The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I'm surprised you guys aren't calling that article biased in any way, shape or form. While I don't support them, I doubt this editor is being objective.

The religious right wing has been allowed to push their un-American and unconstitutional agenda for far too long. Americans must push back. If we continue to do nothing, we could all be persecuted by this fanatical group.

Honestly, I feel like accusing your opponents of McCarthyism before they've done anything is morally reprehensible, and probably politically pointless; this kind of language makes it clear that they are only preaching to the choir, which is basically a waste of time. The gay community's tendency to go into full-out shrill denouncement mode at the slightest provocation is the single most short-sighted tactic I can think of. It makes people like tj think that all gays are thin-skinned feminazis who fulfill every liberal stereotype.

There is a place for the push against casual anti-homosexual and homophobic comments in the media (much like the black community, who has made it the norm to immediately shun racists) but that cannot be the extent of the political movement. Much better to simply assert the right to equality (under the law) and live that way, falling upon the courts as necessary. Being homosexual, by the end of this movement, will ideally be no more a political issue than being Jewish. (My biggest fear is that it will become akin to being black which, let's be honest, is laden with historical and cultural baggage that is likely to affect one's day-to-day life.)

onestly, I feel like accusing your opponents of McCarthyism before they've done anything is morally reprehensible, and probably politically pointless; this kind of language makes it clear that they are only preaching to the choir, which is basically a waste of time. The gay community's tendency to go into full-out shrill denouncement mode at the slightest provocation is the single most short-sighted tactic I can think of. It makes people like tj think that all gays are thin-skinned feminazis who fulfill every liberal stereotype.

Oh, well you realize that the only reason anyone bothers to actually point out bias is to cast doubt on the source. I get nothing out of it, but for you I'm willing to explain why I didn't immediately link that page all over facebook, babe.

Edit: This idiot should be the last one? Try: No one should call anyone else "un-American." It's a garbage phrase that just clouds the issue.

Originally posted by Zampanó
Try: No one should call anyone else "un-American."

All people who are important are American citizens.

😐

B-b-but how does Ewan McGregor fit in then?

Originally posted by Zampanó
]Oh, well you realize that the only reason anyone bothers to actually point out bias is to cast doubt on the source. I get nothing out of it, but for you I'm willing to explain why I didn't immediately link that page all over facebook, babe.

Edit: This idiot should be the last one? Try: No one should call anyone else "un-American." It's a garbage phrase that just clouds the issue.

Yea, and "unconstitutional".

Z, what the hell? when have ever given you that impression? seriously, **** you.

When has who ever given the impression? That's like, a really ****ing important thing to establish in a post like that.

(I)

from above:

The gay community's tendency to go into full-out shrill denouncement mode at the slightest provocation is the single most short-sighted tactic I can think of. It makes people like tj think that all gays are thin-skinned feminazis who fulfill every liberal stereotype.

I mean seriously. and yeah, i was pissed so i forgot a pronoun... w/e...

tj, you know that despite our differences, I have nothing but respect for you. However, not all of your ideas have always counted as "enlightened." Case in point, your opinions
On transexuals
On Crossdressing
On transexuals
do not, I believe, show a particularly in-depth understanding of gender issues. But for all that your opinions have sometimes stepped on toes, I have never felt like you would hate me for who I am, any more than you would hate any individual for who they are.

I still don't understand how people equate "letting homosexuals marry and be open" to "progress". Ancient civilizations not only practiced homosexuality, but embraced it up until the formation of monotheism. Are some of you implying we've regressed for 2,000 years up until now when we're slowly accepting it once again? Someone explain this to me.

From your first link:

Gay people who come out, are refusing to hide who they truly are. More power to them.

Second link:
oh wait, it was the SAME as your first link.

Third link:
actually didn't find anything about homosexuality in the third link: it was more a discussion of religios intolerance....

Your quote:

The gay community's tendency to go into full-out shrill denouncement mode at the slightest provocation is the single most short-sighted tactic I can think of. It makes people like tj think that all gays are thin-skinned feminazis who fulfill every liberal stereotype.

Has nothing to do with your proof of your accusation...

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I still don't understand how people equate "letting homosexuals marry and be open" to "progress". Ancient civilizations not only practiced homosexuality, but embraced it up until the formation of monotheism. Are some of you implying we've regressed for 2,000 years up until now when we're slowly accepting it once again? Someone explain this to me.

Well, homosexuality wasn't really regarded as a thing in those ancient civilizations. As far as I'm aware, the word homosexual itself is a rather recent invention. The ancients were more preoccupied with top/bottom (who penetrates / is penetrated) which is, of course, the masculine/feminine split. I'm sure you're familiar with the way that monotheism elevates the masculine while simultaneously denigrating the feminine. There are thousands upon thousands of pages exploring the ways that monotheism cast down the old traditions of matriarchy.

So the simplest (common knowledge) answer is that it is "progress" away from a 2,000 year old moral system in that it is a new social issue, rather than a fully recycled one.

A more convincing answer is one that looks at modern history. Most notably, the bible was used to defend anti-miscegenation laws, deny women's rights. Obviously this doesn't mean that the bible actually advocates those things, but it has been used to defend regressive and oppressive social orders that we now consider abhorrent. So acceptance of homosexuality can be seen as "progress" in the light of American history: Every single time we have systematically discriminated against a minority, it has been later recognized as a mistake.

Finally, the answer that came to mind first is based on what I've read from the Enlightenment (a tiny fraction of the whole). That movement formed the basis for today's social and political order, as well as the foundation for most contemporary philosophers (roughly Kant and onward, iirc). The Enlightenment, as I've been learning, formed as a reaction to the carefully intertwined religious and governmental authorities (esp. in France). It powered through centuries of traditional understanding of the world on the basis of scientific inquiry and self-determination. In a very real way, it is a rejection of the "old ways." So in the sense that feudal and absolutist Europe (with all its religious tangles included) is the starting point, expanded civil liberties will always be progress, since the populace then had none.

Originally posted by truejedi
From your first link:

Second link:
oh wait, it was the SAME as your first link.

Third link:
actually didn't find anything about homosexuality in the third link: it was more a discussion of religios intolerance....

Your quote:

Has nothing to do with your proof of your accusation...

Anyway, I based that comment on a vague memory of these quotes:

Cross-dressing is cowardice. It is pretending to be something you are not. It is no different than the closet homosexual who refuses to tell the world, because he feels some kind of shame for what he is doing.

But cross-dressers? crossdressers are DENYING who they are. A guy may be a gay man, but he is STILL a MAN. He is not a woman. Wearing women's clothing makes absolutely NO sense. It is pretending to be something you are not, which is no better than remaining in the closet.

I want to reiterate that these are issues that I face myself; the transsexual world is not something that I pretend to understand. But these comments' casual dismissal of such individuals' experience and expression is something that triggers warning bells in my mind. Again, I do not consider you a bigot; your reaction to me was better than I dare expect from most people I know in person.

Originally posted by Zampanó
Well, homosexuality wasn't really regarded as a thing in those ancient civilizations. As far as I'm aware, the word homosexual itself is a rather recent invention. The ancients were more preoccupied with top/bottom (who penetrates / is penetrated) which is, of course, the masculine/feminine split. I'm sure you're familiar with the way that monotheism elevates the masculine while simultaneously denigrating the feminine. There are thousands upon thousands of pages exploring the ways that monotheism cast down the old traditions of matriarchy.

So the simplest (common knowledge) answer is that it is "progress" away from a 2,000 year old moral system in that it is a new social issue, rather than a fully recycled one.

A more convincing answer is one that looks at modern history. Most notably, the bible was used to defend anti-miscegenation laws, deny women's rights. Obviously this doesn't mean that the bible actually advocates those things, but it has been used to defend regressive and oppressive social orders that we now consider abhorrent. So acceptance of homosexuality can be seen as "progress" in the light of American history: Every single time we have systematically discriminated against a minority, it has been later recognized as a mistake.

Finally, the answer that came to mind first is based on what I've read from the Enlightenment (a tiny fraction of the whole). That movement formed the basis for today's social and political order, as well as the foundation for most contemporary philosophers (roughly Kant and onward, iirc). The Enlightenment, as I've been learning, formed as a reaction to the carefully intertwined religious and governmental authorities (esp. in France). It powered through centuries of traditional understanding of the world on the basis of scientific inquiry and self-determination. In a very real way, it is a rejection of the "old ways." So in the sense that feudal and absolutist Europe (with all its religious tangles included) is the starting point, expanded civil liberties will always be progress, since the populace then had none.

That's an impressive rebuttal but in the end what you're saying is, "in a sense", or "technically", this is progress. And my point was that in the ancient times, men used women for marriage and children, and other men and children for sex. I'd say the next 2,000 years were progressive enough.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
That's an impressive rebuttal but in the end what you're saying is, "in a sense", or "technically", this is progress. And my point was that in the ancient times, men used women for marriage and children, and other men and children for sex. I'd say the next 2,000 years were progressive enough.

I believe that the historical drift of morals, made possible by monotheistic traditions, has rendered those very traditions obsolete, on the whole. Monotheistic religions were very good at enforcing social mores (it is beyond my pay grade to speculate why). They allowed very complex societies to develop. In comparison to pagan societies, they had a more rigorously defined hierarchy, more drive to expand, and therefore more opportunities for specialization. This allowed society to grow through feudalism. However, for hundreds of years in Europe there was very little development in terms of social complexity (social roles like aristocracy, monarchy, and peasantry were very rigid) or quality of life (a peasant in the 900s lived much like his counterpart in 1400). Even the stress on traditional roles (see: the French Monarchy's massive debt in the prelude to The Revolution) was not enough on its own to cause the disruption of society.

Instead, the development of a scientific worldview that began to explain the world in a naturalistic way was the first real challenge to established traditions. Things that formerly fell under the remit of religious explanations (from the weather to social roles) gradually became things that could be dealt with through the human intellect. And once that happened, society itself transformed from a god-given script to a system that could be studied and improved. The Enlightenment saw the beginnings of psychology, sociology, economics. These sciences gave us tools to directly evaluate our own systems. And I would certainly argue that our self-aware efforts at social engineering (Democracy, Representative Government, Capitalism) have been much more successful in their aims than was the religious rule that held through the late 1700s.

Spoiler:
This merits a much broader historical substantiation than I have time for; I will content myself with: sword vs. ipod

iPods are durable. They could withstand a sword.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
iPods are durable. They could withstand a sword.

I tested that... You owe me an iPod.

Great Scott! Havn't seen you in a while Slash.