|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
For anyone who does not believe that there is a real war and a real battle being fought in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, this blog has a salutary message: http://networkedblogs.com/7qqwG
Stephen is someone whose politics I do not always agree with, but whose blog often has huge insights. He has recently returned to Norn Irn after many years in England and Scotland. His experiences in his old home, his new home, and the contrast with his stay in England and Scotland make salutary reading.
We queers may be accepted in some areas of our nation. In other areas life is somewhat more dangerous.
[Updated on: Thu, 02 September 2010 07:46]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I see evidence of a very sorry state of affairs in Northern Ireland which certainly needs to be addressed, but it for the logical reasons set out by acam in another thread, it isn't a war. Let the bigots be belligerent if they must - after all, we can't stop them - but don't stoop to their level - to do so doesn't advance the gay cause, it retards it.
Richard Dawkins has succinctly identified the root of the problem in Northern Ireland. Despite all the posturing about integration between the Catholic and Presbyterian communities, there IS no integration, particularly among the young. Over 90% of ordinary education in Northern Ireland is provided by what are known as ‘faith schools’. Faith schools are subject to Ofsted inspection (Government-sponsored quality control) in all areas of curriculum except religious education. They are free to teach religious education as they wish, and to use a disproportionate proportion of teaching time in doing so – and the syllabus they decide upon is not monitored. Of all the sponsoring churches throughout the United Kingdom, so far as I am aware only the Anglican Church has indicated a willingness to comply with a standard syllabus, should that be introduced.
Historically, faith schools were financed by the various churches by which they were provided. Not any more. They are financed wholly or almost wholly by the government. In Northern Ireland, the children of the two sides are taught to hate each other in primary school. The vast majority of youth clubs and other out-of-school facilities are also segregated. A Catholic kid doesn’t need to interact with a Presbyterian kid until they both start work and come within the ambit of anti-discrimination legislation – and long before then the indoctrination is complete. Normally my sympathies in NI are with the Catholic community, which was treated abominably by the Presbyterian majority for almost fifty years. (That doesn’t, of course, mean that I condone terrorism.) However, on this issue their attitude appals me. I watched an interview with the Catholic Church’s Chief Education Officer for the Province (I might not have that title correct, but in effect, that’s what he was). He simply kept repeating a mantra – ‘Parents are entitled to choose’. He shrugged off suggestions that perhaps children should be regarded as having rights, too, including the right to learn the value of judgement borne of experience rather than dogma. He similarly refused to be drawn on the suggestion that the history of the Province and the fragility of its current political situation was such that the interests of peace and mutual respect could not be advanced without integrated education. All he did was repeat that ‘parents are entitled to choose’ – which of course means that they will choose the status quo into which they in their turn were indoctrinated. I would imagine that the stance adopted by the Presbyterians is pretty much identical.
These attitudes underpin all the forms of hate and discrimination which are still very evident in the Province; homophobia is simply part of a very much wider problem. But, as a root cause can be identified, there is a possibility that the concept of faith schools can be reconsidered – that the purse strings can be used to introduce sanity into the mix. That’s something we can all campaign for, at both local and national level. Changing hearts and minds could provide a real solution, though I don’t underestimate the difficulties. Verbal sniping at the bigots will never lead to change.
[Updated on: Thu, 02 September 2010 11:44]
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I took due note of the comment about the sower, which was fairly obviously directed at me, but your post above makes it clear that you have failed to understand the whole point I've been making.
Nowhere have I said that I don't see the terrible problems facing gays around the world, nor have I said that we shouldn't be campaigning as hard as we can to persuade those who possess influence to use that influence in the cause of change. I did specifically mention the USA because there is very little that we in the UK, or indeed anywhere outside the USA can do to influence events. In relation to gays, the USA has an appalling human rights record, but it has lots of money and active campaigning organisations need money to operate. It would be suicidal to bite the hand that feeds them, and - quite rightly - they consider that there are so many problems to confront that the blind eye approach enables them to do the greatest good for the greatest number. This isn't mere speculation on my part; it comes from a senior officer of a UK-based charity. For the record, he also said that some (though by no means all) of the fundamentalist-funded US NGO aid providers cause more problems than they solve because of their proselytising approach. But should we be surprised?
What I did say is that it isn’t a war, nor even a battle. Wars are military confrontations; challenging the persecution of gays will only ever be achieved by political means. Pretending it's a war does nothing but deflect attention from what we ought to be doing, which is to use every means of encouraging political action. Being belligerent simply alienates those whose aid we should be seeking. Making snide remarks about people like William Hague, who has no especial record of homophobia and whose recent statement is almost certainly NOT homophobic does not advance the gay cause one iota - it just makes us look spiteful and silly, and strengthens the prejudice against us.
To achieve results we need to campaign, but as with any political campaign we need to act in the manner most likely to secure movement towards our desired objectives. Sometimes that involves compromise. The Ken Mehlman affair is a case in point. The invective against him was largely directed against his political actions. Well, duh; he’s a Republican, what do you expect? But as an out gay man with what Republicans will regard as an immaculate political pedigree, he is in a unique position to advance the gay cause from within – so where’s the strategic sense in dismissing him as a turd?
Now let’s turn to the ‘bored and lonely’ insinuation. I’ve never felt the need to advertise my daily activities in the forum, but since you raise the issue – no, I am never bored (except when illness prevents me from working) and no, I am certainly not lonely. I was lucky enough to be born with a logical mind, as was my father before me. I know that I have a talent for developing cogent and logical arguments, because I am congratulated upon the ability with embarrassing frequency, but it isn’t really surprising; pursuing logical argument, both in writing and in face-to-face discussion, amiable or confrontational, was a large element in my professional career. I don’t for a moment suggest that practice makes perfect – I’m far from perfect – but practice certainly improves performance. Being as I am a committed Socialist, I have put such talent as I have at the service of individuals and organisations needing help since my latter years at grammar school, and I am still doing so. I’ll do my best to help anyone who needs assistance in resisting the bullying tactics of high-street companies, landlords, and - especially - local and national government institutions. These days, quite a bit of my work is for refugees and overseas students. I was hugely frustrated when illness interrupted my activities, but I’m already back in action. I’m also quite a competent designer and I have a life-long interest in communication science, so I do quite a bit of publicity work, including some in the LGBT sector. All of this is done because I get a kick out of helping people and all of it is free.
I am also an ardent campaigner for a number of causes, among which the gay cause is prominent. I write regularly to MPs and local community leaders. I write to the press, and have contributed to several local publications. I’ve served in innumerable offices and have accumulated a lot of useful contacts over the years; many of these have become friends who will back my campaigning, even though they are not themselves gay. Some of them have varying degrees of political influence, and have used it. I have little or no such direct influence myself, as my job prevented me from being a member of a political party. Obviously, I see lots of people so I’m never lonely, and I certainly don’t have time to be bored. And I think it quite possible that I spend more time working on LGTB issues than you do – I just don’t think that this is the place to do it.
Nonetheless, the reason I’m posting here now is because I’m campaigning. I remember this place of old, when a certain Tim Trent was known only as Iomfats, and when he was eager to be a source of help and support to anyone who needed it. I was one of those people, Timmy, and in a couple of exchanges and a single IM conversation you helped me enormously. That sort of help isn’t quickly forgotten. I could only partially repay you by providing you with information which enabled you to contact John, and I suppose that in some way that must ultimately have assisted you to lay that ghost from your past. If I could find anything in you to criticise at that point, it was simply the fact that you were so much in demand outside the forum that you sometimes assumed that posters knew things they actually didn’t know, and that sometimes led to difficulties – but your zeal to help shone like a beacon, so all else could be forgiven.
You made A Place of Safety a wonderful place for a lot of people. The wonderful people – or people just like them – are still around, but sadly Iomfats isn’t. You’ve changed a lot since then; I wish I knew why. You have become irritable and rude to other posters; you never admit to being wrong, and you certainly never apologise – even when chastised by no less a personage than JFR. You consider yourself to be ‘optimistic’ in your expectations of the behaviour of other posters, but a range of other words are equally pertinent – ‘misguided’ or ‘unrealistic’; perhaps ‘ill-conceived’ or even ‘perverse’. You seem to be totally out of touch with how ordinary people relate to each other.
APOS was once unique, and uniquely respected. It was a gentle place, where everyone was treated equally, anyone was welcome, and you could confidently express your inner feelings knowing that no-one would ridicule or criticise you. There was humour, too. Can you remember David from Hong Kong who, when he first found the site, was amazed at the way people could argue opposing views without a trace of aggression? If my memory is correct, his words were ‘I’ve gotta have a piece of this!’. Do you remember Mihangel, who often said that a chat to friends on the Forum was a perfect end to a perfect day? You created all that. You made it happen.
The first time I can remember hearing serious criticism of APOS was over comments made at the launch of a site carrying Driver’s stories, some time after he departed from the web following some serious unpleasantness. Regrettable things were said here about the new site, though as it turned out it was entirely legitimate and had Driver’s blessing. But thereafter things began to change, slowly but inexorably.
As I’ve said, this place was unique. I thought that it was worth preserving, using whatever means were available. They were other forums, but they were dogged by belligerent behaviour and none – not even ‘Shack out Back’ or ‘Glass Onion’ had the same aura of trust and friendship.
Now the forum is largely devoted to campaigning – but almost all that happens here isn’t really campaigning, it’s just slagging off the homophobic opposition. I agree absolutely that they are hateful, but verbal belligerence achieves nothing at all. Everyone here knows that homophobia in all its manifestations is morally bankrupt, as are those who practice it. But hatespeak is hatespeak, whoever uses it, and it is the enemy of reason and progress.
Campaigning sites are ten a penny; some are excellent, though others have little to commend them. To campaign, you need to keep abreast of the issues, but that’s easily done. If anyone feels the need for campaigning rhetoric under the umbrella of a website, that too is easily done. Turning this forum into a pseudo-campaigning site adds nothing to the aggregate of facilities available on the web, but it has already all but destroyed the valuable and unique resource that was here before.
This forum is going where YOU are taking it. It’s your site; no one can stop you. There is no way I or anyone else can prevent you from playing God and destroying what you have created. But I appeal to you to think long and hard about what you are doing. You created something which helped and supported those in need of help and support; it was liked and respected as something special – which it certainly was. If I had been the creator, I’d be happy for the whole site to be my legacy and epitaph.
Ask yourself why I’m doing this. What can I possibly gain for myself? I don’t need more friends and I have more than enough useful work to fill all the time I have available. I need hassle like I need a hole in the head. The only answer is that I care deeply about the degeneration of something that once meant so much to so many. Please, Timmy, don’t dismiss this with yet another superficial remark. Think about it. A number of your recent posts suggest that you despise some of those who post here. Are they really inferior beings, or just ordinary people who want to see the return of the friendship and humour we once had?
[Updated on: Sat, 04 September 2010 02:59]
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
According to the Oxford Dictionary, semantics is a branch of philology concerned with the meaning of words. Over the last quarter-century it has become particularly associated with the distortion of meaning.
War means strife between nations, conducted by force. Acam has already mentioned elsewhere Bush's use of the label 'War on Terror' to maximise public reaction. In the event, that didn't turn out to be only a matter of semantics, because his policies led to real war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the point is surely that to describe opposing views between two groups as a war IS semantic distortion unless the dispute is capable of resolution by physical conflict. If that isn't the case, it simply 'sexes up' the conflict and deflects attention from the development of strategies which might realistically improve the situation.
I am appalled by the continued evidence of world-wide homophobia and have never, ever attempted to sweep it under the carpet. I will do anything and everything I can to oppose it. What I see as being wholly counter-productive is the use of the 'war' label to justify petty and superficial foot-stamping, name-calling and stone-throwing. Focusing on trivia trivialises; it doesn't win hearts and minds, any unless we can do that we will never achieve the changes we seek. Belligerence alienates those whose support is essential if we are to achieve any real progress.
Responding specifically to your example regarding the revoltinging references to the death of Matthew Shepherd, it hurts me as much as it hurts anyone, and obviously it's right to denounce such behaviour, in strong but measured terms, both at source and wherever it is reported. But it doesn’t alter the fact that – in my considered view – resolution of the serious problem of homophobia in the USA can only come from federal any state government. The US interprets freedom differently from the rest of the Western world – a consequence of Constitution-obsessed thinking which I am sure the founding fathers didn’t intend and could not conceivably have foreseen. It is also (for now) the world’s most powerful and affluent nation; it seeks to influence the actions of other nations but is extremely insular and pays little or no attention to external political opinions. That’s not anti-American propaganda, by the way – Britain did the same when we were ‘top nation’ and China does it already and isn’t even at the top of the tree yet. So, in a nutshell, I don’t think that expressions of horror from overseas individuals will do any good, though equally they won’t do any harm.
My philosophy is simple – the only really useful action is an action which has a realistic chance of moving the cause of integration and acceptance in the direction in which we want it to go. We are, and biologically we probably always will be, a minority group. In that circumstance, declaring war is not a very sensible option. That’s what my argument is all about, and it’s an unpleasant surprise to find myself effectively accused of not caring.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I think you have not noticed that the war is declared against us. It is not we who have started it.
While I see your other declarations, most of which I agree with, your insistence on arguing over the terminology reminds me of cold war negotiations about the shape of the negotiating table. Language evolves. We might regret it, but we need to accept it.
"Petty and Superficial Foot Stamping" and Uganda's proposed law to execute homosexuals do not appear to anyone to be congruent. That is but a simple example.
Arguing about the shape of the table may be fun, but it does prevent your point from being heard.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Timmy. there is something of a conciliatory tone in part of what you say, and although I’m going to disagree on a couple of points I don’t want you (or anyone else) to think that I have some kind of perverse wish to maintain a confrontational stance. I don’t; concord is always preferable to confrontation. This all began as an expression of my deep concern at the confrontational atmosphere which had developed here, and the last thing I want to do is make things worse. But I do want to get my point across, and to be sure that it is understood. Whether others agree with me is less important than whether they are at least provoked to think about the status quo.
Philology is one of the lifetime interests I have pursued since I was introduced to the subject in my early teens. You may recollect that I’ve posted on the topic several times in the past; I’m fascinated by the speed with which both meaning and spelling can change. The ultimate arbiter of what words currently mean in British English is the Oxford Dictionary, and it keeps itself very up to date. The primary meaning of ‘war’ hasn’t changed, but it has acquired some specific modern glosses. The significant one is the sense of an in-depth campaign to eradicate a specific problem, as in the name of the charity ‘War on Want’. There are lots of variations on this; not so long ago one of the local authorities in the North East declared a ‘War on Graffiti’. The essential characteristic of this usage is that the context makes it clear that it isn’t literal, it really means a focused attempt to tackle a particular problem. Then, of course, George W. muddied the waters with his ‘War on Terrorism’, which in the first instance was probably intended in the above sense but all too quickly turned into a real war. Since then, the distinction between literal and figurative usage has been blurred and even when used figuratively the word has acquired connotations of aggression and belligerence. I can’t see that this is helpful to our cause, even though I fully agree that we are actually defenders rather than aggressors. My point is simply that because we are a minority group we can only achieve our objectives by winning the hearts and minds of those who occupy the middle ground, and that objective is best served by emphasising that we are the good guys, occupying the high moral ground but unjustly attacked by right-wing fundamentalists motivated by arrogance, ignorance and self-righteousness. We need to be forceful but restrained in courting public opinion.
It’s certainly a question of semantics in the strictly literal sense, but it’s a wholly strategic point. There’s no parallel with the shape of the cold war table.
Turning to your suggestion of the lack of congruence between foot-stamping and the situation in Uganda, of course the former has no relevance to the latter and I can’t see how you can reasonable infer otherwise. Uganda is an area in which Britain still exerts some influence, and we should do all we can to encourage those in power to take an active interest in addressing the issue. Foot-stamping, in the sense that I use the term, would mean slagging off the Ugandans and the evangelists who led them astray, within a private blog or forum and without making any attempt to do anything public and constructive. I’m not accusing anyone of that failing in relation to Uganda (I’ve checked the archive and I see you advocated constructive action) but it does happen a lot here, especially in relation to US outrages in relation to which we are essentially powerless. Simply stating the obvious (the bigots are wrong and we are right) tends to massage our sense of self-righteousness when in fact we’ve done bugger all. And as for stone throwing, the William Hague issue is a good example. There’s a flurry of speculation because press scandalmongers discovered that he shared a twin-bedded room with a senior aide much younger than himself. I can’t stand the man, but I can’t justify throwing stones simply on this basis. Straight men do share bedrooms, and (Shock! Horror!) sometimes even beds. It doesn’t make them gay. Hague has, in effect, stated that nothing improper (I.e. extra-marital) took place and that he has never had a gay relationship. He doesn’t have a track record of homophobia. If it turns out that he was lying, then he deserves anything he gets, though I can’t see why the press thinks a gay liaison is more odious than a straight affair with a female secretary. Until then, he is innocent, and attackers place them on the same level as the gutter press. That’s not where I’d choose to be, but my very real concern is that such action creates an aura of bitchiness which is seriously detrimental to our cause simply because bitchiness is one of the characteristics attributed to us by our detractors.
This post is longer than I’d wish, but I don’t want to leave room for further misunderstandings.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
If you postulate that bleating on a blog is useless, which it often is (but see beiow for when it is not), but wish for direct action of some description, which I agree with, then the use of mechanisms to alert people that they need to take action is wholly valid.
Equally, there are times to express indignation without taking action. Such expression is not pissing into the wind unless one has a readership of zero. Blogs, if correctly submitted, are picked up by news aggregation services. Those are scrutinised, albeit briefly, by those looking for certain words or phrases, and trends are reported to those who wish to see those trends.
Saying that William Hague is a tosser is irrelevant. I imagine even his closest aides know he is. Saying why one has come to that conclusion is likely to use the key words or phrases that the trend watchers are using to try to guide the tosser. Thus even a bleat on a blog has a limited value.
I neither know nor care whether the Hagues of this world have affairs or not. I imagine some do and many do not. I imagine some have them with people of the same sex and many do not. What I care about is implicit homophobia in the way they express themselves when accused of having affairs with same sex partners. That's just plain rudeness.
"I have never had an affair with a black woman" is similar. It is offensive and needs to be called out as offensive.
I see every reason to criticise even if not calling for action. It is not the namby pamby reason of "If I do not criticise then I might be seen to be agreeing". Instead it is the Stand Up And Be Counted reason.
I have total distaste for the Roman Catholic Church, despite the good it may do in other areas, because its leader has not chosen to take personal responsibility for his own actions, nor for the actions of its paedophile priests and nuns, and those who "simply" physically abused the kids in their care. In the same manner that Carthago delenda est, I believe one needs to say so at every relevant opportunity. I have protested paying for that leader to come to the UK on a state visit, and I support calls to arrest him.
I accuse Tony Blair of being a war criminal and have made a cash contribution to the campaign that offers a cash prize for anyone who seeks to arrest him.
While not campaigning ceaselessly for gay rights, I campaign. I do not use this forum for that because that is preaching to the choir. I use other mechanisms including Twitter and Facebook for that.
From time to time I campaign against routine infant circumcision. JFR and I do not agree on that, naturally, and we speak to each other about that form time to time. He tends not to take hold of my views in public and I tend not to take hold of his.
Some of these things are simple campaigns, but that word itself is to do with multiple battles in the course of a war. It is also a marketing term.
Some of these things are, in my view, part of a war. But it is not my war. No homosexual person nor organisation has ever declared war upon homophobia, yet the religious right in the USA and elsewhere wage war upon homosexuals. They are fired from their jobs and evicted from their homes. In Saudi Arabia and Iran they are hanged. Russia denies them their rights. Uganda is to enact laws which required anyone who knows of a homosexual to inform the police or be imprisoned. The homosexual will be imprisoned or hanged. I don;t think I need to list these places.
Whatever you call it, shit still stinks. I will call it a war. You may call it a fribble. The outcome is the same - persecution.
[Updated on: Mon, 06 September 2010 07:43]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To say that the mindless christian right has declared war on us makes it sound as if we felt more beleaguered than yesterday or last year or last decade. But surely we don't feel that, do we?
I don't think anyone has declared war against us. All the sections of UK society I can think of are more tolerant than they were when I was growing up, even the Roman Catholics. The people who have got more strident are the oppressed (and it is quite right too that they object to unfair treatment).
It seems to me that the Irish troubles got worse when the IRA declared war and the unionists got more and more strident. The 'war' had to end before the table talks could begin. The more warlike the stances of the two sides the less progress was made and the less scope for progress there appeared to be.
But there are no armies and no weapons and even no Christian Soldiers (of the 'onward' kind) as far as I can see.
The people who have done most for us are the Stonewall group who have taken pro- and anti- gay topics out of party politics so that civilised people on all sides can vote in favour of tolerance and against discrimination. What an achievement it is to have made it possible for MPs in any party to 'come out'!
And, by the way civilised people were always tolerant as far as I remember.
What we need is an equivalent group who can do the same for religions! I fear that we won't ever get one because the religions can't ever re-write the books they hold sacred and to be the word of god and so on.
I do think 'struggle' is a better word for what we are engaged in than war and is more likely to bring opposing views to a negotiating table. And am I mad to think that when we talk we nearly always come across as reasonable people - just like anyone else in most things - and that the results after such conversations are very often a movement in our favour and an increase in tolerance?
Perhaps I am too unambitious in what I hope for.
And I have nothing to say about how to deal with places like Uganda.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
acam wrote:
> To say that the mindless christian right has declared war on us makes it sound as if we felt more beleaguered than yesterday or last year or last decade. But surely we don't feel that, do we?
They have simply become substantially more strident. But they have declared war. What is Proposition 8 in the USA other than a declaration of war? What are the battles against repeal of DADT? These are civilised people, and they exhibit no tolerance despite your certainty of it.
> The people who have done most for us are the Stonewall group who have taken pro- and anti- gay topics out of party politics so that civilised people on all sides can vote in favour of tolerance and against discrimination. What an achievement it is to have made it possible for MPs in any party to 'come out'!
We need to consider the history of the Stonewall riots and what was being fought. We also need to look globally, not nationally.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
To avoid creating any misleading impressions, I'll address specific quotes from the above post, but as a general point I suppose I should point out that my views on what is and is not effective aren't simply intuitive. Effective communication is a scientific discipline, and there's plenty of research information in the public domain.
> If you postulate that bleating on a blog is useless, which it often is (but see beiow for when it is not), but wish for direct action of some description, which I agree with, then the use of mechanisms to alert people that they need to take action is wholly valid.
- Yes, of course, but it needs to be concentrated on issues in respect of which some kind of effective action is at least possible, and the number of issues raised needs to be limited to avoid exposure fatigue - a phenomenon of which the major charities are very well aware.
> Equally, there are times to express indignation without taking action. Such expression is not pissing into the wind unless one has a readership of zero. Blogs, if correctly submitted, are picked up by news aggregation services. Those are scrutinised, albeit briefly, by those looking for certain words or phrases, and trends are reported to those who wish to see those trends.
>
> Saying that William Hague is a tosser is irrelevant. I imagine even his closest aides know he is. Saying why one has come to that conclusion is likely to use the key words or phrases that the trend watchers are using to try to guide the tosser. Thus even a bleat on a blog has a limited value.
- Again, I agree in principle, especially if something new is being raised in a blog, but when the press are already milking the story blog references cease to be of any importance.
> I neither know nor care whether the Hagues of this world have affairs or not. I imagine some do and many do not. I imagine some have them with people of the same sex and many do not. What I care about is implicit homophobia in the way they express themselves when accused of having affairs with same sex partners. That's just plain rudeness.
>
> "I have never had an affair with a black woman" is similar. It is offensive and needs to be called out as offensive.
- This seems to be a highly skewed view. If gays wish to emphasise their identity - as many do - how can we deny the corresponding right to those who are straight? I can't accept that if a straight man is accused of a gay liaison he should be criticised for expressing his orientation when rebutting that accusation. This doesn't help us to advance into the middle ground.
> I see every reason to criticise even if not calling for action. It is not the namby pamby reason of "If I do not criticise then I might be seen to be agreeing". Instead it is the Stand Up And Be Counted reason.
>
> I have total distaste for the Roman Catholic Church, despite the good it may do in other areas, because its leader has not chosen to take personal responsibility for his own actions, nor for the actions of its paedophile priests and nuns, and those who "simply" physically abused the kids in their care. In the same manner that Carthago delenda est, I believe one needs to say so at every relevant opportunity. I have protested paying for that leader to come to the UK on a state visit, and I support calls to arrest him.
>
> I accuse Tony Blair of being a war criminal and have made a cash contribution to the campaign that offers a cash prize for anyone who seeks to arrest him.
- We hadn't previously mentioned the Pope's visit, but I'm inclined to agree with you, though I think that refusing to receive him might well create more difficulties than it would resolve. I also agree in general with your views of the Roman Catholic Church, because it places dogma above human need while simultaneously turning a blind eye to all manner of contraventions when it suits its purpose. It's difficult to see much integrity in the institution, and though many good people may be members of that Church, they are still subject to its pernicious and entirely man-made agenda.
I won't take sides on the Blair issue because there is insufficient information in the public domain. I do, however, doubt very much whether there are adequate grounds in international law to indict him - in which case the 'campaign' is pointless, since it cannot lead to resolution, or even clarification of the issues involved.
> From time to time I campaign against routine infant circumcision. JFR and I do not agree on that, naturally, and we speak to each other about that form time to time. He tends not to take hold of my views in public and I tend not to take hold of his.
- There's no reason for the expression of opposing views to be acrimonious, and (at least in theory) open expression reminds each party that there IS an alternative view.
> Some of these things are simple campaigns, but that word itself is to do with multiple battles in the course of a war. It is also a marketing term.
>
> Some of these things are, in my view, part of a war. But it is not my war. No homosexual person nor organisation has ever declared war upon homophobia, yet the religious right in the USA and elsewhere wage war upon homosexuals. They are fired from their jobs and evicted from their homes. In Saudi Arabia and Iran they are hanged. Russia denies them their rights. Uganda is to enact laws which required anyone who knows of a homosexual to inform the police or be imprisoned. The homosexual will be imprisoned or hanged. I don;t think I need to list these places.
>
> Whatever you call it, shit still stinks. I will call it a war. You may call it a fribble. The outcome is the same - persecution.
- I accept and vehemently oppose all the examples you have quoted but, as you seem to acknowledge, it still isn’t a war. Insisting that it is simply ratchets up the emotion, introduces belligerent overtones and generally distorts clear expression of the issues. ‘Campaign’, on the other hand, is a word with a long pedigree of use to describe a concerted attempt to change political thinking, and that is precisely what we need to do if we are to achieve our objectives. The bigots are collectively a contemptible bunch of self-righteous, intellectually deficient and inherently evil idiots; they are not an opposing army. Why, by implication, grant them equality with ourselves by dignifying them as such?
'Fribble' describes something which is frivolous or nonsensical. Are you really accusing me of adopting such an approach? If so, you are being deeply offensive; if not, why are you using the word at all?
We quite obviously aren't going to agree and it's probably pointless to continue this discussion, but you haven't really addressed the core of my argument, which is that we can only achieve real progress by swaying those in the middle ground, and belligerence is not an effective means of achieving that objective.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I chose a random sound. I could have called it ceranhegehs. I am sorry that Fribble appears to be a real word. Or, to put it another way, don't care.
I see a war.
[Updated on: Tue, 07 September 2010 09:57]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Cossie wrote:
> We quite obviously aren't going to agree and it's probably pointless to continue this discussion, but you haven't really addressed the core of my argument, which is that we can only achieve real progress by swaying those in the middle ground, and belligerence is not an effective means of achieving that objective.
As I have said before, you have missed the fact that it is not we who have declared this war. The war is against us. We are the victims. We are the oppressed minority.
The Jews did not declare war on Adolph Hitler. He. though undeclared, both waged war on them and used them as an excuse for his war.
Once you get to grips with that then there may be a sea change in your thinking.
As for the middle ground, that is not what our efforts should be biased towards. Instead we need to convince the undecided. They are not the same thing. These "floating voters" use logic or emotion or a combination of both to reach a conclusion, a conclusion they do not necessarily stay faithful to.
You need to understand the full theory of floating voters, and see where the tipping points are, the flex point if you like. There is a datasheet regarding a commercial implementation of floating voter theory at http://atriumgroup.com/sites/default/files/Atrium%20Flexpoint_0.pdf
Our efforts need to to rebut those against us at all turns while providing the real, true image of LGBT people.
Remember that we are not the aggressor. We are the victims. And, until you are content to visit all parts of the world wearing a visible and large sign saying "I am homosexual" we remain the victims. I doubt you would even walk down your own high street wearing it.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
As an atheist, you'll note that I've omitted the initial capital letter.
Timmy, have you really read my posts and given them some thought? If you have, I find it very difficult to understand the objective of your first three paragraphs. What gives you the impression that in putting forward my arguments I attached any relevance to who started the non-existent war? There IS no relevance because there IS no war. The issue is glaringly simple - what gets real results? Posturing or carefully-planned campaigning? That is what I've been arguing; should I, as you did earlier, draw attention to the parable of the sower at this juncture?
I have equal difficulty in understanding the point which you are trying to make with regard to floating voters. Unless you really do intend to don your jackboots and pick up your rifle, you must surely acknowledge thay the only practical solution to the problem lies in the political arena. The argument, at base level, is between homophobes and homosexuals. As homosexuals, we seek to be not merely tolerated but to be wholly integrated into the social fabric of our respective countries. In the USA, the homophopes are in the majority and wield a disproportionate amount of power. In the UK, the imbalance is less marked. In each individual country the balance will differ. In each country, the real 'tipping point', the one that matters, is the point when we muster sufficient voices of support to advance our cause. And in such a context what, exactly - outside the darkest regions of pedantry - is the difference between convincing the undecided and moving into the middle ground?
Finally, in your immediately preceding post, you say that you did not realise that fribble was an actual word meaning frivolous or nonsensical. You say that 'you are sorry that 'fribble' appears to be a real word or, to put it another way, you don't care'. So you describe my argument in terms which mean 'frivolous and nonsensical', but you don't care? And yet you feel justified in chastising others for rudeness? Despite my atheism, I refer you to Matthew 7:3: 'And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?'
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I have had the quote from Matthew before.
May I refer you to Star Trek: 'It's life, Jim, but not as we know it'?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
