhere and it was the LGBT community fighting for actual marriage equality that actually won the day!
What the fuck are you talking about? We are talking about our feelings at the time, when there was no equity. We didn't know which would be better, because we can't see the fucking future.
Don't have to see the future to understand that "separate but equal" is bullshit.
Civil unions only after an abolition of government marriage wouldn't have been "separate"
you can’t guarantee that would have happened
How the fuck long were we supposed to bear our segregated status if you had your way?
That would be why it was one of several strategies proposed. Because you don't have to concentrate on one thing at a time.
How long were we supposed to bear our segregated status, Sax?
Until we won.
How. Long.
Until we won.
I want actual time, Sax. Because “until we won” isn’t fucking good enough. How many years lost? How many lives destroyed? How much pain endured
I know you're really mad at this but consider the forum you're on is fairly left leaning and the people who you are engaging with supported what happened
Please don’t do this, repeated explanations that “no we’re on your side despite saying what we want is better” is pretty condescending to people’s actual concerns.
Its wonderful to be told “No, we are good allies!” When someone in the community is explaining the way they were failed by said allies.
Especially when they try to lecture you how sound their methods really were, surely.
At some point it starts to feel less like they want to be allies and more like they’re interested in defending their label of being an ally.
You have a pattern of apocalyptic grudge-bearing in every topical thread, at some point it's fair to just out and say that you just want to argue with conservatives and, finding none, are going to No True Progressive progressives.
I think you'd bear an apocalyptic grudge if your ability to exist unmolested and enjoy the same rights as others was forbidden by law or otherwise a political question question mark.
Considering I am LGBT, and so are several members of my family, and also some of my friends, yes.
Then why the hell do you tolerate this? How can you bear the idea that separate but equal could have ever been good enough?
Fencingsax seems to have made it pretty clear they wanted an abolition of marriage for everyone with everyone's status being a secular civil union, not simply one for each group.
+13
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Considering I am LGBT, and so are several members of my family, and also some of my friends, yes.
Then why the hell do you tolerate this? How can you bear the idea that separate but equal could have ever been good enough?
Because it wouldn't have been separate but equal. Again, as has been explained multiple times, the idea was that Civil Unions would have been the legal side of marriage. For everyone. It was the proposed idea. Obviously, it went a different way.
Considering I am LGBT, and so are several members of my family, and also some of my friends, yes.
Then why the hell do you tolerate this? How can you bear the idea that separate but equal could have ever been good enough?
Fencingsax seems to have made it pretty clear they wanted an abolition of marriage for everyone with everyone's status being a secular civil union, not simply one for each group.
And how many of the rest of us suffer while that avenue gets pursued?
How many people have to suffer for something that has no actual material benefit, other than, congrats, maybe at the end of this you’ve just made “marriage” a church word instead of what most folks recognize as a secular thing, apart from religion?
Considering I am LGBT, and so are several members of my family, and also some of my friends, yes.
Then why the hell do you tolerate this? How can you bear the idea that separate but equal could have ever been good enough?
Because it wouldn't have been separate but equal. Again, as has been explained multiple times, the idea was that Civil Unions would have been the legal side of marriage. For everyone. It was the proposed idea. Obviously, it went a different way.
But civil unions still existed across the country! Literally as a lesser form of marriage!
At best, at best you’re trying to rules lawyer your way out of the bigots getting their way, but the thing was the rest of us wanted marriage. Not Civil Unions. We wanted marriage. We wanted to be equal to straight folks. Your method would have ceded that ground away on a cultural level.
Lanz on
+9
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Considering I am LGBT, and so are several members of my family, and also some of my friends, yes.
Then why the hell do you tolerate this? How can you bear the idea that separate but equal could have ever been good enough?
Because it wouldn't have been separate but equal. Again, as has been explained multiple times, the idea was that Civil Unions would have been the legal side of marriage. For everyone. It was the proposed idea. Obviously, it went a different way.
But civil unions still existed across the country! Literally as a lesser form of marriage!
At best, at best you’re trying to rules lawyer your way out of the bigots getting their way, but the thing was the rest of us wanted marriage. Not Civil Unions. We wanted marriage. We wanted to be equal to straight folks. And even then, your method ceded that ground away on a cultural level.
Generally, I assumed that people would call it marriage anyway.
+12
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
edited June 2021
I don’t think anyone is suffering because fencingsax doesn’t believe in marriage and would rather everyone have a civil union. Putting the fictional suffering of a whole group on them is a bit silly.
Considering I am LGBT, and so are several members of my family, and also some of my friends, yes.
Then why the hell do you tolerate this? How can you bear the idea that separate but equal could have ever been good enough?
Because it wouldn't have been separate but equal. Again, as has been explained multiple times, the idea was that Civil Unions would have been the legal side of marriage. For everyone. It was the proposed idea. Obviously, it went a different way.
But civil unions still existed across the country! Literally as a lesser form of marriage!
At best, at best you’re trying to rules lawyer your way out of the bigots getting their way, but the thing was the rest of us wanted marriage. Not Civil Unions. We wanted marriage. We wanted to be equal to straight folks. And even then, your method ceded that ground away on a cultural level.
Generally, I assumed that people would call it marriage anyway.
Considering I am LGBT, and so are several members of my family, and also some of my friends, yes.
Then why the hell do you tolerate this? How can you bear the idea that separate but equal could have ever been good enough?
Fencingsax seems to have made it pretty clear they wanted an abolition of marriage for everyone with everyone's status being a secular civil union, not simply one for each group.
And how many of the rest of us suffer while that avenue gets pursued?
How many people have to suffer for something that has no actual material benefit, other than, congrats, maybe at the end of this you’ve just made “marriage” a church word instead of what most folks recognize as a secular thing, apart from religion?
Dunno. How much longer would it have taken if SCOTUS decided marriage was not legal?
You're pissed at someone for a preference they had around seven years ago. Fencing hasn't said they opposed one or the other. Fencing said their preference would have been to have everyone get assigned civil unions. That's it. If Fencing says they would have personally blocked marriage equality to make it happen, I'll hop right on the outrage train with you. But I haven't seen that so far and I don't think that's their position.
+14
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Considering I am LGBT, and so are several members of my family, and also some of my friends, yes.
Then why the hell do you tolerate this? How can you bear the idea that separate but equal could have ever been good enough?
Fencingsax seems to have made it pretty clear they wanted an abolition of marriage for everyone with everyone's status being a secular civil union, not simply one for each group.
And how many of the rest of us suffer while that avenue gets pursued?
How many people have to suffer for something that has no actual material benefit, other than, congrats, maybe at the end of this you’ve just made “marriage” a church word instead of what most folks recognize as a secular thing, apart from religion?
Dunno. How much longer would it have taken if SCOTUS decided marriage was not legal?
You're pissed at someone for a preference they had around seven years ago. Fencing hasn't said they opposed one or the other. Fencing said their preference would have been to have everyone get assigned civil unions. That's it. If Fencing says they would have personally blocked marriage equality to make it happen, I'll hop right on the outrage train with you. But I haven't seen that so far and I don't think that's their position.
I mean, I was wrong about the way it went. I'm not unhappy that I was wrong, as long as it moved rights further.
I don't think anyone gets to call themselves an ally when their position boils down to "You can have some of the same rights as me, but not too many!"
It feels weirdly petty especially after we have marriage equity!
Like again, this entire segment we’re on right now is fascinating to me because like, this shit is settled and apparently there are still folks who think that civil unions was the better avenue to pursue! Except it went utterly nowhere and it was the LGBT community fighting for actual marriage equality that actually won the day!
What the fuck are you talking about? We are talking about our feelings at the time, when there was no equity. We didn't know which would be better, because we can't see the fucking future.
Don't have to see the future to understand that "separate but equal" is bullshit.
Civil unions only after an abolition of government marriage wouldn't have been "separate"
you can’t guarantee that would have happened
How the fuck long were we supposed to bear our segregated status if you had your way?
That would be why it was one of several strategies proposed. Because you don't have to concentrate on one thing at a time.
How long were we supposed to bear our segregated status, Sax?
I'm going to guess the people who were able to get civil unions in Vermont in 2000, had a better time of it for the 15 years till Obergefell, than the people in states where that wasn't an option. And if you think you were getting that ruling from the SCOTUS that went "Bush is President because we say so", you are high.
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Considering I am LGBT, and so are several members of my family, and also some of my friends, yes.
Then why the hell do you tolerate this? How can you bear the idea that separate but equal could have ever been good enough?
Because it wouldn't have been separate but equal. Again, as has been explained multiple times, the idea was that Civil Unions would have been the legal side of marriage. For everyone. It was the proposed idea. Obviously, it went a different way.
But civil unions still existed across the country! Literally as a lesser form of marriage!
At best, at best you’re trying to rules lawyer your way out of the bigots getting their way, but the thing was the rest of us wanted marriage. Not Civil Unions. We wanted marriage. We wanted to be equal to straight folks. And even then, your method ceded that ground away on a cultural level.
Generally, I assumed that people would call it marriage anyway.
…
…
SAX!
The legal terms and the colloquial terms for things are different. I didn't think people would say "Oh, we're Civilly United", if it went that way. People don't talk like that.
+15
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
Considering I am LGBT, and so are several members of my family, and also some of my friends, yes.
Then why the hell do you tolerate this? How can you bear the idea that separate but equal could have ever been good enough?
Fencingsax seems to have made it pretty clear they wanted an abolition of marriage for everyone with everyone's status being a secular civil union, not simply one for each group.
And how many of the rest of us suffer while that avenue gets pursued?
How many people have to suffer for something that has no actual material benefit, other than, congrats, maybe at the end of this you’ve just made “marriage” a church word instead of what most folks recognize as a secular thing, apart from religion?
Dunno. How much longer would it have taken if SCOTUS decided marriage was not legal?
You're pissed at someone for a preference they had around seven years ago. Fencing hasn't said they opposed one or the other. Fencing said their preference would have been to have everyone get assigned civil unions. That's it. If Fencing says they would have personally blocked marriage equality to make it happen, I'll hop right on the outrage train with you. But I haven't seen that so far and I don't think that's their position.
It was a useful way to put social pressure on Republicans, since if it went badly for them, it would've been the end of governmental-religious marriage altogether. (It was never going to happen under Roberts and Kennedy, but maybe lets' not find out.)
" And how many of the rest of us suffer while that avenue gets pursued?" - the avenue was pursued, and arguably it was successful.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
To say nothing, nothing of the fucking gross level of patronizing bullshit that comes with the fact that the community voiced, countless times, that what we wanted was marriage equality. Not Civil Unions, not the dissolution of civil marriage. We wanted marriage equality.
And y’all couldn’t fucking listen
You're not it by yourself, friend.
She’s right though.
This is a common view amongst my queer friends, including me, and our worthwhile allies
And in a bunch of others it was controversial and still is as assimilationism that distracts from the real issues.
And on others, including many LGBT people, the civil unions for all was seen as a perfectly valid solution. Mostly from the more libertarian side of things, granted.
The civil unions in the seperate but equal sense, not so much. For obvious reasons. Except maybe around 2004 as a stalling measure. Remember "ooo the gays oooo was a winning play for the GOP then, in ways they try but are less effective with now.
Never said I was going to break my lifelong record of voting Dem (or the leftmost viable candidate), but it sure is telling that the response to talking about how it sucks that centrists aren't protecting the LGBTQ community and are in fact advocating for discrimination against us is the usual "there's no better option" rhetoric.
Believe me, we know. We know the DNC assumes are votes are locked because they aren't as shit as the GOP and won't bother actually fighting for is, much like many other minority groups in this nation. But you can only string along a community so long before apathy prevails and they stop donating, stop volunteering, and maybe even stop bothering to participate at a federal level.
At least have the decency of admitting that it sucks to defend anti-LGBTQ laws & policies in court, and that this is not ally ship. Especially when the most vulnerable members of our community will be disproportionately affected.
You get that response because nearly everyone on the forums has done this dance before, so there's not often a lot of willpower to go through it again when someone new joins the conversation. So sometimes people skip to the end of "yeah but you have to keep doing it because the other option is worse." It's not ideal, but it's not malicious
Also not everyone even on the forums agrees. Again, we've gone through this conversation a bunch of times
If people are tired of having to defend government officials who are doing bad things, they can simply stop defending them.
Then the question is
Is ANYONE doing it right, and how do we foster that?
By not simply voting for someone because they are the lesser evil and then brushing the dust off our voting hands and going "welp, that's that! Glad I was able to help democracy!"
But rather, by holding our elected officials accountable. Holding their feet to the fire and fucking demanding better of them. Drag them kicking and screaming towards more equitable and just decisions, and when they are forced to acquiesce to them, do not pat them on the head and give them a lollipop but hold them accountable for the fact that the only reason they did the right thing is that WE. TOLD. THEM. TO. AND. FORCED. THEM. TO.
Do not award them points for fixing the problems that they caused in the first place. Do not give them props for supporting progressive agendas under duress. Hold them accountable, always, and demand better of them, always.
Trying to desperately handwave their past actions is exactly the opposite of how one should go about that. Defending them against legitimate criticism and minimizing their culpability in the creation of the status quo is counter to that. Pretending that lived history did not occur, and that those who suffered through it cannot accurately recount who told them progress was a long, arduous, and incremental path, and that they should be grateful that it isn't those other guys in charge right now.
Never said I was going to break my lifelong record of voting Dem (or the leftmost viable candidate), but it sure is telling that the response to talking about how it sucks that centrists aren't protecting the LGBTQ community and are in fact advocating for discrimination against us is the usual "there's no better option" rhetoric.
Believe me, we know. We know the DNC assumes are votes are locked because they aren't as shit as the GOP and won't bother actually fighting for is, much like many other minority groups in this nation. But you can only string along a community so long before apathy prevails and they stop donating, stop volunteering, and maybe even stop bothering to participate at a federal level.
At least have the decency of admitting that it sucks to defend anti-LGBTQ laws & policies in court, and that this is not ally ship. Especially when the most vulnerable members of our community will be disproportionately affected.
You get that response because nearly everyone on the forums has done this dance before, so there's not often a lot of willpower to go through it again when someone new joins the conversation. So sometimes people skip to the end of "yeah but you have to keep doing it because the other option is worse." It's not ideal, but it's not malicious
Also not everyone even on the forums agrees. Again, we've gone through this conversation a bunch of times
If people are tired of having to defend government officials who are doing bad things, they can simply stop defending them.
Then the question is
Is ANYONE doing it right, and how do we foster that?
By not simply voting for someone because they are the lesser evil and then brushing the dust off our voting hands and going "welp, that's that! Glad I was able to help democracy!"
But rather, by holding our elected officials accountable. Holding their feet to the fire and fucking demanding better of them. Drag them kicking and screaming towards more equitable and just decisions, and when they are forced to acquiesce to them, do not pat them on the head and give them a lollipop but hold them accountable for the fact that the only reason they did the right thing is that WE. TOLD. FORCED. THEM. TO.
Do not award them points for fixing the problems that they caused in the first place. Do not give them props for supporting progressive agendas under duress. Hold them accountable, always, and demand better of them, always.
Trying to desperately handwave their past actions is exactly the opposite of how one should go about that. Defending them against legitimate criticism and minimizing their culpability in the creation of the status quo is counter to that. Pretending that lived history did not occur, and that those who suffered through it cannot accurately recount who told them progress was a long, arduous, and incremental path, and that they should be grateful that it isn't those other guys in charge right now.
this
Agitate for better things, because it is the only way you will ever get better things.
+11
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Never said I was going to break my lifelong record of voting Dem (or the leftmost viable candidate), but it sure is telling that the response to talking about how it sucks that centrists aren't protecting the LGBTQ community and are in fact advocating for discrimination against us is the usual "there's no better option" rhetoric.
Believe me, we know. We know the DNC assumes are votes are locked because they aren't as shit as the GOP and won't bother actually fighting for is, much like many other minority groups in this nation. But you can only string along a community so long before apathy prevails and they stop donating, stop volunteering, and maybe even stop bothering to participate at a federal level.
At least have the decency of admitting that it sucks to defend anti-LGBTQ laws & policies in court, and that this is not ally ship. Especially when the most vulnerable members of our community will be disproportionately affected.
You get that response because nearly everyone on the forums has done this dance before, so there's not often a lot of willpower to go through it again when someone new joins the conversation. So sometimes people skip to the end of "yeah but you have to keep doing it because the other option is worse." It's not ideal, but it's not malicious
Also not everyone even on the forums agrees. Again, we've gone through this conversation a bunch of times
If people are tired of having to defend government officials who are doing bad things, they can simply stop defending them.
Then the question is
Is ANYONE doing it right, and how do we foster that?
By not simply voting for someone because they are the lesser evil and then brushing the dust off our voting hands and going "welp, that's that! Glad I was able to help democracy!"
But rather, by holding our elected officials accountable. Holding their feet to the fire and fucking demanding better of them. Drag them kicking and screaming towards more equitable and just decisions, and when they are forced to acquiesce to them, do not pat them on the head and give them a lollipop but hold them accountable for the fact that the only reason they did the right thing is that WE. TOLD. FORCED. THEM. TO.
Do not award them points for fixing the problems that they caused in the first place. Do not give them props for supporting progressive agendas under duress. Hold them accountable, always, and demand better of them, always.
Trying to desperately handwave their past actions is exactly the opposite of how one should go about that. Defending them against legitimate criticism and minimizing their culpability in the creation of the status quo is counter to that. Pretending that lived history did not occur, and that those who suffered through it cannot accurately recount who told them progress was a long, arduous, and incremental path, and that they should be grateful that it isn't those other guys in charge right now.
I think I missed the part where anyone here thought winning an election was the end of doing anything else.
+16
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
anyway, the DOJ is helping religious bigots discriminate against queer folk and they're doing it during pride month. if you defend that decision and also thought separate but equal might work this time, maybe think on your ability to identify effective methods of social change.
anyway, the DOJ is helping religious bigots discriminate against queer folk and they're doing it during pride month. if you defend that decision and also thought separate but equal might work this time, maybe think on your ability to identify effective methods of social change.
Oh I absolutely fucking suck at that, no questions there
Honestly very few people that I know of are actually good at it
anyway, the DOJ is helping religious bigots discriminate against queer folk and they're doing it during pride month. if you defend that decision and also thought separate but equal might work this time, maybe think on your ability to identify effective methods of social change.
If you think Equality or Nothing, is going to get you the former with this SCOTUS, well good luck to you.
+5
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
edited June 2021
People are still being murdered for being queer, I don’t think anyone is under the misconception that we are “done.” There is a great deal of work that still needs to happen. But there’s a lot of heat coming on this forum and it seams a bit unnecessary in this setting.
People are still being murdered for being queer, I don’t think anyone is under the misconception that we are “done.” There is a great deal of work that still needs to happen. But there’s a lot of heat coming on this forum and it seams a bit unnecessary in this setting.
Can you clarify what you mean with your last sentence?
Never said I was going to break my lifelong record of voting Dem (or the leftmost viable candidate), but it sure is telling that the response to talking about how it sucks that centrists aren't protecting the LGBTQ community and are in fact advocating for discrimination against us is the usual "there's no better option" rhetoric.
Believe me, we know. We know the DNC assumes are votes are locked because they aren't as shit as the GOP and won't bother actually fighting for is, much like many other minority groups in this nation. But you can only string along a community so long before apathy prevails and they stop donating, stop volunteering, and maybe even stop bothering to participate at a federal level.
At least have the decency of admitting that it sucks to defend anti-LGBTQ laws & policies in court, and that this is not ally ship. Especially when the most vulnerable members of our community will be disproportionately affected.
You get that response because nearly everyone on the forums has done this dance before, so there's not often a lot of willpower to go through it again when someone new joins the conversation. So sometimes people skip to the end of "yeah but you have to keep doing it because the other option is worse." It's not ideal, but it's not malicious
Also not everyone even on the forums agrees. Again, we've gone through this conversation a bunch of times
If people are tired of having to defend government officials who are doing bad things, they can simply stop defending them.
Then the question is
Is ANYONE doing it right, and how do we foster that?
By not simply voting for someone because they are the lesser evil and then brushing the dust off our voting hands and going "welp, that's that! Glad I was able to help democracy!"
But rather, by holding our elected officials accountable. Holding their feet to the fire and fucking demanding better of them. Drag them kicking and screaming towards more equitable and just decisions, and when they are forced to acquiesce to them, do not pat them on the head and give them a lollipop but hold them accountable for the fact that the only reason they did the right thing is that WE. TOLD. FORCED. THEM. TO.
Do not award them points for fixing the problems that they caused in the first place. Do not give them props for supporting progressive agendas under duress. Hold them accountable, always, and demand better of them, always.
Trying to desperately handwave their past actions is exactly the opposite of how one should go about that. Defending them against legitimate criticism and minimizing their culpability in the creation of the status quo is counter to that. Pretending that lived history did not occur, and that those who suffered through it cannot accurately recount who told them progress was a long, arduous, and incremental path, and that they should be grateful that it isn't those other guys in charge right now.
So nobody is doing it right? Cool, good to know.
You are evidently profoundly ignorant of the good work being carried out by activists, globally and domestically
Posts
Its wonderful to be told “No, we are good allies!” When someone in the community is explaining the way they were failed by said allies.
Especially when they try to lecture you how sound their methods really were, surely.
At some point it starts to feel less like they want to be allies and more like they’re interested in defending their label of being an ally.
That would be why it was one of several strategies proposed. Because you don't have to concentrate on one thing at a time.
How long were we supposed to bear our segregated status, Sax?
You can't guarantee anything will happen, friendo.
You can't guarantee our current SCOTUS won't decide to take up the inevitable challenge on OvH and then redact their previous ruling on religious freedom grounds.
And then right back to square one.
Not being psychic is a hell of a critcism.
Until we won.
She’s right though.
This is a common view amongst my queer friends, including me, and our worthwhile allies
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
You have a pattern of apocalyptic grudge-bearing in every topical thread, at some point it's fair to just out and say that you just want to argue with conservatives and, finding none, are going to No True Progressive progressives.
How. Long.
Until we won.
Do any of y’all understand even an ounce of that pain?
Or do you just care about being seen as “a good person” and “an ally” and so set in your ways you’ll time and time again try to dictate what’s best for a marginalized community to us and just brush off every way we try to tell you you aren’t listening?
I want actual time, Sax. Because “until we won” isn’t fucking good enough. How many years lost? How many lives destroyed? How much pain endured
Then why the hell do you tolerate this? How can you bear the idea that separate but equal could have ever been good enough?
A doesn't always mean ally for me. But it is what it is, I suppose.
I think you'd bear an apocalyptic grudge if your ability to exist unmolested and enjoy the same rights as others was forbidden by law or otherwise a political question question mark.
Fencingsax seems to have made it pretty clear they wanted an abolition of marriage for everyone with everyone's status being a secular civil union, not simply one for each group.
Because it wouldn't have been separate but equal. Again, as has been explained multiple times, the idea was that Civil Unions would have been the legal side of marriage. For everyone. It was the proposed idea. Obviously, it went a different way.
And how many of the rest of us suffer while that avenue gets pursued?
How many people have to suffer for something that has no actual material benefit, other than, congrats, maybe at the end of this you’ve just made “marriage” a church word instead of what most folks recognize as a secular thing, apart from religion?
But civil unions still existed across the country! Literally as a lesser form of marriage!
At best, at best you’re trying to rules lawyer your way out of the bigots getting their way, but the thing was the rest of us wanted marriage. Not Civil Unions. We wanted marriage. We wanted to be equal to straight folks. Your method would have ceded that ground away on a cultural level.
Generally, I assumed that people would call it marriage anyway.
…
…
SAX!
Dunno. How much longer would it have taken if SCOTUS decided marriage was not legal?
You're pissed at someone for a preference they had around seven years ago. Fencing hasn't said they opposed one or the other. Fencing said their preference would have been to have everyone get assigned civil unions. That's it. If Fencing says they would have personally blocked marriage equality to make it happen, I'll hop right on the outrage train with you. But I haven't seen that so far and I don't think that's their position.
I mean, I was wrong about the way it went. I'm not unhappy that I was wrong, as long as it moved rights further.
I'm going to guess the people who were able to get civil unions in Vermont in 2000, had a better time of it for the 15 years till Obergefell, than the people in states where that wasn't an option. And if you think you were getting that ruling from the SCOTUS that went "Bush is President because we say so", you are high.
The legal terms and the colloquial terms for things are different. I didn't think people would say "Oh, we're Civilly United", if it went that way. People don't talk like that.
It was a useful way to put social pressure on Republicans, since if it went badly for them, it would've been the end of governmental-religious marriage altogether. (It was never going to happen under Roberts and Kennedy, but maybe lets' not find out.)
" And how many of the rest of us suffer while that avenue gets pursued?" - the avenue was pursued, and arguably it was successful.
And in a bunch of others it was controversial and still is as assimilationism that distracts from the real issues.
And on others, including many LGBT people, the civil unions for all was seen as a perfectly valid solution. Mostly from the more libertarian side of things, granted.
The civil unions in the seperate but equal sense, not so much. For obvious reasons. Except maybe around 2004 as a stalling measure. Remember "ooo the gays oooo was a winning play for the GOP then, in ways they try but are less effective with now.
By not simply voting for someone because they are the lesser evil and then brushing the dust off our voting hands and going "welp, that's that! Glad I was able to help democracy!"
But rather, by holding our elected officials accountable. Holding their feet to the fire and fucking demanding better of them. Drag them kicking and screaming towards more equitable and just decisions, and when they are forced to acquiesce to them, do not pat them on the head and give them a lollipop but hold them accountable for the fact that the only reason they did the right thing is that WE. TOLD. THEM. TO. AND. FORCED. THEM. TO.
Do not award them points for fixing the problems that they caused in the first place. Do not give them props for supporting progressive agendas under duress. Hold them accountable, always, and demand better of them, always.
Trying to desperately handwave their past actions is exactly the opposite of how one should go about that. Defending them against legitimate criticism and minimizing their culpability in the creation of the status quo is counter to that. Pretending that lived history did not occur, and that those who suffered through it cannot accurately recount who told them progress was a long, arduous, and incremental path, and that they should be grateful that it isn't those other guys in charge right now.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
this
Agitate for better things, because it is the only way you will ever get better things.
So nobody is doing it right? Cool, good to know.
Oh I absolutely fucking suck at that, no questions there
Honestly very few people that I know of are actually good at it
If you think Equality or Nothing, is going to get you the former with this SCOTUS, well good luck to you.
Can you clarify what you mean with your last sentence?
You are evidently profoundly ignorant of the good work being carried out by activists, globally and domestically
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke