3 ms·

If you consider the promotion of human rights and boycott of countries violating them an ideology, then this is an ideology I can get behind. Sure, you might no

If you consider the promotion of human rights and boycott of countries violating them an ideology, then this is an ideology I can get behind. Sure, you might not care about discrimination against queer people because you're not one of them, just like you might not care about racism against people of color because you're white - but just because it doesn't concern you directly doesn't mean discrimination isn't an issue.

zarathustreal 2y ago
All things in moderation, even, and especially, good things. Righteous fervor has killed more than disease and famine combined.
ImJamal 2y ago
According to Merriam Webster the definition of an ideology is one of the following > a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture > the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program > a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture I am not sure how it could not be an ideology. Being against racism is an ideological idea as well.
KronisLV 2y ago
The writing in that blog post also posits some questions in a manner that doesn’t seem all that good: > What counts as “safety”? Which places in the world are truly safe for LGBTQIA+ community? How much of a city, or state, or country needs to be LGBTQIA+ hostile for the whole of it to be declared unworthy of PSF support? Meanwhile: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Tanzania https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Tanzania > Homosexuality in Tanzania is a socially taboo topic, and same-sex sexual acts (even in private and consensual) are criminal offences, punishable with life imprisonment. While I have no idea what counts as “truly safe”, that’s definitely not it! I wouldn’t want any of my friends who happen to be queer to go to a place where they might face life imprisonment for the crime of… existing? As far as exclusion goes, that’s a pretty clear case of that, a different venue would be better. Some people might say that if a change of venue isn’t possible (for some reason?) then that means that everyone would miss out on the event if it couldn’t happen, at which point people will probably have different opinions about whether taking a stance on inclusion is worth it or not, depending on their views. Calling it an “ideology” might be unconventional, but maybe not entirely wrong as far as the semantics go (beliefs shared by a group of people) - the same way my “ideology” would be that women also deserve to vote, don’t need to cover their faces with garments if they don’t feel like it etc. The ideology of human rights, I guess. >> "Not engaging at all" allows the engaging group to completely take over and expunge their opposition. I agree with this point, though. Except that in any conflict you should choose yourself on which side you are on, sometimes the engaging group might be right. Can’t comment more on this particular case, just on the linked article and what I read.
AnonCoward42 2y ago
This is motte and bailey. Currently you go into your motte and talk about human rights and racism (apparently queer is a race), and people get removed from projects (or jobs) because they didn't get the pronoun of the unicorn right. Oh, and the hundreds of workshops that explain you how to check your privilege. It has usually not much to do with human rights in the western world. The case with the convention is slightly different, but again one has to ask why they actually defunded it. Because the country they live in is bad? They were not asked to fund Tanzania. PS.: > might not care about racism against people of color because you're white You may of course assume whatever you want, but why do you get so specific instead of just mentioning racism. That does indeed sound racist to me.

zarathustreal 2y ago

All things in moderation, even, and especially, good things. Righteous fervor has killed more than disease and famine combined.

ImJamal 2y ago

According to Merriam Webster the definition of an ideology is one of the following > a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture > the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program > a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture I am not sure how it could not be an ideology. Being against racism is an ideological idea as well.

KronisLV 2y ago

The writing in that blog post also posits some questions in a manner that doesn’t seem all that good: > What counts as “safety”? Which places in the world are truly safe for LGBTQIA+ community? How much of a city, or state, or country needs to be LGBTQIA+ hostile for the whole of it to be declared unworthy of PSF support? Meanwhile: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Tanzania https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Tanzania > Homosexuality in Tanzania is a socially taboo topic, and same-sex sexual acts (even in private and consensual) are criminal offences, punishable with life imprisonment. While I have no idea what counts as “truly safe”, that’s definitely not it! I wouldn’t want any of my friends who happen to be queer to go to a place where they might face life imprisonment for the crime of… existing? As far as exclusion goes, that’s a pretty clear case of that, a different venue would be better. Some people might say that if a change of venue isn’t possible (for some reason?) then that means that everyone would miss out on the event if it couldn’t happen, at which point people will probably have different opinions about whether taking a stance on inclusion is worth it or not, depending on their views. Calling it an “ideology” might be unconventional, but maybe not entirely wrong as far as the semantics go (beliefs shared by a group of people) - the same way my “ideology” would be that women also deserve to vote, don’t need to cover their faces with garments if they don’t feel like it etc. The ideology of human rights, I guess. >> "Not engaging at all" allows the engaging group to completely take over and expunge their opposition. I agree with this point, though. Except that in any conflict you should choose yourself on which side you are on, sometimes the engaging group might be right. Can’t comment more on this particular case, just on the linked article and what I read.

AnonCoward42 2y ago

This is motte and bailey. Currently you go into your motte and talk about human rights and racism (apparently queer is a race), and people get removed from projects (or jobs) because they didn't get the pronoun of the unicorn right. Oh, and the hundreds of workshops that explain you how to check your privilege. It has usually not much to do with human rights in the western world. The case with the convention is slightly different, but again one has to ask why they actually defunded it. Because the country they live in is bad? They were not asked to fund Tanzania. PS.: > might not care about racism against people of color because you're white You may of course assume whatever you want, but why do you get so specific instead of just mentioning racism. That does indeed sound racist to me.