4 ms·

>I also can't understand why we need parades that share what other people do in their bedrooms Probably a reaction 'what they do in the bedroom' being made lit

>I also can't understand why we need parades that share what other people do in their bedrooms Probably a reaction 'what they do in the bedroom' being made literally illegal for a long period of time. I can imagine wanting to throw a parade to show the 'good people of society' that you're just as human as they are, with the expected goal being to ward off further persecution in the future.

azth 4y ago
No one is saying they are not human (straw man). Aren't thieves or murderers human as well? This is a weak argument frankly.
- Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
  I think a lot of people consider murderers as less than human, and reflect that in the way they talk about them and the punishments they should face. I think a lot of people consider homosexuals as deviants and in some way less than human, also. They might not say it openly but they think it.
  - azth 4y ago
    - Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
      >That's another straw man fallacy. My opinion is that a lot of people think murderers are less than human, full stop. I don't know how my opinion can coherently be described as a fallacy when it's what I believe.
    - dang 4y ago
      Would you please stop posting religious flamebait to HN? You've been doing a lot of that lately, and we ban that sort of account. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. HN is not the place for any of this, so please stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Banana699 4y ago
>Probably a reaction 'what they do in the bedroom' being made literally illegal for a long period of time. This can be used to justify anything. Muslims and Jews used to be persecuted in catholic spain for a very long time since the 1400s, should muslims make periodic month-long parades where they play the quran loudly and cosplay as 14th century muslim warriors ? should Spain be forced to host them ? "I was harmed in the past" is suspiciously similar to what a lot of abusers and opportunistic psychopaths say to justify their actions and get their way. >with the expected goal being to ward off further persecution in the future. How does that work ? Some people despise your existence, so you... shove your existence in their faces and in their streets even more ? To what end ? own them ? stick your tongue out ? rub your legal or social victory in their face ? This is just plain revenge, you can just call it "owning the haters", no need to add any kind of moral decorations on top that isn't there. This would make you more honest, and also open your eyes to some effects you're not currently seeing with the overly moralistic framework, such as that the "owning" might be overly broad and end up making people who previously had no problem with the group in question gradually resent it more and more as it intrude further into their life year after year. Regardless of its purpose or morality, is this strategy even successful ? was it used in the past by any minority that successfully evaded the majority's wrath because of it ? if anything, majorities hate proud minorities even more. Is there any coherent defense of it that lays out how exactly is obnoxiously marching in the streets supposed to make people accept you more than they currently do ?
- Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
  >This would make you more honest, and also open your eyes to some effects you're not currently seeing with the overly moralistic framework, such as that the "owning" might be overly broad and end up making people who previously had no problem with the group in question gradually resent it more and more as it intrude further into their life year after year. You're not going to find disagreement from me here, I think that some aspects of the pride parade are probably detrimental to the acceptance of LGBTetc amongst regular members of society. There seems to be a subgroup that enjoys showcasing what can fairly honestly (as in, not in a pearl-clutching kind of way) be described as deviant behaviour and I don't think it's going to work out in the favour of LGBTetc in the long term.
q1w2 4y ago
What happens in people's bedrooms hasn't been illegal in the west for a long time - and even before was not often enforced.
- Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas I think that most people would say that 2003 is not 'a long time ago.'
  - q1w2 4y ago
    It actually happened in 1998, and the courts correctly dismissed the case. This was more of a case of the district attorney trying to punish some people and digging up an old 1973 law to do it because they didn't have a case. Now that law is formally defunct, rather than just being forgotten. ...so yeah, that's not a good example of your argument.
    - Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
      No, no, it's a good example. The law was on the books. Leaving enforcement up to the whims of a DA has a chilling effect.
      - q1w2 4y ago
        There are a lot of "laws on the books" simply because there's no mechanism to go back and remove old laws. It doesn't mean they are relevant, enforced, or even still legal. Many laws technically stay on the books even after a court rules them unenforceable. It means nothing. It's like having a 30 year old comment in a Windows driver about a variable no one uses anymore - no one cares and it doesn't reflect anything today. Also, ONE stupid incident with ONE stupid prosecutor does not reflect society.

azth 4y ago

No one is saying they are not human (straw man). Aren't thieves or murderers human as well? This is a weak argument frankly.

Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
I think a lot of people consider murderers as less than human, and reflect that in the way they talk about them and the punishments they should face. I think a lot of people consider homosexuals as deviants and in some way less than human, also. They might not say it openly but they think it.
- azth 4y ago
  - Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
    >That's another straw man fallacy. My opinion is that a lot of people think murderers are less than human, full stop. I don't know how my opinion can coherently be described as a fallacy when it's what I believe.
  - dang 4y ago
    Would you please stop posting religious flamebait to HN? You've been doing a lot of that lately, and we ban that sort of account. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. HN is not the place for any of this, so please stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Banana699 4y ago

>Probably a reaction 'what they do in the bedroom' being made literally illegal for a long period of time. This can be used to justify anything. Muslims and Jews used to be persecuted in catholic spain for a very long time since the 1400s, should muslims make periodic month-long parades where they play the quran loudly and cosplay as 14th century muslim warriors ? should Spain be forced to host them ? "I was harmed in the past" is suspiciously similar to what a lot of abusers and opportunistic psychopaths say to justify their actions and get their way. >with the expected goal being to ward off further persecution in the future. How does that work ? Some people despise your existence, so you... shove your existence in their faces and in their streets even more ? To what end ? own them ? stick your tongue out ? rub your legal or social victory in their face ? This is just plain revenge, you can just call it "owning the haters", no need to add any kind of moral decorations on top that isn't there. This would make you more honest, and also open your eyes to some effects you're not currently seeing with the overly moralistic framework, such as that the "owning" might be overly broad and end up making people who previously had no problem with the group in question gradually resent it more and more as it intrude further into their life year after year. Regardless of its purpose or morality, is this strategy even successful ? was it used in the past by any minority that successfully evaded the majority's wrath because of it ? if anything, majorities hate proud minorities even more. Is there any coherent defense of it that lays out how exactly is obnoxiously marching in the streets supposed to make people accept you more than they currently do ?

Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
>This would make you more honest, and also open your eyes to some effects you're not currently seeing with the overly moralistic framework, such as that the "owning" might be overly broad and end up making people who previously had no problem with the group in question gradually resent it more and more as it intrude further into their life year after year. You're not going to find disagreement from me here, I think that some aspects of the pride parade are probably detrimental to the acceptance of LGBTetc amongst regular members of society. There seems to be a subgroup that enjoys showcasing what can fairly honestly (as in, not in a pearl-clutching kind of way) be described as deviant behaviour and I don't think it's going to work out in the favour of LGBTetc in the long term.

q1w2 4y ago

What happens in people's bedrooms hasn't been illegal in the west for a long time - and even before was not often enforced.

Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas I think that most people would say that 2003 is not 'a long time ago.'
- q1w2 4y ago
  It actually happened in 1998, and the courts correctly dismissed the case. This was more of a case of the district attorney trying to punish some people and digging up an old 1973 law to do it because they didn't have a case. Now that law is formally defunct, rather than just being forgotten. ...so yeah, that's not a good example of your argument.
  - Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
    No, no, it's a good example. The law was on the books. Leaving enforcement up to the whims of a DA has a chilling effect.
    - q1w2 4y ago
      There are a lot of "laws on the books" simply because there's no mechanism to go back and remove old laws. It doesn't mean they are relevant, enforced, or even still legal. Many laws technically stay on the books even after a court rules them unenforceable. It means nothing. It's like having a 30 year old comment in a Windows driver about a variable no one uses anymore - no one cares and it doesn't reflect anything today. Also, ONE stupid incident with ONE stupid prosecutor does not reflect society.