8 ms·

I find the demagogy of the American political left to be reaching levels that are disheartening at best and sickening at worst-especially given that the left co

by iamdave 13y ago

I find the demagogy of the American political left to be reaching levels that are disheartening at best and sickening at worst-especially given that the left continues to see itself as 'enlightened', 'progressive' or 'forward thinking'. Discrimination of any sort should certainly be thrust into the spotlight, scrutinized and deconstructed to avert real harm and nobody questions it. Attempt on any level however to deconstruct and analyze the public reactions to protected speech, even if it's speech considered disagreeable and one is immediately seen as complicit in the mechanisms of the aforementioned domain. Progressive thinking isn't progressive if you demand that your cause is the only cause worth being heard. It isn't being 'forward' if it means shutting down discourse you don't want to hear. "I may not like what you say but I will defend your right to say it". Not anymore. It's 2014 and the critic has become the heretic. And frankly, as a minority myself-while I am fully willing to admit that there are distinct parallels between what the LGBT community is going through and our nation's history with civil rights between the 1940's and 1960's forcing people to look at the two as analogous cheapens the struggles faced by both parties. Until a time comes where gays have attack dogs unleashed on them, sprayed with water cannons, arrested for where they choose to sit on a bus, or are told they cannot even be seen in public spheres and forced to use separate entrances, what we have is an American legal mechanism that still needs to be refined and sharply tuned to ensure domestic equity for all citizens. The portrait has changed considerably since Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, harkening back to Jim Crow when the law allowed physical harm of blacks cannot be compared to a legal system that's struggling to find a new identity of civil liberty isn't helpful. It's pouring salt over old wounds and calling it 'medicine'.

ceejayoz 13y ago
> "I may not like what you say but I will defend your right to say it". No one's saying he doesn't have the right to say it. Free speech is not freedom from consequences like boycotts and criticism. > Until a time comes where gays have attack dogs unleashed on them, sprayed with water cannons The US has a long history of police brutality incidents against the LGBT community. [http://www.amnestyusa.org/node/87367 http://www.amnestyusa.org/node/87367] > arrested for where they choose to sit on a bus... and forced to use separate entrances Which they would have been, if being gay was an outwardly obvious condition like being black is. > or are told they cannot even be seen in public spheres http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Wechsler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Wechsler (1972) was the first publicly elected official to be openly gay, and only came out after being elected. The first time a known gay politician was elected was 1974 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Noble http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Noble). The (still limited) ability to be gay in the public sphere is very much a recent development.
- iamdave 13y ago
  I'm checking out your links before commenting, so I'll remark on one specific thing in your post that I feel a bit wary about: No one's saying he doesn't have the right to say it. Free speech is not freedom from consequences like boycotts and criticism. Can a society really be considered to have 'freedom of expression' if individuals have to worry that every statement has to pass some kind of checksum from a group that seeks his or her ouster for saying it? It's kind of why I'm starting to abhor the "free speech doesn't make you free from the court of public opinion" argument; it's being used so often and without any substantive discussion that it appears to be a pseudo-intellectualist's cop out. So sure, even if legislatively one has the 'freedom' to say what they want, what does it say about how we value that freedom if we tacitly strip people from the ability to have disagreeable views without launching upon them as if they were guilty of high-treason? Are you really free if what you say doesn't get you thrown in jail but gets you burned at the social media cross?
  - true_religion 13y ago
    I'd like to point out, that certain laws against gays/lesbians are unfeasable simply because it is difficult to detect who is homosexual by sight. That's not to say that legislators didn't want to segregate the gay population, but perhaps they (a) found it difficult to implement or (b) believed being gay was a choice whilst being black wasn't, thus they could put gay men in asylums (common in England) whilst no amount of 'mental discipline' would change someone race.

by iamdave 13y ago

ceejayoz 13y ago

> "I may not like what you say but I will defend your right to say it". No one's saying he doesn't have the right to say it. Free speech is not freedom from consequences like boycotts and criticism. > Until a time comes where gays have attack dogs unleashed on them, sprayed with water cannons The US has a long history of police brutality incidents against the LGBT community. [http://www.amnestyusa.org/node/87367 http://www.amnestyusa.org/node/87367] > arrested for where they choose to sit on a bus... and forced to use separate entrances Which they would have been, if being gay was an outwardly obvious condition like being black is. > or are told they cannot even be seen in public spheres http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Wechsler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Wechsler (1972) was the first publicly elected official to be openly gay, and only came out after being elected. The first time a known gay politician was elected was 1974 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Noble http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Noble). The (still limited) ability to be gay in the public sphere is very much a recent development.

iamdave 13y ago
I'm checking out your links before commenting, so I'll remark on one specific thing in your post that I feel a bit wary about: No one's saying he doesn't have the right to say it. Free speech is not freedom from consequences like boycotts and criticism. Can a society really be considered to have 'freedom of expression' if individuals have to worry that every statement has to pass some kind of checksum from a group that seeks his or her ouster for saying it? It's kind of why I'm starting to abhor the "free speech doesn't make you free from the court of public opinion" argument; it's being used so often and without any substantive discussion that it appears to be a pseudo-intellectualist's cop out. So sure, even if legislatively one has the 'freedom' to say what they want, what does it say about how we value that freedom if we tacitly strip people from the ability to have disagreeable views without launching upon them as if they were guilty of high-treason? Are you really free if what you say doesn't get you thrown in jail but gets you burned at the social media cross?
- true_religion 13y ago
  I'd like to point out, that certain laws against gays/lesbians are unfeasable simply because it is difficult to detect who is homosexual by sight. That's not to say that legislators didn't want to segregate the gay population, but perhaps they (a) found it difficult to implement or (b) believed being gay was a choice whilst being black wasn't, thus they could put gay men in asylums (common in England) whilst no amount of 'mental discipline' would change someone race.