Skip to main content

View Diary: Gay Americans & 9/11: On a Queer Day (214 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So very well said. (5+ / 0-)

    Tips to you, AndyS!

    When y'ain't got nothin', ya got nothin' to lose.

    by aerdrie faenya on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 02:09:02 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks! Also, I want to take the opportunity to (6+ / 0-)

      say, I don't think theyrereal is a bigot.

      That being said, I think part of the problem when you try to advance the right wing mindset even in a "Devil's advocate" way, you wind up inevitably giving lip service to the rawest ugliest bigotry.

      I don't really like where this conversation inevitably leads -- talking about the "difference" between "gay people" and "regular people", for instance.

      There is another thing theyrereal doesn't acknowledge with his points -- such as they are -- because it would signal the fatal deprecation of his argument:

      It wouldn't be necessary to talk about this in a political way if the issue hadn't already been politicized by the right.

      What theyrereal doesn't acknowledge is that in Terrance's diary are very real episodes of gay partners of killed people being given short shrift over 9/11.  So, Terrance is being cynical by talking about gay people in relation to 9/11?  Who's being cynical?  Did anyone get denied benefits because they were straight?  The difference between how gay people were treated in the aftermath and how straight people were treated is very real.

      Help keep America a one party state - vote Republican! (-6.25, -6.92)

      by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 02:19:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  what's a bigot? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        maren a

        seriously- just because someone is a) polite or b) say they dont carea bout an issue or c) simply act as an apologists for right wing echo chamber poitns- what does that make them? Not sure what a bigot is anymore- I hada  friend tell me his mother isn't a bigot even though she wouldn't want him to marry a black girl. What does that make her?

        Fear is not a winning strategy.

        by bruh1 on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 02:51:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Offhand, I would say theyrereal's chief (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Albatross

          concern is the welfare of the Democratic Party, as misguided as I think his points are.  And it's just my opinion but I think his concern is genuine, even though his narrative is seriously backwards, in my opinion.

          It's not to slam or demonize gay people per se.  He's not talking about what certain right wingers might say to masquerade as a concern troll, but to provide his genuine belief that acknowledging gays in any way hurts the Democratic Party.  That's just my reading.

          Now, what is wrong with that belief is legion.  He isn't really saying this out loud, but he's tacitly saying it's ok for Democrats to accept gay support when gay support is needed, but that gay people need to be kicked to the curb whenever our issues come to the fore.

          But he really isn't thinking of it that way with his mind's "big voice"; it's just lurking in the background with his mind's "little voice".

          I think it's a mistake to call people bigots without serious provocation.  Once you call someone a bigot, you've kind of ended the discussion.  So I reserve the label for the worst of the worst, and I don't think that's what we're dealing with here, bad as it is.

          Help keep America a one party state - vote Republican! (-6.25, -6.92)

          by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 03:00:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  but in my mind (2+ / 0-)

            there isn't a difference between him and a right winger- other than t he r ight winger is actually the one being sincere. Your argument is that he is a bigot-by-circumstance. That because there are some right wingers out there who dont like us gays, then his position is okay. But, that results in a moral and racial quagmire.

            My problem with your definition is that what you allow to pass as not bigotted is in actually the type of conduct that allows bigotted behavior to continue. First, read a book- Hitler's Willing Executioner and read about the apologists during pre bellum American of slavery. It's the same arguments- different groups. Soft racism is the kind of thing that really makes hard racism work because the soft racism acts as the fulcrum to lift the hard racism up. By giving in to the right winger- its bigotry by proxy.

            Second, off, I don't believe this person doesn't care about this issue. He commented on this diary (gay diaries on D Kos being recommended a rarity). So, he obviously cares. What he or she means to say is that our issue isn't i mportant enough to him or her so he or she is willing to sell us down the river. I just dont' see that as better than a bigot because our 'issue' is one of basically what it means to be an American.

            I think part of the issue of the civilr ights movement and other movements is that they got away from basic values. The basic value here is plain old fashion equality. Either one believes in it, or one does not. If y ou have a class of people that y ou are willing to sell out to 'win' then fairness and equality are not something you value. There will always be these tests. It's easy on these questions where one has an issue regarding the class but what happens in more complicated situations such as described by the diarist? Why shouldn't this as a fellow American be something he or she cares about?

            As someone pointed out- he treats 'gay' as bad. Why is that the case? The things I am talking about are issues that I had to deal with internally with my own sexuality and deprogramming myself. Why is it okay for someone to think its okay to sell us down the river?

            It was easier to sell African Americans down t he river, but peo choose over time not to do so because they undrestood that the act of selling AAs down the river is almost as bad as those who are openly racist. It was easy to ignore (and yes, I know the comparison is too strong but its the quickest and most clarifying one I can use) for most Germans to ignroe what the Nazis were doing. Doing what's easier doesn't make one not racists or not a bigot. It's actually the worse position because its saying one has no values at all.

            Fear is not a winning strategy.

            by bruh1 on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 03:14:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Like you, I don't think it's ok to sell us down (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theyrereal

              the river; it's seriously messed up, for many reasons.

              Where gays win, though, is not by rejecting people with bigoted beliefs but by engaging them.  We win by turning what you would call "bigots" into "non-bigots" and you do that by having a conversation not by name-calling.

              Where I object to casually calling someone a bigot is that a). it has no utility and b). there IS, in my opinion, a serious definitional difference here, at least to me.

              You don't gain any mileage from just calling someone a bigot because they evince beliefs that are wicked and self-serving, because you don't know what is behind that, and it wouldn't matter if you did.  Perhaps it's just ignorance or a person not having thought their position fully through.  The only possible way you can make headway with that person is to draw attention to the nastiness of the behavior ITSELF, and while that takes more effort than just calling someone a bigot, I believe it's more effective in winning them over.

              Definitionally, to me there is a difference between someone who casually supports evil because they either don't know any better or haven't thought through their positions, and someone who openly displays outright hatred and doesn't want to discuss it.

              Speculate as we might about theyrereal's motives in saying what he said, the problem is we don't actually know he wants to "sell us down the river" (or that he really thought about it that way), nor can we know for sure until and unless he gives us more evidence.

              So, ultimately I guess my position on this is "utilitarian".  I want what is best for gay people without hurting anyone else.  That is best done by convincing people when they're wrong and why, and even appealing to their own self interest, which you and I both agree is harmed by setting aside a group for specially bad treatment based merely on public opinion .. I try to point out where that can backfire on them in the future and I don't think I'm wrong to do so.

              You have been very effective in this diary (and even the above comment) pointing out all the faults in theyrereal's position, and he has come up with other excuses all of which have been slammed down heartily with reason and logic, even as his points make both of us angry.  Our restraint is admirable, don't you think?

              I just think that name-calling is the easy way out and you haven't even tried to do that, yourself.

              Help keep America a one party state - vote Republican! (-6.25, -6.92)

              by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 03:29:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Andy (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AndyS In Colorado

                Seriously, pretending isn't going to yeild the dialogue you want. Honesty, is the first step. I recently wrote an article on this subject. That the more honest we are- the better chance we have of achieving our goals. The more hidden we are- the more the right wins. Truth, afterall, is there enemy. I am not speculating about this person. I am reading what he has written, and making a judgement on that. Trying to make people feel good about themselves isn't the solutions. Being honest with them is. I explained to him or her why they are being bigotted. If they are capable- of listening- which is also required for a conversation, by the way, then they will try to understand why this is the case. The gay movement has moved far faster than most social movements because of honesty, and refusing to let peo feel good as they politely screw us over. Bigotry isn't name calling- it's like me saying I am gay. it's naming what a thing is. That peo can't handle that aspect of themselves. Or it doesn't make them feel good- I know we are supposed to be able to get more with honey than vinegar, but the truth is- in real life, you get just as much, and sometimes more with the stick than the carrot.

                Fear is not a winning strategy.

                by bruh1 on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 03:40:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What is the difference, semantically, (0+ / 0-)

                  between what you are saying and what I am saying, though, regarding the behavior?

                  I don't think I am trying to make this person feel good about what he has written.  

                  But saying "You're trying to feel good about yourself while you politely screw us over" imparts much more information than simply saying "you're a bigot" don't you think?

                  Contrary to what you think, I'm not adopting a "honey attracts more flies than vinegar" mantra.  

                  And that, ultimately, is my goal, to communicate with people.  I'm not pretending, I just want to get through.

                  Though I'll give it some more thought as to you're position.  If you look at my past posts, I'm a big fan of calling a spade a spade, so I'm swimming a bit against the tide, here ;)

                  Help keep America a one party state - vote Republican! (-6.25, -6.92)

                  by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 03:48:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  okay (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Albatross, AndyS In Colorado

                    i just wanted to make sure we weren't talking about somehow excuse this guy for what he is saying- because at base its pretty bad, but I see you are just talking specific wording- not specific meaning. at base, my issue with him-e ven if this weren't a gay issue, is that his comment is lacking in political values- and makes me question who next he would be willing to throw off the boat should there be politically heat? why not illegal immigrants- they aren't liked? what about the poor? etc- it can become a slippery slope and moral abyss to take his route. i know you aren't agreeing with it, but i want to one again- if he is reading this- get him to understand where his sort of arguments leads.

                    Fear is not a winning strategy.

                    by bruh1 on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 03:57:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I would recommend this post a hundred times (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Albatross

                      if I could.

                      You are SO RIGHT about this.  And what's more, you are right because Democrats tend to do this reflexively.

                      Many Democrats DO try to throw spanish-speakers (not just illegal immigrants) off the boat.  And that of course includes anyone perceived as being weak, including the poor, gays, women, ad nauseum.

                      It IS a *"moral abyss"*!  Do you mind if I use that?  It's the best wording I've heard in a long time regarding the centrist Democrat's "win at any cost including the truth" ideology.

                      Help keep America a one party state - vote Republican! (-6.25, -6.92)

                      by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 04:02:22 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  sure go ahead (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        AndyS In Colorado

                        my thing lately i have been thinking of simple phrases that describe the other sides character or ours, or the situation:

                        ie,

                        "moral abyss" to describe triangulation

                        "truth is their enemy" to describe what is really at stake for the republicans- if they lose this year- they lose control o f what is 'truth' That's why every candidate should be saying t his to them- "the truth is your enemy." like a mantra because its a perfect frame for anything t he Dems say next.

                        'perception is our war' is a phrase i use to describe the flaw in many left leaning groups. they don't understand that wars are won or lost over perception. Iraq was lost when we lost the perception war with the insurgency. we win or lose elections over perception not issues- perceptions of our character.

                        Fear is not a winning strategy.

                        by bruh1 on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 04:17:47 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  mmm .. though I'd really say (0+ / 0-)

                          the perception war over Iraq was lost with the Republicans, not the "insurgents".

                          Anyone with half a brain could have seen (and did see) that warring with the Arabs over non-existent exingencies would lead to a bottomless pit of lives, money, time and vision.

                          I wish I could dig up the post on Yahoo several years ago (before the war started) where I said that the war with Iraq would cost 75 billion dollars and lead to nothing, and the replies from right wingers who said I was insane for the cost figures at least.

                          I am going to go out on a limb here and say something politically incorrect.

                          The insurgency in Iraq is a REBELLION.  They are doing nothing differently than our own rebels did (or would have done) in the American Revolution.

                          The bottom line is that in Iraq we have created the ugliness -- when it was Saddam Hussein the blame for the barbarism could be laid on him, but no more.

                          Whatever the situation in Iraq was, and is, it was not our war to fight. It is American hubris that will lead us down a bottomless pit of despair, and even maybe civil war and chaos HERE.

                          Until Americans realize they do not run the world, we are in for more.  Strap yourself in.

                          Help keep America a one party state - vote Republican! (-6.25, -6.92)

                          by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 04:27:21 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I dont disagree with that (0+ / 0-)

                            I think  one of the biggest issues I have with a lot of issues with my fellow Ameircans is our hubris. There are others a) a focus on hedonism (pleasure at all cost) b) a lack of understanding of history etc. But hubris is a biggie. That we think of war as a Rambo movie is a cliche, but it's also still very true.I am actually pretty moderate. i am not against per se military action where it proves necessary. I am for or was for the powell doctrine back before he went crazy and joined with bush. All of it was about looking carefully at a situation and making the best choice that could be made. Most of the time that wasn't to go to war  just because you thought you were the biggest bully on the block. Anyway, this is all OT.

                            Fear is not a winning strategy.

                            by bruh1 on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 04:41:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What about isolation? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Texas Blue Dot

                            I think this is one of the biggest problems facing us.

                            Americans don't have to be neighbors with each other anymore.  We have the internet, and video games, and cable TV.  The unity of our society is dissolving.

                            Help keep America a one party state - vote Republican! (-6.25, -6.92)

                            by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 04:52:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  thats a part of the hedonism (0+ / 0-)

                            I think we think of being happy in individual terms. The biggest computer, the best car, etc. That doesn't leave much room for their being an us. The culture of hedonism I think leads to the process you refer to as isolation. When you got christians talking about God and heaven like its an amusement park you know something is off. Not that they haven't bbeen screwed up in the past. They have. But this sort of hedonism is crazy. i use the word here hopefully as it is meant philosophically. Namely it refers to the pursuit of pleasure above all else. Even when it doesn't make sense. it in many ways doesn't anymore. In philisophical terms- one can indeed be unhappy even while pursuing perceived pleasure because its a short term rather than long term pleasure. it's interesting we are having this conversation. I have in the last couple of years started to think of building relationships by looking for peo who share my basic values of caring for each other. etc. Really even the stuff about gay peo is about instant gratification. Peo dont go beyond short term think toward thinking "what is good for the polity" anymore. instead they merely ask "what do I believe.' Pastor Dan and I- who I occasionally argument with- what of the issues I have with a Christian left is the mentality of why such a thing shoudl exist. Often it is said that it is because the Christian self can not be left at the political door. To which, at least for me, this is dangerous- because it doesn't require any civic virtues anymore per se. Anyway I hope my ramblings make sense.

                            Fear is not a winning strategy.

                            by bruh1 on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 06:31:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  one can even see hedonism (0+ / 0-)

                            by the way in bizzare things like Walmart- peo will go out and buy from wallmart even if they know its cost them their job. if that is not a perverse moral situation then I dont know what is

                            Fear is not a winning strategy.

                            by bruh1 on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 06:33:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  I am thinking of writing a diary on this subject (0+ / 0-)

                        I find most democrats are too intellectual. I am going from being a lawyer to becoming a filmmaker and I had to deprogram myself from over thinking and back toward a simple but effective language that compells people even if they dont know why. I think the big flaw for our side is we talk a good game  until we actually have to talk to people. For example, with a Republican- i always say something with force- no waivering. I always also use their own arguments against them to prove my point. If it's Katrina- I say "for a party of personality responsibilit, you are certainly taking none here." etc

                        Fear is not a winning strategy.

                        by bruh1 on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 04:21:18 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  ps (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AndyS In Colorado

            adding on to the last l ine: its worse than being an out and out bigot because it says that one has no values up to and including allowing bigotry to continue.

            i dont see how the later position is remotely a good position to take

            Fear is not a winning strategy.

            by bruh1 on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 03:18:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  thank you (0+ / 0-)
            because yes, my concern is with the nation as a whole and the Democratic Party as a whole, and ridding ourselves of what is basically a bunch of evil gangsters who have taken over our government like parasites.

            My feelings have nothing to do with, well, feelings, but are rather practical in nature here.

            For instance (and I know I'll get bashed about this, but so be it) when Gavin Newscome started letting gays get married by the droves in San Francisco in 2004, his timing was terrible.

            Politics is about being practical, and about timing.

            My attitude on much of what we consider a "liberal" agenda is to wait until we're back in power before we make a big deal out of some of these things.

            Others disagree.

            To make gay and lesbian issues forefront in the Democratic Party playbook, when the United States has been taken over by what is, in my opinion without hyperbole, a fascist coup ..... isn't the most practical use of political capital or resources.

            Right now we are so seriously fucked in this country that these issues will never be addressed politically (although they will be culturally and socially).  

            My point is right now we don't even have the right to fair and honest elections.

            Why even bring up gay marriage, for instance, when we don't even have the right to fair elections?

            As a practical person, my main issue in the world is the environment.   Because our very lives depend on it.   Yet right now I've put that issue on the back burner because I know it's not gonna get dealt with ONE BIT until the fascists are out of power.

            These people are mass murderers and they could give a shit about your rights, or my rights, or anybody's rights, or the environment, or anything but their own grasp on power and property.  

            Just my two cents.  Thanks for listening and I probably won't say anymore about this now.  

            The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

            by theyrereal on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 04:22:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How do you think you're going to rid the country (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aerdrie faenya

              of "evil gangstas" if it can be fairly said that we're (that is, Democrats are) evil gangstas ourselves?

              Unless you care about everybody's rights, you are a hypocrite.  And hypocrisy, less what the Republicans say, is the Achille's Heel of your position.

              What the Democrats need to do is demonstrate more forcefully if anything that abandonment of people is simply purely evil, and if we are to be better than the Republicans, we cannot do that.

              You're right, the Republicans could give a shit about your rights, my rights, or anybody else's rights, except their own, because all they care about is retaining power.  And the object is to make the point, not abandon it.  To mimick the Republicans is only to convince the majority of people that there is no difference between the major parties.

              The fact is, people in the Democratic Party who believe how you believe have been in charge for 20 years or more, and what has it accomplished?  Your problem -- or one of your problems -- is you are arguing a dead position.  It would be different (even if wholly heinous)if you were advocating something different.  But you're not.

              You're arguing stay-the-course for the Democrats.  And so, you're arguing for your worst nightmare to come true.

              Actually, the Republicans do have something right.  They understand the sentiment if not the follow through.  When the Republicans articulate certain slogans, they're right, for example, "No Child Left Behind".

              Well, what about "No American Left Behind"?  

              You're just wrong.  And not only wrong, but you're advocating something bad IN your wrongness.

              Help keep America a one party state - vote Republican! (-6.25, -6.92)

              by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 04:40:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  What you don't realize is that our very lives (0+ / 0-)

              also depend on acceptance of people not-like-us.

              The environment is all fine and good, what what is also important is realizing that our lives -- yes, our very lives -- also depends on working together to solve common problems.

              Otherwise, what are you trying to save the environment for?  Who will care, if all of humanity is dead?  Actually the environment might be better off IF we are all dead, but I digress.

              So, yeah, your position might be better in the long run to save the environment.

              To bad none of us will be here to enjoy it.

              Help keep America a one party state - vote Republican! (-6.25, -6.92)

              by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 04:58:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, by the way, thank YOU (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aerdrie faenya

              Thank you for admitting that you are willing to sacrifice my rights on the pillar of practicality.

              Thank you for ignoring the fact that to be right is to be a political winner, in the long term.

              Thank you, for thanking me, for the sacrifice of my rights on the altar of your tomorrow.  You are most generous and unaffected by the sacrifice.

              That was an asshole post.  You should reconsider your entire political ideology.

              Help keep America a one party state - vote Republican! (-6.25, -6.92)

              by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 05:08:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  so much (0+ / 0-)
                for the civil conversation I thought we were having.

                The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

                by theyrereal on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 05:38:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Interesting that THAT post was the one you chose (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aerdrie faenya

                  to respond to.

                  Tell me, how are these two things different:

                  1.  A Republican argues for war without being willing to go to war, to finance it, to sacrifice tax breaks because of it, or to do anything different because of it.
                  1.  YOU argue that certain people's rights are less important, because YOU think it would detract from certain things YOU think important.  BUT YOUR RIGHTS are not affected in the least.

                  Tell me how, exactly, this doesn't make you the Democratic version of a chickenhawk?

                  Who is not being civil here?  Me?  Because I'm calling a spade a spade?  Do you even have a legitimate non-posturing reaction?  What are YOU willing to sacrifice in terms of YOUR rights to make certain of Democratic Victory?  Are you willing to sacrifice your right to vote?  Your right to marry?  Tell me, please, because I'd really like to get you on record with this.

                  Let me say this: Until you are willing to sacrifice your own rights on the altar of what you think is important, don't ask me to sacrifice mine.  Capische?

                  YOU are not being civil.

                  Help keep America a one party state - vote Republican! (-6.25, -6.92)

                  by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 05:46:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Listen (0+ / 0-)
                    As long as the current cabal is in power, NONE OF US have equal rights.

                    I'm as likely as you to end up in a detention camp.

                    We're in the same boat, although none of you seem to want to acknowledge that.

                    It's us against them.   Us.   I'm not talking about taking away anbody's rights, or putting anybody's rights on the back burner.  

                    Unless we can get these fuckwads out of power, all of our rights are in dangers.   It doesn't fucking MATTER what our sexual orientation is, or what our pet issue is.

                    The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

                    by theyrereal on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 08:12:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It doesn't matter? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      aerdrie faenya

                      Tell that to me when I've got a pink triangle on.

                      They may not come for you first, but standing up for US helps to make sure they may not come at all.

                      -TBD (-5.75, -5.59) "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." - Edward R. Murrow

                      by Texas Blue Dot on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 09:25:46 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  its not his life so its (0+ / 0-)

                        a non issue which is really why he is a bigot. nothing you will say will change his mind - no more than you could change someone like mel gibson's mind about jews controlling everything.

                        Fear is not a winning strategy.

                        by bruh1 on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 09:28:45 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  not true (0+ / 0-)

                          this is why progressives push for rehabilitation of drug users instead of throwing them in jail over an over.

                          Mel is seeking help.  Your assertion that people can't change is false.

                          simply false.

                          evolution my friend.  everything changes.  and it is ironic that no matter how much things change, everything is still very similar to the past.

                          Mark Twain said it best when he said the past does not repeat.  It past rhymes with the present.

                          change is inevitable. nothing stays exactly the same.

                          Don't fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating. --Brazil (1985)

                          by hypersphere01 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 09:57:52 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  And not standing up for others (0+ / 0-)

                        and being "practical," in my view, is the same as "go along to get along."

                        AndyS, you speak so well.  Thanks for adding your thoughts to this ongoing conversation.

                        Basically, theyrereal, as AndyS said, YOUR rights are not on the line -- so it's so EASY to feel that putting other rights on the back burner is the best course -- your rights aren't being affected.  You're not gay, I'm guessing you're not Spanish-speaking or an immigrant -- are you a woman?  I'm just wondering, because if you are not part of a group that is ALREADY considered bad or weak or needing to submit (women), then your position is surely the easiest one to take.

                        From my favorite musical, The Sound of Music (sorry to those who hate it), Max says to Georg von Trappe about the Nazis in Austria, "Whatever's going to happen's going to happen; just make sure it doesn't happen to you."  Georg von Trappe lashes out, "Max!  Don't you ever say that again!"  Max responds, "You know I have no political convictions; can I help it if other people do?"  von Trappe snaps back, "Oh, yes, you can help it!  You must help it."

                        And there I will end; theyrereal, I feel that you are selling not only us short, but your idealism, as well.  You may end up in a 'detention camp' like all of us, but you won't be the first one there.

                        When y'ain't got nothin', ya got nothin' to lose.

                        by aerdrie faenya on Tue Sep 12, 2006 at 08:33:45 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  seriously (0+ / 0-)
                what was so assholey about my post?

                What's wrong with being practical when it comes to having a strategy to get our side back in power?

                That's all we're talking about here is strategy.   I feel as strongly as anyone else about equal rights for all.

                The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

                by theyrereal on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 05:44:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We're not just talking about strategy (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aerdrie faenya

                  We're talking about the base morality of your position.

                  It is evil to talk about sacrificing OTHER PEOPLE's rights for your idea of who should be in charge.

                  It's not just about strategy.  It's about what's right.  If you can't see that, then you're hopeless.

                  Help keep America a one party state - vote Republican! (-6.25, -6.92)

                  by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 05:57:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Oh yeah, just for reference (0+ / 0-)

                  it is fundamentally uncivil to talk about what other people are supposed to give up to advance your agenda.

                  If you think it's not, I'll graciously offer to step over your dead body to advance gay marriage.

                  Oh, that's bad?  But, it's practical, right?

                  That's what's assholish about your post.

                  Help keep America a one party state - vote Republican! (-6.25, -6.92)

                  by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 06:23:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  his arguments are spot (0+ / 0-)

                  on about you. what are you willing to sacrifice if your rights before you are so willing to sacrifice of ours. To say that you are morally corrupt is to put it mild. THe Republicans are at least honest in their selfish- but to dress yours up under liberalism is beyond belief. THe rights referred to here aren't about gays, no more than Brown V Board was about African Americans. They were about basic concepts of fairness and equality, and what those things mean. Either you believe in them or you do not. Either you fight for them or you do not. But don't try to cover your own moral bankruptcy by trying to use us . If you want to give up some rights- let it be your own. Not those of others. With Andy I completely agree on this. In fact, one of my problems with the gay rights movement is that they allow folks like you to think you are ones with the moral high ground when in fact you aare the ones lacking in any moral center. When I helped out the poor- i did so because it was the right thing to do. It wasn't because I thought I could sacrifice the rights fo others for my own. When I talk about immmigration issues, I could certainly sacrifice them on your altar of other peo's right to be sacrificed. That I do not is about having values beyond those of my own selfish desires. That's what progressivism is about. Maybe you need to decide if you share those values or not. if not, then you aren't a progressive- regardless of whether you personally like gays or not- this is the crux of what being liberal means: equality and fairness for all, because otherwise- there is equality and fairness for none. So talk all you want about how this strategy to cover up your own moral bankruptcy- that doesn't make it any less immoral.

                  Fear is not a winning strategy.

                  by bruh1 on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 07:13:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  oh good grief (0+ / 0-)
                    Man, you people are seriously overreacting.

                    It's not "my" agenda, it's "our" agenda

                    Our agenda should be getting the people who are in power OUT OF POWER.

                    Beyond that, nothing else really matters, does it?

                    WE HAVE THE SAME AGENDA FOR CHRISSAKES

                    The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

                    by theyrereal on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 08:10:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  yes (0+ / 0-)

                      we are "over reacting" and you are the 'reasonable' one commenting in a diary remembering gay peo who died on 9/11. Thanks for playing. Oh, and try to be just a little bit more offensive in a diary about peo who died and who had partners who still haven't been given their due because of sexual orientation and tells us somemore in your great wisdom how it is us who are being unreasonable.  Please deal with your issues. However, don't do it on my time. you have a good one because I really dont want to waste anymore time with you. later.

                      Fear is not a winning strategy.

                      by bruh1 on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 09:00:17 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  incicdentally- andy- (0+ / 0-)

                        this is why I didn't want to waste time calling this dude anything other than what he is. He didn't come to this diary to 'talk' he came to tell us we are the reason that he is losing. in other words, he like most bigots look for a scapegoat- I have seen too many of these sorts of comments to expect any different because they are pre programed statements and reactions. Yesterday, it was this latina (or soomeone claiming to be one) who claimed she was against gay marriage (ironic if she is latina because she is in the sizeable minority of latinos b/c most of them dont even think about hte issue much less write a whole diary about it). bigotry was at base the only reason for his posting. the more he has been challenged- the more this truth becomes apparent. he reflects human- peo dont talk about what they dont care about and they certainly dont insist on telling someone that a sole group is the reason why the democrats lose. insert jew for gay, and replace his name for mel gibson and the point becomes readily apparent. anytime one group is blamed for all the woes- then you know where it is growing out of. and that place is plain old fashion bigotry.

                        Fear is not a winning strategy.

                        by bruh1 on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 09:06:30 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Right. I'm a bigot (0+ / 0-)
                          Calling everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% on everything "a bigot" ain't the way to win people over.

                          Speaking of Jews, you remind me of those people who instantly shout "Anti-semite!" when there's any criticism of the Israel government.

                          Knee-jerk reverse bigotry is all that is.

                          Good luck!

                          The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

                          by theyrereal on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 09:44:23 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  OK (0+ / 0-)

                            I think, theyrereal, that you (the royal You) can fight to get the fascists out of power and fight for gay rights, women's rights, poor people's rights, environmental rights.

                            You don't need to give up on anything to get the fascists out of power.

                            You say:

                            Beyond that [getting the fascists out of power], nothing else really matters, does it?

                            I think the crux of the argument of everyone who is disagreeing with you is that, NO, THERE ARE STILL THINGS THAT MATTER.  There are still things that are just as important, and we feel that equality for all human beings is just such a thing.

                            Niemoller decried about his selling the trade unionists down the river, the Communists, etc.  Then it was his turn.

                            I can see that you're near the same page as all of us, I just think you're too willing to sell out to get the current administration out of power.  If they do get out of power (Goddess willing), but you've sold out -- you will regret it.

                            When y'ain't got nothin', ya got nothin' to lose.

                            by aerdrie faenya on Tue Sep 12, 2006 at 08:45:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  there is no difference between (0+ / 0-)

                            a bigot and the apologist for the bigot- what makes the post you are trying to talk to a bigot is that we end up with the same result in a different way: the end of our rights. this was true of jim crow  and slavery as well- real is saying nothing new. although appparently its new to him. but then that was clear when he thought of hollywood as rep'ing what gays face in the US.

                            Fear is not a winning strategy.

                            by bruh1 on Tue Sep 12, 2006 at 12:38:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (173)
  • Community (68)
  • Baltimore (50)
  • Civil Rights (42)
  • Bernie Sanders (39)
  • Culture (33)
  • Elections (26)
  • Economy (25)
  • Law (25)
  • Freddie Gray (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (22)
  • Labor (22)
  • Education (22)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Texas (21)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Racism (20)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Media (19)
  • Environment (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site