4 ms·

From the perspective of most people belonging to those groups, the major battles are all won and they have much bigger cocerns in their day to day lives. These

From the perspective of most people belonging to those groups, the major battles are all won and they have much bigger cocerns in their day to day lives. These groups know that, so they have to keep manufacturing outrage in order to stay relevant.

jerojero 3y ago
Really? I am a gay man and I see increasing homophobic speech that stems from transphobia which most definitely isn't a "solved issue". This worries me. Yes there was a battle in culture and politics that lasted decades for gay men, but as soon as you let go. You will see conservative groups pushing back. Because they're not gone, there is a long way for them to go as a lot of these ideas come from religious and conservative groups that will probably never go away. Sorry, but the fight is not over. You don't see it because you're not a part of it it's as simple as that. If you haven't taken the time to understand why people are still struggling then you can't come and say "well this is a done deal". Societies move forward but they so with a constant push back. That's just how it is. Even today there is so much homophobia, transphobia, misoginy and racism being touted by people in our most powerful sitting positions that it's silly to think this is "made up" struggle for these groups to "stay relevant". I mean, homosexuals, transpeople, women and racial minorities are never going to go away so they're always going to be relevant.
- jjjjj55555 3y ago
  I'm not denying anyone's struggle or their right to organize against it. I'm saying that the groups in question are amplifying the problem 100x, with the goal of angering folks like yourself. They are the arms dealer in a never ending war.
  - sunshowers 3y ago
    The groups organizing against trans people are amplifying the problem 10000000000x. A recent example is [1]. Many anti-trans activists, including some that represent themselves as more polite, are actively engaged in a conspiracy to eliminate the notion of transgender experiences being a real part of humanity. This is obviously going to elicit a response from trans people like me, and our reaction is not just understandable but wholly legitimate. Why are you not focusing your attention on those people? [1] https://genderanalysis.net/2024/01/still-dreaming-of-running-over-the-trans-activists-sharon-beck-leader-of-anti-trans-parent-group-cardinal-support-network-and-wife-of-segms-cofounder-guided/ https://genderanalysis.net/2024/01/still-dreaming-of-running...
    - thr593 3y ago
      If the "transgender experience" is males insisting that they have the right to impose themselves on any female-only space simply because they imagine themselves to be women, disregarding the boundaries and consent of actual women, then this experience should indeed be eliminated. If you are behaving in this way, please stop it.
      - sunshowers 3y ago
        And yet, you continue to use software and hardware that trans people have made significant contributions to, including quite likely (at least indirectly) some written by myself. This is the great tragedy of open source software, isn't it? We keep laboring on things that make people's lives better, including the lives of the people who hate us. Sometimes I ask myself if focusing my career on FOSS always was a mistake.
- dbrueck 3y ago
  > Even today there is so much homophobia, transphobia, misoginy and racism being touted by people in our most powerful sitting positions t Is that really the case though? It seems like in many (most? nearly all?) cases we've gone from people saying things that are overtly and objectively racist / sexist / etc. to things that aren't but could be construed that way if you squint hard enough, and it's largely in the eye of the beholder to decide, and along with that we've seen the rise in assuming people's intent. Once you've crossed the bridge of assuming intent, then pretty much everything can be further "evidence" of the foregone conclusion. I invite you to take the statements of the "people in our most powerful sitting positions" for any recent period of time (the past month, the past 6 months, whatever) and make a note of all the ones that you are sure are homophobic, transphobic, racist, or whatever and try to take a look at them with fresh eyes. Set aside for a moment what you are so "sure" about their intent and background and see how many you can find are actually and objectively bad, or if they are just "bad" in the sense because (a) they have a different view than you and/or (b) it's only bad because in your mind that person is already <whatever>-ist and so everything they say is just going to be viewed through that lens. We're never going to say that e.g. racism is a completely solved problem, but the headway we've made over the past century or two is so incredible that from the 30,000 ft view we're relatively close, and the organizations that exist to combat it have largely outlived their purpose and, unfortunately, in many cases seem to exist mostly to fan the flames.
  - ameister14 3y ago
    " Senator calls LGBTQ+ people 'filth,' says most don't want them here " >https://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/news/senator-calls-lgbtq-people-filth-says-most-dont-want-them-here/article_c8979398-d260-11ee-9823-973bf20c3730.html https://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/news/senator-calls-lgbtq... So is this just bad because of a or b? Is it because their view is different, or because I'm not giving them enough credit? How about the fact that three states are having to re-district because they have been using racial gerrymandering to reduce black votes right now?
    - dbrueck 3y ago
      Actually, I think this is a fantastic example of my point. He did not, in fact, call LGBTQ+ people filth, at least according to the quote in the article - the headline and the article clearly misconstrue what he said. But let's pretend for a moment that he did say that. Is a state senator from Oklahoma one of the "people in our most powerful sitting positions"? With a sufficiently large population, we will be able to find people saying hateful things until the end of time - I don't dispute that at all. There will always be morons. But as you cast a wider and wider net to find people saying stupid things, you have to also take into account their proportion of the population. Even if he had really said that, he'd be part of a vanishingly small minority. Heck, the very fact that an article was written about what he not-quite said also shows how far we've come.
Aloisius 3y ago
You don't stop fighting after the major battles are won. You fight until the the war is over. As long as there are groups that continue to fight to reverse the gains that were hard won, one must continue to fight hard. Complacency risks society regressing. See: abortion rights.
- jjjjj55555 3y ago
  Neverending wars are exactly what I want to avoid. Eventually both sides end up becoming the bad guys.

jerojero 3y ago

Really? I am a gay man and I see increasing homophobic speech that stems from transphobia which most definitely isn't a "solved issue". This worries me. Yes there was a battle in culture and politics that lasted decades for gay men, but as soon as you let go. You will see conservative groups pushing back. Because they're not gone, there is a long way for them to go as a lot of these ideas come from religious and conservative groups that will probably never go away. Sorry, but the fight is not over. You don't see it because you're not a part of it it's as simple as that. If you haven't taken the time to understand why people are still struggling then you can't come and say "well this is a done deal". Societies move forward but they so with a constant push back. That's just how it is. Even today there is so much homophobia, transphobia, misoginy and racism being touted by people in our most powerful sitting positions that it's silly to think this is "made up" struggle for these groups to "stay relevant". I mean, homosexuals, transpeople, women and racial minorities are never going to go away so they're always going to be relevant.

jjjjj55555 3y ago
I'm not denying anyone's struggle or their right to organize against it. I'm saying that the groups in question are amplifying the problem 100x, with the goal of angering folks like yourself. They are the arms dealer in a never ending war.
- sunshowers 3y ago
  The groups organizing against trans people are amplifying the problem 10000000000x. A recent example is [1]. Many anti-trans activists, including some that represent themselves as more polite, are actively engaged in a conspiracy to eliminate the notion of transgender experiences being a real part of humanity. This is obviously going to elicit a response from trans people like me, and our reaction is not just understandable but wholly legitimate. Why are you not focusing your attention on those people? [1] https://genderanalysis.net/2024/01/still-dreaming-of-running-over-the-trans-activists-sharon-beck-leader-of-anti-trans-parent-group-cardinal-support-network-and-wife-of-segms-cofounder-guided/ https://genderanalysis.net/2024/01/still-dreaming-of-running...
  - thr593 3y ago
    If the "transgender experience" is males insisting that they have the right to impose themselves on any female-only space simply because they imagine themselves to be women, disregarding the boundaries and consent of actual women, then this experience should indeed be eliminated. If you are behaving in this way, please stop it.
    - sunshowers 3y ago
      And yet, you continue to use software and hardware that trans people have made significant contributions to, including quite likely (at least indirectly) some written by myself. This is the great tragedy of open source software, isn't it? We keep laboring on things that make people's lives better, including the lives of the people who hate us. Sometimes I ask myself if focusing my career on FOSS always was a mistake.
dbrueck 3y ago
> Even today there is so much homophobia, transphobia, misoginy and racism being touted by people in our most powerful sitting positions t Is that really the case though? It seems like in many (most? nearly all?) cases we've gone from people saying things that are overtly and objectively racist / sexist / etc. to things that aren't but could be construed that way if you squint hard enough, and it's largely in the eye of the beholder to decide, and along with that we've seen the rise in assuming people's intent. Once you've crossed the bridge of assuming intent, then pretty much everything can be further "evidence" of the foregone conclusion. I invite you to take the statements of the "people in our most powerful sitting positions" for any recent period of time (the past month, the past 6 months, whatever) and make a note of all the ones that you are sure are homophobic, transphobic, racist, or whatever and try to take a look at them with fresh eyes. Set aside for a moment what you are so "sure" about their intent and background and see how many you can find are actually and objectively bad, or if they are just "bad" in the sense because (a) they have a different view than you and/or (b) it's only bad because in your mind that person is already <whatever>-ist and so everything they say is just going to be viewed through that lens. We're never going to say that e.g. racism is a completely solved problem, but the headway we've made over the past century or two is so incredible that from the 30,000 ft view we're relatively close, and the organizations that exist to combat it have largely outlived their purpose and, unfortunately, in many cases seem to exist mostly to fan the flames.
- ameister14 3y ago
  " Senator calls LGBTQ+ people 'filth,' says most don't want them here " >https://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/news/senator-calls-lgbtq-people-filth-says-most-dont-want-them-here/article_c8979398-d260-11ee-9823-973bf20c3730.html https://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/news/senator-calls-lgbtq... So is this just bad because of a or b? Is it because their view is different, or because I'm not giving them enough credit? How about the fact that three states are having to re-district because they have been using racial gerrymandering to reduce black votes right now?
  - dbrueck 3y ago
    Actually, I think this is a fantastic example of my point. He did not, in fact, call LGBTQ+ people filth, at least according to the quote in the article - the headline and the article clearly misconstrue what he said. But let's pretend for a moment that he did say that. Is a state senator from Oklahoma one of the "people in our most powerful sitting positions"? With a sufficiently large population, we will be able to find people saying hateful things until the end of time - I don't dispute that at all. There will always be morons. But as you cast a wider and wider net to find people saying stupid things, you have to also take into account their proportion of the population. Even if he had really said that, he'd be part of a vanishingly small minority. Heck, the very fact that an article was written about what he not-quite said also shows how far we've come.

Aloisius 3y ago

You don't stop fighting after the major battles are won. You fight until the the war is over. As long as there are groups that continue to fight to reverse the gains that were hard won, one must continue to fight hard. Complacency risks society regressing. See: abortion rights.

jjjjj55555 3y ago
Neverending wars are exactly what I want to avoid. Eventually both sides end up becoming the bad guys.