4 ms·
To be clear: this political stunt was stupid. Transcendentally stupid, if not actively evil; it was untargeted to the point of shocking irresponsibility and if
by eropple 5y ago
To be clear: this political stunt was stupid. Transcendentally stupid, if not actively evil; it was untargeted to the point of shocking irresponsibility and if the stories I've heard about the data destroyed by this are true, criminal charges are in my mind justly warranted. But I can believe that and also believe that these kinds of blanket claims are toxic, too. Because "politics" happens the second more than one person exists in a space. And neutrality is an inescapably political stance.
Claims like these are, presumably, in good faith, but to make these claims you have to skirt the reality that "don't talk about it" functionally ends up being a tacit acceptance of the status quo. And that status quo has a lot of people downrange of it who the more comfortable among us (and I for one am very comfortable) may find much more palatable if they'd just shut up--but the world is more existential than discomfiting for them, and we should respect that.
There are many cases where one's existence is a political question; much of America, for example, thinks the right to existence of LGBTQ folks is up for debate. When the fact of your existence is controversial, your existence is political--and it is rather difficult to criticize someone for acting as such.
On the other hand, an evangelical Christian doesn't have to drop slurs in a package. They already have a world where people are beaten and killed for being gay, even with the prodigious successes of our LGBT siblings to date. They still have the world that they want--they're just not happy with the slope of the function.
One of these things is not like the other.
- eyelidlessness 5y agoThank you. I couldn’t put it better myself, speaking as someone whose existence is up for debate.
- eropple 5y agoFor sure. Without getting too high on the soao box, mine is not, and so I feel an obligation to remember that.
- syshum 5y ago>>much of America, for example, thinks the right to existence of LGBTQ folks is up for debate. I would love for you to expand upon that, why you believe that? I am not aware any wide spread opposition to the "existence" of LGBTQ people, I am aware of wide wide spread resistance to Speech Codes (enforced use pro-nouns), Sexual education to minors, Allowing children to transition under the age of 18, allowing children to transition with out the consent of the parents, and other topics around CHILDREN. Is that what you refer to when you state that the "existence" of LGBTQ people is under threat in the US?
- beecafe 5y agoequating LGBTQ people with sex and sex only already implies you don't think of them as people. Nor do you care about the experiences of LBGTQ children
- syshum 5y agoI dont believe I did that, The only time I mention sex was in regards to sexual education in schools, which is current event given the new law in FL, incorrectly dubbed the "dont say gay bill". To equate my statement to being "equating LGBTQ people with sex and sex only" likely means you have no desire for an honest dialog. I will say though it is likely we disagree on these issues because I do believe parental consent and transparency is critical and non-optional and will never agree that state actors (i.e schools) should with hold information from parents for any reason outside illegal abuse which should be reported to the proper authorities and investigated criminally with full due process protections, not under the some guise that the schools/teachers know best.