Like Psychodrew, whose piece Discourse in the LGBT diaries I admired and rec'ced, I will not name names. I appreciated his stance on what he deemed to be derailing and inappropriate remarks on LGBT diaries. Progressive types should work to find progressive ways of debating. Of course there are contentious diaries, and pie fights, and flame fests - but all in all the myriad causes we fight for should be united under the banner of justice, anti prejudice and equality
I think he's right, and I made the following comment to someone who objected:
Just as people coming into BKos diaries, dissing the editor, going on about the 'N' word - narcissism - is entirely inappropriate in such community diaries, this kind of dialogue is not appropriate here.
There are marginalised, and often victimised communities, which need a chance to speak, co-operate, build strength, without the constant invasion of the majority.
That's not anti liberal. That's the essence of liberalism. Respect for those not in the mainstream.
That was a community building diary that was trampled over. There are plenty of other places to talk about wider issues.
I made that plea, and the objector graciously withdrew. For a moment I thought there was hope, and that people could respect differences, and yet unite under some umbrella shared respect, tolerance and joint interest.
However, as soon as I leave that diary I got to another discussing something just as egregious as the injustice done to those who have different sexual preferences to the majority, different orientations or gender identities: another excellent diary discussing racism.
And what do I find? A slew of inflammatory and personalised comments - indeed more personal than the ones I'd hiderated in the LGBTQ diary. What am I to do? I'm nearly out of donuts because of my attempts at community moderation in the previous diary. The glaring contrast between the respect shown in one, and the comments in the other, were too egregious to be believed. Worst still was the uprating. Several of the most prominent signatories to Drew's list (I'm one but I haven't been added) were uprating content free, abusive ad hominem posts.
Respecting minority rights is indivisible. You can't chose one without the other. Even on the conceptual level it's contradictory, but on the real physical level - the example of gay or transexual black person comes to mind - it's invidious.
(Thinking about it - this is probably why the whole thing upsets me so much. My kid brother is black and gay)
But the double standards here, the fact that one style of reason and debate is demanded (rightly) among one marginalised and easily victimised group, is not applied to the other.
The net effect of this is division. Already, there are many who will not sign up to Drew's list because of the perceived hypocrisy of some of those signatories.
The net effect of division is weakness. Neither side will thrive on Kos, at the Polls, or in the country at large unless they find common cause.
It is up to both sides to try to build bridges. But it helps no one when abuse is hurled in one direction, and enabled by upraters.
The hypocrisy has to stop, or these metawars will get increasingly bitter, and either damage this site beyond repair, or harm democratic changes further afield.
(Oh. And while we fight unequally over homophobia and racism, spare a thought for my kid brother who would be torn up about this debate. Here he is with me and the kids about five years ago, though the affects of HIV are beginning to show)