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.
Lots of people are doing it, all over the fucking place, including these very forums. That people seem to think it's not occurring while simultaneously doing the very thing being criticized is precisely the problem.
+7
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.
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
I literally asked and didn't get a single name, instead got boilerplate twitterisms.
So I'm bypassing y'all completely. For my own edification and betterment, in more ways than one.
We're aware that lots of people are doing things. Many of the people who post here are part of those efforts. So I continue to not understand what the issue is or why you think everyone has stopped stopped bothering after winning an election.
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?
That some people are getting their rage-on by doom scrolling Twitter and then taking it out on fellow posters in bad faith interpretations of their posts.
MWO: Adamski
+14
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
We're aware that lots of people are doing things. Many of the people who post here are part of those efforts. So I continue to not understand what the issue is or why you think everyone has stopped stopped bothering after winning an election.
Much like modern racial equality movements, individual actors in the LGBTQA space don't get much facetime on the interwebs. Which is actually kind of good for their own safety, but it also makes it more difficult to really pin down the movement(s).
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
I literally asked and didn't get a single name, instead got boilerplate twitterisms.
So I'm bypassing y'all completely. For my own edification and betterment, in more ways than one.
Just a few domestic and international names to read up on.
E: I’m choosing to believe this was a good faith request and not just an attempt to either play gotcha games or to get someone to do your homework for you
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
I literally asked and didn't get a single name, instead got boilerplate twitterisms.
So I'm bypassing y'all completely. For my own edification and betterment, in more ways than one.
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?
That some people are getting their rage-on by doom scrolling Twitter and then taking it out on fellow posters in bad faith interpretations of their posts.
Isn't this in itself a bad faith interpretation of peoples posts?
+8
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Nice, but that's not what he responded to. Taking things out of context is v ugly of you.
“ and that they should be grateful that it isn't those other guys in charge right now.“ which you did in that very quote.
I mean
I for one am definitely grateful those other guys aren't in charge right now, for a wide variety of reasons. This doesn't mean I'm satisfied with the current group or have stopped my own efforts to get better people elected to enact change.
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.
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?
That some people are getting their rage-on by doom scrolling Twitter and then taking it out on fellow posters in bad faith interpretations of their posts.
Isn't this in itself a bad faith interpretation of peoples posts?
I think it is a generous interpretation of their motivations and that they aren’t naturally incredibly insufferable in general.
MWO: Adamski
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered 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.
If you think Equality or Nothing, is going to get you the former with this SCOTUS, well good luck to you.
What is the other choice? Because this isn't a situation where we can just suddenly stop having problems until the Supreme Court changes. If there is a shitty law we need to fight it because worst case scenario we still end up with a shitty law at the end. We absolutely can't stop others from legally challenging the good laws all the way up to the Supreme Court either. Again, I can't just stop existing for a few decades when it is convenient. Would be super cool if I could. Until then the current make-up of the Supreme Court is kind of irrelevant. Everything is going to end up there eventually.
If anyone else is interested, there is a group on Instagram called Redfish who put together a short form documentary on South American trans activists, with a focus on Mexican efforts. It’s very confronting (TW: anti-trans violence, death) but an incredibly moving and well put together piece. Insta is shit to link to especially from my phone, but it’s well worth your time
Nice, but that's not what he responded to. Taking things out of context is v ugly of you.
“ and that they should be grateful that it isn't those other guys in charge right now.“ which you did in that very quote.
You got your quotes and people conflated. Dark Primus said the quote you bolded but the context they meant the opposite (IE they were speaking in sarcasm). It just looks super jumbled how you have things organized right now. Maybe take a minute fully digest the context and then respond. It's just confusing right now. It looks like you are splicing out of context quotes from one poster and being mad at Jungeroom over it.
zepherin on
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
If anyone else is interested, there is a group on Instagram called Redfish who put together a short form documentary on South American trans activists, with a focus on Mexican efforts. It’s very confronting (TW: anti-trans violence, death) but an incredibly moving and well put together piece. Insta is shit to link to especially from my phone, but it’s well worth your time
I sitll remember when “why can’t the jsut settle for civil unions” was a liberal stance. And I will not forget it.
I mean, for me it was more a "separate church from state" thing, but I am certainly willing to admit the other strategy worked.
Hmm, maybe you weren't participating in the discussions around same-sex marriage at the time? In that case, let me state for the record that "marriage" as it pertains to the government and the granting of licenses is a purely legal concept entirely divorced (teehee) from religion. Religion plays no part in it, except to serve as an excuse for bigotry.
For you to be logically consistent about a separation of church and state dictating that the government stay out of marriage, you would be insisting that all marriages be converted to "civil unions."
Which was something some people proposed, just to add on to this.
And it was crap then too, because all it did was allow the bigots room to maneuver because just about every secular individual understood marriage as a civil institution beyond just a religious ceremony.
It was always at best a compromise with bigots and at worse a way to get the community to stop making trouble for their liberal “allies”
For a portion of liberals it was more "this is the best we can do, if we push too hard we get nothing instead".
Well that at least turned out to be wrong, a lesson Im sure they all definitely learned.
I sitll remember when “why can’t the jsut settle for civil unions” was a liberal stance. And I will not forget it.
I mean, for me it was more a "separate church from state" thing, but I am certainly willing to admit the other strategy worked.
Hmm, maybe you weren't participating in the discussions around same-sex marriage at the time? In that case, let me state for the record that "marriage" as it pertains to the government and the granting of licenses is a purely legal concept entirely divorced (teehee) from religion. Religion plays no part in it, except to serve as an excuse for bigotry.
For you to be logically consistent about a separation of church and state dictating that the government stay out of marriage, you would be insisting that all marriages be converted to "civil unions."
Which was something some people proposed, just to add on to this.
And it was crap then too, because all it did was allow the bigots room to maneuver because just about every secular individual understood marriage as a civil institution beyond just a religious ceremony.
It was always at best a compromise with bigots and at worse a way to get the community to stop making trouble for their liberal “allies”
For a portion of liberals it was more "this is the best we can do, if we push too hard we get nothing instead".
Well that at least turned out to be wrong, a lesson Im sure they all definitely learned.
You have insight into the alternate universe where they went for it whole hog from day one then, to be able to make this claim?
I sitll remember when “why can’t the jsut settle for civil unions” was a liberal stance. And I will not forget it.
I mean, for me it was more a "separate church from state" thing, but I am certainly willing to admit the other strategy worked.
Hmm, maybe you weren't participating in the discussions around same-sex marriage at the time? In that case, let me state for the record that "marriage" as it pertains to the government and the granting of licenses is a purely legal concept entirely divorced (teehee) from religion. Religion plays no part in it, except to serve as an excuse for bigotry.
For you to be logically consistent about a separation of church and state dictating that the government stay out of marriage, you would be insisting that all marriages be converted to "civil unions."
Which was something some people proposed, just to add on to this.
And it was crap then too, because all it did was allow the bigots room to maneuver because just about every secular individual understood marriage as a civil institution beyond just a religious ceremony.
It was always at best a compromise with bigots and at worse a way to get the community to stop making trouble for their liberal “allies”
For a portion of liberals it was more "this is the best we can do, if we push too hard we get nothing instead".
Well that at least turned out to be wrong, a lesson Im sure they all definitely learned.
You have insight into the alternate universe where they went for it whole hog from day one then, to be able to make this claim?
I don't need more evidence for pointing out what objectively occurred. Liberal concerns about trying to get too much ended up being unfounded.
I sitll remember when “why can’t the jsut settle for civil unions” was a liberal stance. And I will not forget it.
I mean, for me it was more a "separate church from state" thing, but I am certainly willing to admit the other strategy worked.
Hmm, maybe you weren't participating in the discussions around same-sex marriage at the time? In that case, let me state for the record that "marriage" as it pertains to the government and the granting of licenses is a purely legal concept entirely divorced (teehee) from religion. Religion plays no part in it, except to serve as an excuse for bigotry.
For you to be logically consistent about a separation of church and state dictating that the government stay out of marriage, you would be insisting that all marriages be converted to "civil unions."
Which was something some people proposed, just to add on to this.
And it was crap then too, because all it did was allow the bigots room to maneuver because just about every secular individual understood marriage as a civil institution beyond just a religious ceremony.
It was always at best a compromise with bigots and at worse a way to get the community to stop making trouble for their liberal “allies”
For a portion of liberals it was more "this is the best we can do, if we push too hard we get nothing instead".
Well that at least turned out to be wrong, a lesson Im sure they all definitely learned.
You have insight into the alternate universe where they went for it whole hog from day one then, to be able to make this claim?
I don't need more evidence for pointing out what objectively occurred. Liberal concerns about trying to get too much ended up being unfounded.
After we incremented with civil unions first, which proved that society doesn't collapse if you let people love who they love.
If you believe that we could have skipped that step, hey, maybe you're right, but it's not a hypothesis we can really test.
I sitll remember when “why can’t the jsut settle for civil unions” was a liberal stance. And I will not forget it.
I mean, for me it was more a "separate church from state" thing, but I am certainly willing to admit the other strategy worked.
Hmm, maybe you weren't participating in the discussions around same-sex marriage at the time? In that case, let me state for the record that "marriage" as it pertains to the government and the granting of licenses is a purely legal concept entirely divorced (teehee) from religion. Religion plays no part in it, except to serve as an excuse for bigotry.
For you to be logically consistent about a separation of church and state dictating that the government stay out of marriage, you would be insisting that all marriages be converted to "civil unions."
Which was something some people proposed, just to add on to this.
And it was crap then too, because all it did was allow the bigots room to maneuver because just about every secular individual understood marriage as a civil institution beyond just a religious ceremony.
It was always at best a compromise with bigots and at worse a way to get the community to stop making trouble for their liberal “allies”
For a portion of liberals it was more "this is the best we can do, if we push too hard we get nothing instead".
Well that at least turned out to be wrong, a lesson Im sure they all definitely learned.
You have insight into the alternate universe where they went for it whole hog from day one then, to be able to make this claim?
I don't need more evidence for pointing out what objectively occurred. Liberal concerns about trying to get too much ended up being unfounded.
After we incremented with civil unions first, which proved that society doesn't collapse if you let people love who they love.
If you believe that we could have skipped that step, hey, maybe you're right, but it's not a hypothesis we can really test.
Is there any basis for this? It seems like historical revisionism. A few states put into place civil unions then a couple more right before gay marriage was legalized. Your alleged causation isn't in evidence.
It was 38 states prior to Oberfell that had some form of marriage available for gay people, but it doesn't really make much sense that a couple months of civil unions is what convinced hold outs it was all nothing to worry about.
Civil Unions were a shit idea for people trying to have it both ways. Not a legacy worth defending.
I sitll remember when “why can’t the jsut settle for civil unions” was a liberal stance. And I will not forget it.
I mean, for me it was more a "separate church from state" thing, but I am certainly willing to admit the other strategy worked.
Hmm, maybe you weren't participating in the discussions around same-sex marriage at the time? In that case, let me state for the record that "marriage" as it pertains to the government and the granting of licenses is a purely legal concept entirely divorced (teehee) from religion. Religion plays no part in it, except to serve as an excuse for bigotry.
For you to be logically consistent about a separation of church and state dictating that the government stay out of marriage, you would be insisting that all marriages be converted to "civil unions."
Which was something some people proposed, just to add on to this.
And it was crap then too, because all it did was allow the bigots room to maneuver because just about every secular individual understood marriage as a civil institution beyond just a religious ceremony.
It was always at best a compromise with bigots and at worse a way to get the community to stop making trouble for their liberal “allies”
For a portion of liberals it was more "this is the best we can do, if we push too hard we get nothing instead".
Well that at least turned out to be wrong, a lesson Im sure they all definitely learned.
You have insight into the alternate universe where they went for it whole hog from day one then, to be able to make this claim?
I don't need more evidence for pointing out what objectively occurred. Liberal concerns about trying to get too much ended up being unfounded.
After we incremented with civil unions first, which proved that society doesn't collapse if you let people love who they love.
If you believe that we could have skipped that step, hey, maybe you're right, but it's not a hypothesis we can really test.
Is there any basis for this? It seems like historical revisionism. A few states put into place civil unions then a couple more right before gay marriage was legalized. Your alleged causation isn't in evidence.
The basis is that it was the sequence of events that actually happened.
If you think that the civil unions had no influence on the sequence events, I mean I can't prove you wrong. It's literally impossible to test, like any other alternate history scenario.
I sitll remember when “why can’t the jsut settle for civil unions” was a liberal stance. And I will not forget it.
I mean, for me it was more a "separate church from state" thing, but I am certainly willing to admit the other strategy worked.
Hmm, maybe you weren't participating in the discussions around same-sex marriage at the time? In that case, let me state for the record that "marriage" as it pertains to the government and the granting of licenses is a purely legal concept entirely divorced (teehee) from religion. Religion plays no part in it, except to serve as an excuse for bigotry.
For you to be logically consistent about a separation of church and state dictating that the government stay out of marriage, you would be insisting that all marriages be converted to "civil unions."
Which was something some people proposed, just to add on to this.
And it was crap then too, because all it did was allow the bigots room to maneuver because just about every secular individual understood marriage as a civil institution beyond just a religious ceremony.
It was always at best a compromise with bigots and at worse a way to get the community to stop making trouble for their liberal “allies”
For a portion of liberals it was more "this is the best we can do, if we push too hard we get nothing instead".
Well that at least turned out to be wrong, a lesson Im sure they all definitely learned.
You have insight into the alternate universe where they went for it whole hog from day one then, to be able to make this claim?
I don't need more evidence for pointing out what objectively occurred. Liberal concerns about trying to get too much ended up being unfounded.
After we incremented with civil unions first, which proved that society doesn't collapse if you let people love who they love.
If you believe that we could have skipped that step, hey, maybe you're right, but it's not a hypothesis we can really test.
Is there any basis for this? It seems like historical revisionism. A few states put into place civil unions then a couple more right before gay marriage was legalized. Your alleged causation isn't in evidence.
The basis is that it was the sequence of events that actually happened.
If you think that the civil unions had no influence on the sequence events, I mean I can't prove you wrong. It's literally impossible to test, like any other alternate history scenario.
Its your hypothesis! You're describing a sequence of events and claiming every argument along the way was necessary. Its not in evidence and erases a ton of lgbt activists who were telling liberals it wasnt good enough the entire time.
The story of civil unions isnt some memory of successful incremental victory, its years wasted on the cowardice of bad allies.
I sitll remember when “why can’t the jsut settle for civil unions” was a liberal stance. And I will not forget it.
I mean, for me it was more a "separate church from state" thing, but I am certainly willing to admit the other strategy worked.
Hmm, maybe you weren't participating in the discussions around same-sex marriage at the time? In that case, let me state for the record that "marriage" as it pertains to the government and the granting of licenses is a purely legal concept entirely divorced (teehee) from religion. Religion plays no part in it, except to serve as an excuse for bigotry.
For you to be logically consistent about a separation of church and state dictating that the government stay out of marriage, you would be insisting that all marriages be converted to "civil unions."
Which was something some people proposed, just to add on to this.
And it was crap then too, because all it did was allow the bigots room to maneuver because just about every secular individual understood marriage as a civil institution beyond just a religious ceremony.
It was always at best a compromise with bigots and at worse a way to get the community to stop making trouble for their liberal “allies”
For a portion of liberals it was more "this is the best we can do, if we push too hard we get nothing instead".
Well that at least turned out to be wrong, a lesson Im sure they all definitely learned.
You have insight into the alternate universe where they went for it whole hog from day one then, to be able to make this claim?
I don't need more evidence for pointing out what objectively occurred. Liberal concerns about trying to get too much ended up being unfounded.
After we incremented with civil unions first, which proved that society doesn't collapse if you let people love who they love.
If you believe that we could have skipped that step, hey, maybe you're right, but it's not a hypothesis we can really test.
Is there any basis for this? It seems like historical revisionism. A few states put into place civil unions then a couple more right before gay marriage was legalized. Your alleged causation isn't in evidence.
The basis is that it was the sequence of events that actually happened.
If you think that the civil unions had no influence on the sequence events, I mean I can't prove you wrong. It's literally impossible to test, like any other alternate history scenario.
Its your hypothesis!
Facts we have:
1) Civil Unions happened.
2) Gay Marriage happened after.
My Statement:
"For a portion of liberals it was more "this is the best we can do, if we push too hard we get nothing instead"."
Your response:
"Well that at least turned out to be wrong,"
I sitll remember when “why can’t the jsut settle for civil unions” was a liberal stance. And I will not forget it.
I mean, for me it was more a "separate church from state" thing, but I am certainly willing to admit the other strategy worked.
Hmm, maybe you weren't participating in the discussions around same-sex marriage at the time? In that case, let me state for the record that "marriage" as it pertains to the government and the granting of licenses is a purely legal concept entirely divorced (teehee) from religion. Religion plays no part in it, except to serve as an excuse for bigotry.
For you to be logically consistent about a separation of church and state dictating that the government stay out of marriage, you would be insisting that all marriages be converted to "civil unions."
Which was something some people proposed, just to add on to this.
And it was crap then too, because all it did was allow the bigots room to maneuver because just about every secular individual understood marriage as a civil institution beyond just a religious ceremony.
It was always at best a compromise with bigots and at worse a way to get the community to stop making trouble for their liberal “allies”
For a portion of liberals it was more "this is the best we can do, if we push too hard we get nothing instead".
Well that at least turned out to be wrong, a lesson Im sure they all definitely learned.
You have insight into the alternate universe where they went for it whole hog from day one then, to be able to make this claim?
I don't need more evidence for pointing out what objectively occurred. Liberal concerns about trying to get too much ended up being unfounded.
After we incremented with civil unions first, which proved that society doesn't collapse if you let people love who they love.
If you believe that we could have skipped that step, hey, maybe you're right, but it's not a hypothesis we can really test.
Is there any basis for this? It seems like historical revisionism. A few states put into place civil unions then a couple more right before gay marriage was legalized. Your alleged causation isn't in evidence.
The basis is that it was the sequence of events that actually happened.
If you think that the civil unions had no influence on the sequence events, I mean I can't prove you wrong. It's literally impossible to test, like any other alternate history scenario.
Its your hypothesis! You're describing a sequence of events and claiming every argument along the way was necessary. Its not in evidence and erases a ton of lgbt activists who were telling liberals it wasnt good enough the entire time.
The story of civil unions isnt some memory of successful incremental victory, its years wasted on the cowardice of bad allies.
So why couldn't we get gay marriage before civil unions?
I sitll remember when “why can’t the jsut settle for civil unions” was a liberal stance. And I will not forget it.
I mean, for me it was more a "separate church from state" thing, but I am certainly willing to admit the other strategy worked.
Hmm, maybe you weren't participating in the discussions around same-sex marriage at the time? In that case, let me state for the record that "marriage" as it pertains to the government and the granting of licenses is a purely legal concept entirely divorced (teehee) from religion. Religion plays no part in it, except to serve as an excuse for bigotry.
For you to be logically consistent about a separation of church and state dictating that the government stay out of marriage, you would be insisting that all marriages be converted to "civil unions."
Which was something some people proposed, just to add on to this.
And it was crap then too, because all it did was allow the bigots room to maneuver because just about every secular individual understood marriage as a civil institution beyond just a religious ceremony.
It was always at best a compromise with bigots and at worse a way to get the community to stop making trouble for their liberal “allies”
For a portion of liberals it was more "this is the best we can do, if we push too hard we get nothing instead".
Well that at least turned out to be wrong, a lesson Im sure they all definitely learned.
You have insight into the alternate universe where they went for it whole hog from day one then, to be able to make this claim?
I don't need more evidence for pointing out what objectively occurred. Liberal concerns about trying to get too much ended up being unfounded.
After we incremented with civil unions first, which proved that society doesn't collapse if you let people love who they love.
If you believe that we could have skipped that step, hey, maybe you're right, but it's not a hypothesis we can really test.
Is there any basis for this? It seems like historical revisionism. A few states put into place civil unions then a couple more right before gay marriage was legalized. Your alleged causation isn't in evidence.
The basis is that it was the sequence of events that actually happened.
If you think that the civil unions had no influence on the sequence events, I mean I can't prove you wrong. It's literally impossible to test, like any other alternate history scenario.
Its your hypothesis! You're describing a sequence of events and claiming every argument along the way was necessary. Its not in evidence and erases a ton of lgbt activists who were telling liberals it wasnt good enough the entire time.
The story of civil unions isnt some memory of successful incremental victory, its years wasted on the cowardice of bad allies.
So why couldn't we get gay marriage before civil unions?
We didn't have gay marriage prior to a massive and coordinated political and social movement because people were super bigoted.. You're not actually establishing any causative relationship here.
I sitll remember when “why can’t the jsut settle for civil unions” was a liberal stance. And I will not forget it.
I mean, for me it was more a "separate church from state" thing, but I am certainly willing to admit the other strategy worked.
Hmm, maybe you weren't participating in the discussions around same-sex marriage at the time? In that case, let me state for the record that "marriage" as it pertains to the government and the granting of licenses is a purely legal concept entirely divorced (teehee) from religion. Religion plays no part in it, except to serve as an excuse for bigotry.
For you to be logically consistent about a separation of church and state dictating that the government stay out of marriage, you would be insisting that all marriages be converted to "civil unions."
Which was something some people proposed, just to add on to this.
And it was crap then too, because all it did was allow the bigots room to maneuver because just about every secular individual understood marriage as a civil institution beyond just a religious ceremony.
It was always at best a compromise with bigots and at worse a way to get the community to stop making trouble for their liberal “allies”
For a portion of liberals it was more "this is the best we can do, if we push too hard we get nothing instead".
Well that at least turned out to be wrong, a lesson Im sure they all definitely learned.
You have insight into the alternate universe where they went for it whole hog from day one then, to be able to make this claim?
I don't need more evidence for pointing out what objectively occurred. Liberal concerns about trying to get too much ended up being unfounded.
After we incremented with civil unions first, which proved that society doesn't collapse if you let people love who they love.
If you believe that we could have skipped that step, hey, maybe you're right, but it's not a hypothesis we can really test.
Is there any basis for this? It seems like historical revisionism. A few states put into place civil unions then a couple more right before gay marriage was legalized. Your alleged causation isn't in evidence.
The basis is that it was the sequence of events that actually happened.
If you think that the civil unions had no influence on the sequence events, I mean I can't prove you wrong. It's literally impossible to test, like any other alternate history scenario.
Its your hypothesis! You're describing a sequence of events and claiming every argument along the way was necessary. Its not in evidence and erases a ton of lgbt activists who were telling liberals it wasnt good enough the entire time.
The story of civil unions isnt some memory of successful incremental victory, its years wasted on the cowardice of bad allies.
So why couldn't we get gay marriage before civil unions?
Mostly because everyone was super bigoted. You're not actually establishing any causative relationship here.
So it's coincidence that it happened in that order? Did it actually slow it down? Do you think that Americans would have legalized gay marriage more quickly if there was no introductory scenario?
That's not really how history works. "What caused World War II?" is a freaking career path.
There is a trend in human behavior that it's easier to get people who are comfortable with the status quo to change using small changes over time instead of changing things all at once, but it's a trend and not an absolute certainty, so while it's very often the case it's not really possible to prove one way or another. Everyone is just operating off of personal and shared experience, and possibly even myths.
In my experience, people on average do need to be introduced to new ideas slowly, but I also have a very low opinion of people. As such, I think civil unions made it harder to declare gay marriage to doom the world.
I would prefer that people were better and were able to just legalize gay marriage as soon as someone noticed that there was any friction there, but fucking California passed Prop 8.
+3
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
The bigots didn’t want civil unions either.
Then civil unions happened and the sky didn’t fall and gay marriage became a much easier sell because all the wind had been taken out of the opposition’s sails.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I mean I remember very clearly who in American politics was pushing civil unions and it wasn't really the people out in the streets or making the phone calls.
You're confusing a sequence of events with causation. You can say "well it was needed to make people comfortable" but civil unions did not stick around long. The notion that it was a brief spell of civil unions that softened everyone up needs better defending than you've offered.
I mean I remember very clearly who in American politics was pushing civil unions and it wasn't really the people out in the streets or making the phone calls.
You're confusing a sequence of events with causation. You can say "well it was needed to make people comfortable" but civil unions did not stick around long. The notion that it was a brief spell of civil unions that softened everyone up needs better defending than you've offered.
Please do show me where you found a way to solve for humans, because the entire world could really use this information.
It is a big claim that incrementalism is the superior option.
Big compared to what?
That’s not what I asked, you said it was better than a big change quickly. Honest question; what are you basing this on? I am interested in reading it as well
I have not made that argument, so I can't answer that. Perhaps I made it in that alternate reality where nobody bothered with civil unions first.
Making a small change is easier to do than making a big change. Making another change is easier if you've already made a small change. If you attempt to make a big change, you are more likely to be stopped from making any change at all. Hence my statement: "For a portion of liberals it was more 'this is the best we can do, if we push too hard we get nothing instead".' Also "slippery slopes" being talked about all the time with this stuff.
Posts
Lots of people are doing it, all over the fucking place, including these very forums. That people seem to think it's not occurring while simultaneously doing the very thing being criticized is precisely the problem.
I literally asked and didn't get a single name, instead got boilerplate twitterisms.
So I'm bypassing y'all completely. For my own edification and betterment, in more ways than one.
That some people are getting their rage-on by doom scrolling Twitter and then taking it out on fellow posters in bad faith interpretations of their posts.
MWO: Adamski
Much like modern racial equality movements, individual actors in the LGBTQA space don't get much facetime on the interwebs. Which is actually kind of good for their own safety, but it also makes it more difficult to really pin down the movement(s).
Nice, but that's not what he responded to. Taking things out of context is v ugly of you.
Absolute crickets.
Cactus collective, Hecate society, BQIC (Be Quick), Hamilton Queer Action, Auckland Marxist Tendency.
Just a few domestic and international names to read up on.
E: I’m choosing to believe this was a good faith request and not just an attempt to either play gotcha games or to get someone to do your homework for you
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
I will. Thank you.
Isn't this in itself a bad faith interpretation of peoples posts?
Quote pls.
I mean
I for one am definitely grateful those other guys aren't in charge right now, for a wide variety of reasons. This doesn't mean I'm satisfied with the current group or have stopped my own efforts to get better people elected to enact change.
Edit: Oh, JRX didn't even say that. Lol.
I think it is a generous interpretation of their motivations and that they aren’t naturally incredibly insufferable in general.
MWO: Adamski
I'll let you figure out what you're even talking about, because I have no idea.
What is the other choice? Because this isn't a situation where we can just suddenly stop having problems until the Supreme Court changes. If there is a shitty law we need to fight it because worst case scenario we still end up with a shitty law at the end. We absolutely can't stop others from legally challenging the good laws all the way up to the Supreme Court either. Again, I can't just stop existing for a few decades when it is convenient. Would be super cool if I could. Until then the current make-up of the Supreme Court is kind of irrelevant. Everything is going to end up there eventually.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
I will check them out
Well that at least turned out to be wrong, a lesson Im sure they all definitely learned.
You have insight into the alternate universe where they went for it whole hog from day one then, to be able to make this claim?
I don't need more evidence for pointing out what objectively occurred. Liberal concerns about trying to get too much ended up being unfounded.
After we incremented with civil unions first, which proved that society doesn't collapse if you let people love who they love.
If you believe that we could have skipped that step, hey, maybe you're right, but it's not a hypothesis we can really test.
Is there any basis for this? It seems like historical revisionism. A few states put into place civil unions then a couple more right before gay marriage was legalized. Your alleged causation isn't in evidence.
It was 38 states prior to Oberfell that had some form of marriage available for gay people, but it doesn't really make much sense that a couple months of civil unions is what convinced hold outs it was all nothing to worry about.
Civil Unions were a shit idea for people trying to have it both ways. Not a legacy worth defending.
The basis is that it was the sequence of events that actually happened.
If you think that the civil unions had no influence on the sequence events, I mean I can't prove you wrong. It's literally impossible to test, like any other alternate history scenario.
Its your hypothesis! You're describing a sequence of events and claiming every argument along the way was necessary. Its not in evidence and erases a ton of lgbt activists who were telling liberals it wasnt good enough the entire time.
The story of civil unions isnt some memory of successful incremental victory, its years wasted on the cowardice of bad allies.
Facts we have:
1) Civil Unions happened.
2) Gay Marriage happened after.
My Statement:
"For a portion of liberals it was more "this is the best we can do, if we push too hard we get nothing instead"."
Your response:
"Well that at least turned out to be wrong,"
So why couldn't we get gay marriage before civil unions?
We didn't have gay marriage prior to a massive and coordinated political and social movement because people were super bigoted.. You're not actually establishing any causative relationship here.
So it's coincidence that it happened in that order? Did it actually slow it down? Do you think that Americans would have legalized gay marriage more quickly if there was no introductory scenario?
That's not really how history works. "What caused World War II?" is a freaking career path.
There is a trend in human behavior that it's easier to get people who are comfortable with the status quo to change using small changes over time instead of changing things all at once, but it's a trend and not an absolute certainty, so while it's very often the case it's not really possible to prove one way or another. Everyone is just operating off of personal and shared experience, and possibly even myths.
In my experience, people on average do need to be introduced to new ideas slowly, but I also have a very low opinion of people. As such, I think civil unions made it harder to declare gay marriage to doom the world.
I would prefer that people were better and were able to just legalize gay marriage as soon as someone noticed that there was any friction there, but fucking California passed Prop 8.
Then civil unions happened and the sky didn’t fall and gay marriage became a much easier sell because all the wind had been taken out of the opposition’s sails.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
E: I’m curious on your sources for this claim, I’d like to read more
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
Big compared to what?
You're confusing a sequence of events with causation. You can say "well it was needed to make people comfortable" but civil unions did not stick around long. The notion that it was a brief spell of civil unions that softened everyone up needs better defending than you've offered.
Please do show me where you found a way to solve for humans, because the entire world could really use this information.
You said it was better than a big change quickly. Honest question; what are you basing this on? I am interested in reading it as well
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
I have not made that argument, so I can't answer that. Perhaps I made it in that alternate reality where nobody bothered with civil unions first.
Making a small change is easier to do than making a big change. Making another change is easier if you've already made a small change. If you attempt to make a big change, you are more likely to be stopped from making any change at all. Hence my statement: "For a portion of liberals it was more 'this is the best we can do, if we push too hard we get nothing instead".' Also "slippery slopes" being talked about all the time with this stuff.