Hey guys so I thought I would show this. I am wondering what everyone else thinks about this

BLM demands for letting the pride parade to pass.

No more police floats
The organization was given the status of Honoured Group for the parade, which is the grand finale of Pride Month. It did not give Pride Toronto advance notice of their planned sit-in.

...... So that happened.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pride-parade-toronto-1.3662823

OgreChubbs wrote:
Hey guys so I thought I would show this. I am wondering what everyone else thinks about this

BLM demands for letting the pride parade to pass.

No more police floats
The organization was given the status of Honoured Group for the parade, which is the grand finale of Pride Month. It did not give Pride Toronto advance notice of their planned sit-in.

...... So that happened.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pride-parade-toronto-1.3662823

I think it's an overall gakky thing to do. I'm all for sit-ins, but there's a time and place, and disturbing a gay pride rally is not the place.

Hm. Asking OT to pick between police, gay people and Black Lives Matter.
I think we've found the ultimate dilemma.

Personally, I think this fella sums it up well.

http://www.citynews.ca/2016/07/04/gay-toronto-police-officers-open-letter-to-pride-after-blm-seeks-removal-of-police-floats/

Dear Pride Toronto,

I am writing today to address concerns I have with your recent agreement with Black Lives Matter TO. I am particularly concerned with your willingness to remove all police floats and booths in future parades and community spaces. I should give you my background first.

I am a Toronto Police Service Constable, and a homosexual. I have been on the job eight years. Prior to becoming a Police Officer, I served in the Canadian Armed Forces and completed a tour in Kandahar Afghanistan in 2006-07.

I never “came out” while serving in the military. Though not for fear of persecution, I only told a select few about my orientation. I was still quite young and was simply not ready.

It wasn’t until 2012 that I decided to come out. I began to tell a few peers at work, and soon word spread. I can say with absolute pride that my peers, and my employers/senior management, have never made an inappropriate comment to me. I have never been made to feel discriminated against.

This year, 2016, marked a first for me. My first Pride parade. I would be working, nonetheless it would be my first one in any capacity. Wow, what an event. What a spectacle, a joining of everyone.

The 2016 pride events really opened my eyes to something. The support that I have from my peers and supervisors has been unwavering. When I saw all those floats and officers marching (hundreds), I realized that my employer fully supports this part of me, and so many others like me. As I stood post at Yonge and College, ensuring a safe atmosphere, Chief Mark Saunders came up to me. I had the opportunity to salute him, and I knew that I had a leader who was invested in this celebration of Pride.

LGBTQ cops have struggled for decades. I am fortunate, because it is their struggles in the past, that have made my orientation an irrelevant factor in my workplace interactions. Members of police services, and their employers (like RBC, Telus, Porter, etc) have just as much right to participate as any other group.

Police officers are significantly represented in the LGBTQ community and it would be unacceptable to alienate and discriminate against them and those who support them. They too struggled to gain a place and workplace free from discrimination and bias.

I do not speak for the police, and I do not speak for the LGBTQ community. I speak as an individual, one who saw his first Pride, only to be excluded from the next.

Exclusion does not promote inclusion.

Chuck Krangle

 jreilly89 wrote:


I think it's an overall gakky thing to do. I'm all for sit-ins, but there's a time and place, and disturbing a gay pride rally is not the place.

It is when the gay community is known for extreme racism and bigotry in many places and these pride events intentionally block minority groups from having space or representation in the event but then give space to groups which have nothing to do with the event.

White Gay men are one of the most bigoted groups in pride events. There are huge divides between gays and lesbians as well as whites and minorities. Acceptance only goes as far as 'reclaiming their birthright privilege' in many cases.

Having seen this first hand in DC, I totally understand their outrage as in a group where the media shows supposed solidarity, they are even outsiders in an event about acceptance and unity.

Exclusion does not promote inclusion.

Pretty much this.

LBGT: "We are an oppressed minority within society, we demand equality and are going to have a parade to raise awareness"

BLM: "We are an oppressed minority within society, we demand equality and are going to interrupt everyone's days until our demands are met"

Police: "We are the police, we are not really oppressed but whatever....ohh wait now we are being oppressed. well feth"

So BLM are the racists? or the oppressors? Im confused, I thought we were all supposed to hate the police and support the gay community. But now I don't know which way my SJW feelings are leaning. Do I support that minority, or this minority or the cops who are now an oppressed minority. So much privilege!

nkelsch wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


I think it's an overall gakky thing to do. I'm all for sit-ins, but there's a time and place, and disturbing a gay pride rally is not the place.

It is when the gay community is known for extreme racism and bigotry in many places and these pride events intentionally block minority groups from having space or representation in the event but then give space to groups which have nothing to do with the event.

White Gay men are one of the most bigoted groups in pride events. There are huge divides between gays and lesbians as well as whites and minorities. Acceptance only goes as far as 'reclaiming their birthright privilege' in many cases.

Having seen this first hand in DC, I totally understand their outrage as in a group where the media shows supposed solidarity, they are even outsiders in an event about acceptance and unity.

Did this actually happen, or are you generalising?

And what group do you believe has nothing to do with the LGBT community?

Meanwhile everyone else just wants the parade to move on because you blocked all the freaking roads...


*Interesting note, Yonge street is the longest street in the Northern Hemisphere. Its the Volga of streets.

Allowing cops in pride parades rather goes against the spirit of them, anyway, what with the whole point of them being to tell the authorities to feth themselves.

I'm confused, I thought BLM was a US thing? I wasn't aware that Toronto was a hotbed of racial tension and police brutality, the only thing I've ever thought Canada was suffering from were people being far too nice (and the occasional moose attack).

 stanman wrote:
I'm confused, I thought BLM was a US thing? I wasn't aware that Toronto was a hotbed of racial tension and police brutality, the only thing I've ever thought Canada was suffering from were people being far too nice (and the occasional moose attack).

Trends tend to jump borders, people always do this.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Allowing cops in pride parades rather goes against the spirit of them, anyway, what with the whole point of them being to tell the authorities to feth themselves.

I thought Pride parades were meant to celebrate the freedom and inherent right to be yourself and be proud of the person that you are. Having a parade just to tell somebody to feth themselves is petty, obnoxious, childish, uncivil behavior.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Allowing cops in pride parades rather goes against the spirit of them, anyway, what with the whole point of them being to tell the authorities to feth themselves.

Obviously you've never seen just how good those tight patrol shorts look on a man, it'd be criminal not to allow this in a pride parade

I can see when the police etc were against Pride Parades it would be a giant "feth you" to them.

As they're not now, and generally trying to support it 100%, they're not in anyway the target of any implied "feth you" from a pride parade.

I think some people though, want it to go back to when the police actively oppressed those who would go to a pride parade, and those people should feth off.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Allowing cops in pride parades rather goes against the spirit of them, anyway, what with the whole point of them being to tell the authorities to feth themselves.

Uh, wrong. The point of having cops in pride parades is to include people and build a unified community. It's why straight people are allowed to attend Pride events, despite not being gay

Rosebuddy wrote:
Allowing cops in pride parades rather goes against the spirit of them, anyway, what with the whole point of them being to tell the authorities to feth themselves.

And that about sums up why I hate the modern protest culture and SJW types (not saying Rose is a SJW)

It isn't about equality, it isn't about inclusiveness, it is about telling everyone else to feth themselves.

Just to clarify because I know there are those who wish to take my words out of context, that does not mean EVERY protest is bad, just most of the recent ones. BLM is a joke and honestly are excessively racist, you want to talk about a group that discriminates, look no further then BLM.

The thing that alarms me is that to say "All blacks are trouble makers" is wrong because well, yeah, it is. However, apparently saying "All cops are racist feths with an itchy trigger finger" is just fine. I don't recall an incident of a Toronto police officer shooting and killing a black suspect or bystander in recent memory. I remember a few instances of shooting mentally ill suspects/ perpetrators that caught a lot of flack in the last few years. If I recall, two were white and one was middle-eastern. So why the hatred and venom for Toronto cops specifically? Is it really because "they're all the fething same"? Seems hypocritical.

So you basicaly end up woth the toughest call ever.

offend the pride, offend BLM.
both groups are vocal.

though BLM did interfere with a planned public event, theres grounds to move them out the way to let pride pass.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Allowing cops in pride parades rather goes against the spirit of them, anyway, what with the whole point of them being to tell the authorities to feth themselves.

Progression. It's not 1980 any more.
Pride has adapted to welcome more and more people, and focus on unity.

Maybe you should consider doing similarly.

Prestor Jon wrote:

I thought Pride parades were meant to celebrate the freedom and inherent right to be yourself and be proud of the person that you are. Having a parade just to tell somebody to feth themselves is petty, obnoxious, childish, uncivil behavior.

They kicked off as a response to cop raids on gay bars and mistreatment of the LGBT community in general. Standing up tall and proud after the AIDS crisis started and refusing to hide yourself anymore was kind of a big deal. The AIDS crisis hasn't ended, either, and the role cops play in society hasn't changed.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I thought Pride parades were meant to celebrate the freedom and inherent right to be yourself and be proud of the person that you are. Having a parade just to tell somebody to feth themselves is petty, obnoxious, childish, uncivil behavior.

They kicked off as a response to cop raids on gay bars and mistreatment of the LGBT community in general. Standing up tall and proud after the AIDS crisis started and refusing to hide yourself anymore was kind of a big deal. The AIDS crisis hasn't ended, either, and the role cops play in society hasn't changed.

The social and cultural treatment of the LGBT community certainly has though. It's not the 1980s anymore, things have actually changed and holding onto a mindset that is now outdated is counter productive.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I thought Pride parades were meant to celebrate the freedom and inherent right to be yourself and be proud of the person that you are. Having a parade just to tell somebody to feth themselves is petty, obnoxious, childish, uncivil behavior.

They kicked off as a response to cop raids on gay bars and mistreatment of the LGBT community in general. Standing up tall and proud after the AIDS crisis started and refusing to hide yourself anymore was kind of a big deal. The AIDS crisis hasn't ended, either, and the role cops play in society hasn't changed.

But the attitude cops and a lot of other authority figures have towards homosexuals and homosexuality HAS changed. My grandparents' generation wouldn't have understood. My parents would be fine and supportive if myself or any of my siblings came out tomorrow.

The movement has evolved, it's become more inclusive because it's become more accepted. That's a GOOD thing. Let's try not to drag the past back into the movement and, in doing so, drag the movement back into the past.

Just another instance of BLM being counterproductive. I'm not surprised. They have the our way or the highway approach. They've repeatedly demonstrated their unwillingness to be reasonable or want equality. They want power, and every time someone gives in they get more.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I thought Pride parades were meant to celebrate the freedom and inherent right to be yourself and be proud of the person that you are. Having a parade just to tell somebody to feth themselves is petty, obnoxious, childish, uncivil behavior.

They kicked off as a response to cop raids on gay bars and mistreatment of the LGBT community in general. Standing up tall and proud after the AIDS crisis started and refusing to hide yourself anymore was kind of a big deal. The AIDS crisis hasn't ended, either, and the role cops play in society hasn't changed.

Your old road is rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a' changin'...

But more realistically, remembering the past can be achieved without wallowing in it.
Pride has roots in resistance, and it's future in acceptance. Putting a wall back up because "that's how it used to be" is ridiculous.
If you can't see how damaging and poisonous that insisting Pride exclude people is, I don't know what to tell you.

 Lord Corellia wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I thought Pride parades were meant to celebrate the freedom and inherent right to be yourself and be proud of the person that you are. Having a parade just to tell somebody to feth themselves is petty, obnoxious, childish, uncivil behavior.

They kicked off as a response to cop raids on gay bars and mistreatment of the LGBT community in general. Standing up tall and proud after the AIDS crisis started and refusing to hide yourself anymore was kind of a big deal. The AIDS crisis hasn't ended, either, and the role cops play in society hasn't changed.

But the attitude cops and a lot of other authority figures have towards homosexuals and homosexuality HAS changed. My grandparents' generation wouldn't have understood. My parents would be fine and supportive if myself or any of my siblings came out tomorrow.

The movement has evolved, it's become more inclusive because it's become more accepted. That's a GOOD thing. Let's try not to drag the past back into the movement and, in doing so, drag the movement back into the past.

It's a terrible thing to forget history and to lose track of what "accepting" actually refers to and who is doing it and why. Let's keep in mind that capitalism attempts to co-opt everything. It is in its nature to absorb and disarm. The LGBT movement must remain fundamentally radical or it will splinter and fail.

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
Just another instance of BLM being counterproductive. I'm not surprised. They have the our way or the highway approach. They've repeatedly demonstrated their unwillingness to be reasonable or want equality. They want power, and every time someone gives in they get more.

Power is the point of a protest. Not having things the way you want them is why you protest. Disrupting the normal state of affairs until your opponents give in is how you know that your movement works.

Part of getting what you want is diplomacy, and BLM hasn't understood this. All they're doing is creating more enemies instead of gathering more supporters.

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
Part of getting what you want is diplomacy, and BLM hasn't understood this. All they're doing is creating more enemies instead of gathering more supporters.

There's no point to diplomacy when the other side does not want to talk to you no matter what and have nothing to gain from talking to you.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
Part of getting what you want is diplomacy, and BLM hasn't understood this. All they're doing is creating more enemies instead of gathering more supporters.

There's no point to diplomacy when the other side does not want to talk to you no matter what and have nothing to gain from talking to you.

Pretty sure MLK, one of the biggest civil rights movements activists, would disagree with you. He was all about diplomacy AND change. Crazy, huh?

To be fair, MLK actually wanted change and to be seen as equal.

Rosebuddy wrote:
It's a terrible thing to forget history and to lose track of what "accepting" actually refers to and who is doing it and why.

Remembering history and living in the past are two different things. Remembering allows us to avoid repeating the past and thus move on. Living in the past just forces you to stew in your hatred and spite and sticks you in a rut.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Let's keep in mind that capitalism attempts to co-opt everything. It is in its nature to absorb and disarm. The LGBT movement must remain fundamentally radical or it will splinter and fail.

You definitely lost me here. What does capitalism have to do with the gay movement or police? Or Toronto in particular? I get the feeling that you're moving towards some capitalist illuminati conspiracy theory, which I have no time for.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
To be fair, MLK actually wanted change and to be seen as equal.

But he argued for diplomacy, that the white man is not the enemy, but must be shown reason and compassion.

Yes, because he actually wanted change and to be seen as an equal.

That's the point. He actually wanted change and to be seen as an equal.

For some people this needs to be repeated a lot. (that's not aimed at you)

SemperMortis wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Allowing cops in pride parades rather goes against the spirit of them, anyway, what with the whole point of them being to tell the authorities to feth themselves.

And that about sums up why I hate the modern protest culture and SJW types (not saying Rose is a SJW)

It isn't about equality, it isn't about inclusiveness, it is about telling everyone else to feth themselves.

Just to clarify because I know there are those who wish to take my words out of context, that does not mean EVERY protest is bad, just most of the recent ones. BLM is a joke and honestly are excessively racist, you want to talk about a group that discriminates, look no further then BLM.

I actually thought Aryan Nation and the KKK were more racist than BLM but now I realise my error.

He didn't say that.

Perhaps I need to go to basic English comprehension school.

Was this protest before or after two more black men were killed by police recently?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps I need to go to basic English comprehension school.

That, and stop trying to stir gak, which as a mod I find amusing.

What he said may have been wholly incorrect, but to then put words in his mouth is trashy. He said they're excessively racist, and as a group they discriminate. He did not say that they do so more than the aforementioned groups.

I've already said before when a poster said that BLM is as bad as KKK, that the poster was 100% incorrect.

 Ahtman wrote:
Was this protest before or after two more black men were killed by police recently?

Since neither of those shootings happened in Toronto, Canada where the gay pride in question occurred, would the timing be relevant at all? The OP is about a local pride parade acquiescing to BLM's demands to ban the local PD from participating in the parade.

I'm curious if BLM listed any specific grievances against Toronto PD or if they just assume that every LEO is a terrible oppressor. Toronto PD was voluntarily participating in the pride parade to show community unity and solidarity in the principle of equality for all members of the community. I don't see why that would be considered offensive to anyone.

One only has to take account posters history to find the true implication of their posts.

 d-usa wrote:
One only has to take account posters history to find the true implication of their posts.

You do have a point in that. I've sent you a PM about it.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps I need to go to basic English comprehension school.

That, and stop trying to stir gak, which as a mod I find amusing.

What he said may have been wholly incorrect, but to then put words in his mouth is trashy. He said they're excessively racist, and as a group they discriminate. He did not say that they do so more than the aforementioned groups.

I've already said before when a poster said that BLM is as bad as KKK, that the poster was 100% incorrect.

Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself. Killkrazy if you would like to have words with me in private feel free to PM me, if you do not then please stop "trying to stir Gak" to quote MrDwhitey.

I would also like to agree that the KKK is worse then BLM, but given time they might become just as bad.

It should be noted I disagree with you. Whilst I think BLM has some racist elements in it (a vocal minority), it is still a movement in response to real problems that need to be addressed.

I do not personally see them being anywhere near the KKK.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
It should be noted I disagree with you. Whilst I think BLM has some racist elements in it (a vocal minority), it is still a movement in response to real problems that need to be addressed.

I do not personally see them being anywhere near the KKK.

Ohh I dont think the ENTIRE BLM movement will devolve into a KKK style hate group, but already there is evidence that a rather large minority within the group is committing hate crimes against anyone who disagrees with their philosophy or who is just the wrong color skin.

Now whether or not those individuals are actually a part of the group is up for debate, but by their own admission and the statement of witnesses they were with BLM. (Referring to several different events from the last year or two)

 jreilly89 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
To be fair, MLK actually wanted change and to be seen as equal.

But he argued for diplomacy, that the white man is not the enemy, but must be shown reason and compassion.

MLK did have a clear distaste for the white moderate, tho, and described them as one of the greatest obstacles to justice.

I normally don't participate in these political discussions but I feel I should post the bit of a conversation I had with a friend of mine as I feel it is relevant to the events that occurred:


"The purpose of pride is not to celebrate cooperation between police and pride, or between police and white gay men (who basically represent pride). Pride is historically a highly political protest for ALL people in the LGBT umbrella to stand up and demand that we a) acknowledge that they exist and b) demand equal rights. In modern years it has largely been coopted by the white gay community, corporations, politicians, and police as a way to show off how far white gay men have come in social acceptance, and for the other entities, to show off that they don’t treat white gay men like gak all the time any more.

"Meanwhile, all the other people in the LGBT umbrella (trans folk, bi folk pissed at the white gay men who tell them that they don’t exist, nonwhite folk who deal doubly with police harassment and corporate discrimination for their dual minority status, other genderqueer individuals) are getting increasingly pissed at the OBVIOUS attempt by society to throw up their hands and say LOOK AT HOW WELL WE TREAT WHITE GAY MEN NOW EVERYTHING IS BETTER DONT LOOK IN THE CORNER WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO IGNORE AND OPRESS ALL THESE OTHER FOLKS WHO STILL MAKE US UNCOMFORTABLE, and the equally obvious complicity of a large part of the white gay community who are happy to have been granted a measure of equality and no longer care about helping the other people in their community, who were previously dedicated allies. (phew, run on sentence)

"BLM is just one group who are actually willing to come forward and point out the hypocrisy of Pride, as well as corporations, the police and politicians who continue to oppress the non-white, non-white gay man parts of the LGBT community, and who are marching in pride as if they had never even done anything wrong without even an apology for a century of hate. There are many other groups and individuals in the community who feel the same way and just don’t have the balls (pardon the expression) to stop society’s annual attempt to ignore how we still treat them and pat ourselves on the back. It is pretty clear that some are ignorant of the basic history of pride and of how many, many people feel in the community about this, and are guilty of telling LGBT and non-white people how they are supposed to feel from a position of extreme privilege.

"How else are they supposed to get their message across? By standing on their little float or little booth, crowded out by hundreds of police officers and corporate sponsors, following the rules that we set up for the express purpose of making it easier to ignore them? Social change doesn’t come from following the rules. People have to be made aware that there is a problem before they will attempt to fix it. If they had just presented their list of demands in a private meeting with pride, without media attention, pride would have just told them to feth off as they are already demonstrating by attempting to renege on their agreement."


Anyway take that however you will

Rosebuddy wrote:
The LGBT movement must remain fundamentally radical or it will splinter and fail.

You have a fundamentally broken understanding of what the LGBT movement is. If the LGBT movement splinters because it is no longer radical, it is because it has won.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
To be fair, MLK actually wanted change and to be seen as equal.

But he argued for diplomacy, that the white man is not the enemy, but must be shown reason and compassion.

MLK did have a clear distaste for the white moderate, tho, and described them as one of the greatest obstacles to justice.

Are you intentionally being ignorant? He had a problem with corrupt government, corrupt police, and religious leaders who refused to admit that racism existed. However, he vehemently argued white people were allies for justice, not the enemy.

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
I normally don't participate in these political discussions but I feel I should post the bit of a conversation I had with a friend of mine as I feel it is relevant to the events that occurred:


"The purpose of pride is not to celebrate cooperation between police and pride, or between police and white gay men (who basically represent pride). Pride is historically a highly political protest for ALL people in the LGBT umbrella to stand up and demand that we a) acknowledge that they exist and b) demand equal rights. In modern years it has largely been coopted by the white gay community, corporations, politicians, and police as a way to show off how far white gay men have come in social acceptance, and for the other entities, to show off that they don’t treat white gay men like gak all the time any more.

"Meanwhile, all the other people in the LGBT umbrella (trans folk, bi folk pissed at the white gay men who tell them that they don’t exist, nonwhite folk who deal doubly with police harassment and corporate discrimination for their dual minority status, other genderqueer individuals) are getting increasingly pissed at the OBVIOUS attempt by society to throw up their hands and say LOOK AT HOW WELL WE TREAT WHITE GAY MEN NOW EVERYTHING IS BETTER DONT LOOK IN THE CORNER WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO IGNORE AND OPRESS ALL THESE OTHER FOLKS WHO STILL MAKE US UNCOMFORTABLE, and the equally obvious complicity of a large part of the white gay community who are happy to have been granted a measure of equality and no longer care about helping the other people in their community, who were previously dedicated allies. (phew, run on sentence)

"BLM is just one group who are actually willing to come forward and point out the hypocrisy of Pride, as well as corporations, the police and politicians who continue to oppress the non-white, non-white gay man parts of the LGBT community, and who are marching in pride as if they had never even done anything wrong without even an apology for a century of hate. There are many other groups and individuals in the community who feel the same way and just don’t have the balls (pardon the expression) to stop society’s annual attempt to ignore how we still treat them and pat ourselves on the back. It is pretty clear that some are ignorant of the basic history of pride and of how many, many people feel in the community about this, and are guilty of telling LGBT and non-white people how they are supposed to feel from a position of extreme privilege.

"How else are they supposed to get their message across? By standing on their little float or little booth, crowded out by hundreds of police officers and corporate sponsors, following the rules that we set up for the express purpose of making it easier to ignore them? Social change doesn’t come from following the rules. People have to be made aware that there is a problem before they will attempt to fix it. If they had just presented their list of demands in a private meeting with pride, without media attention, pride would have just told them to feth off as they are already demonstrating by attempting to renege on their agreement."


Anyway take that however you will

Basically this... 'gay rights' has been co-oped by white gay men who basically have disdain for all the other groups under the LGBT umbrella and only fought to reclaim their power which was their birthright as a white male in america. Now that they have that for the most part, they couldn't give two craps about the struggles of the other groups and lots of corporate and political figures like to partner with these privileged white gay men to say 'see? we are so good! the struggle has been won!'.

Now that White Gay Men have theirs, and have been welcomed back to the white male dinner table, they really are done fighting for others and that is where the Black pride groups get marginalized and booted along with a lot of other subgroups. That is what a lot of this is about. Many pride events are really bigoted and have sharp divisions down gender and racial lines.

nkelsch wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
I normally don't participate in these political discussions but I feel I should post the bit of a conversation I had with a friend of mine as I feel it is relevant to the events that occurred:


"The purpose of pride is not to celebrate cooperation between police and pride, or between police and white gay men (who basically represent pride). Pride is historically a highly political protest for ALL people in the LGBT umbrella to stand up and demand that we a) acknowledge that they exist and b) demand equal rights. In modern years it has largely been coopted by the white gay community, corporations, politicians, and police as a way to show off how far white gay men have come in social acceptance, and for the other entities, to show off that they don’t treat white gay men like gak all the time any more.

"Meanwhile, all the other people in the LGBT umbrella (trans folk, bi folk pissed at the white gay men who tell them that they don’t exist, nonwhite folk who deal doubly with police harassment and corporate discrimination for their dual minority status, other genderqueer individuals) are getting increasingly pissed at the OBVIOUS attempt by society to throw up their hands and say LOOK AT HOW WELL WE TREAT WHITE GAY MEN NOW EVERYTHING IS BETTER DONT LOOK IN THE CORNER WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO IGNORE AND OPRESS ALL THESE OTHER FOLKS WHO STILL MAKE US UNCOMFORTABLE, and the equally obvious complicity of a large part of the white gay community who are happy to have been granted a measure of equality and no longer care about helping the other people in their community, who were previously dedicated allies. (phew, run on sentence)

"BLM is just one group who are actually willing to come forward and point out the hypocrisy of Pride, as well as corporations, the police and politicians who continue to oppress the non-white, non-white gay man parts of the LGBT community, and who are marching in pride as if they had never even done anything wrong without even an apology for a century of hate. There are many other groups and individuals in the community who feel the same way and just don’t have the balls (pardon the expression) to stop society’s annual attempt to ignore how we still treat them and pat ourselves on the back. It is pretty clear that some are ignorant of the basic history of pride and of how many, many people feel in the community about this, and are guilty of telling LGBT and non-white people how they are supposed to feel from a position of extreme privilege.

"How else are they supposed to get their message across? By standing on their little float or little booth, crowded out by hundreds of police officers and corporate sponsors, following the rules that we set up for the express purpose of making it easier to ignore them? Social change doesn’t come from following the rules. People have to be made aware that there is a problem before they will attempt to fix it. If they had just presented their list of demands in a private meeting with pride, without media attention, pride would have just told them to feth off as they are already demonstrating by attempting to renege on their agreement."


Anyway take that however you will

Basically this... 'gay rights' has been co-oped by white gay men who basically have disdain for all the other groups under the LGBT umbrella and only fought to reclaim their power which was their birthright as a white male in america. Now that they have that for the most part, they couldn't give two craps about the struggles of the other groups and lots of corporate and political figures like to partner with these privileged white gay men to say 'see? we are so good! the struggle has been won!'.

Now that White Gay Men have theirs, and have been welcomed back to the white male dinner table, they really are done fighting for others and that is where the Black pride groups get marginalized and booted along with a lot of other subgroups. That is what a lot of this is about. Many pride events are really bigoted and have sharp divisions down gender and racial lines.

Serious question. Have you actually met any gay men? Gay, white men?

I dunno, this all seems very backwards. The pride parades got their start as protests towards police raids against gay establishments. Now that they've finally gotten support from police, they're (or rather another right group is) rejecting them. Tearing down walls just to put them back up...

 jreilly89 wrote:


Serious question. Have you actually met any gay men? Gay, white men?

Yes... I am part of a national men's music fraternity where I have met and made friends with a large array of men in the LGBT community and been to many of their events and in their community. The racial divide and bigotry is disgusting and very 'out there'.

It really has become a huge issue, and it is about people born with white male privilege for the first time being denied their birthright when they come out of the closet and not caring about those who grew up as minorities and LGBT. It also helps promote groups who can 'accept' some token members of the LGBT and then continue to actively work against them under the cloak of 'see? we support them!'.

There are real issues based upon race and bigotry within the Pride event world, so I am glad to see anything which tries to expose it to people.

Two of the major issues in DC are the "gayborhood" and "drop the T" movements. One is based around actively making 'white only' gay neighborhoods via redlining techniques and the other is looking to separate the Transgender people from the LGBT as they are homosexuals who support banning and legislating against transgender people because they think it is wrong and don't want to use their political clout to advocate for them.

nkelsch wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Serious question. Have you actually met any gay men? Gay, white men?

Yes... I am part of a national men's music fraternity where I have met and made friends with a large array of men in the LGBT community and been to many of their events and in their community. The racial divide and bigotry is disgusting and very 'out there'.

It really has become a huge issue, and it is about people born with white male privilege for the first time being denied their birthright when they come out of the closet and not caring about those who grew up as minorities and LGBT. It also helps promote groups who can 'accept' some token members of the LGBT and then continue to actively work against them under the cloak of 'see? we support them!'.

There are real issues based upon race and bigotry within the Pride event world, so I am glad to see anything which tries to expose it to people.

Two of the major issues in DC are the "gayborhood" and "drop the T" movements. One is based around actively making 'white only' gay neighborhoods via redlining techniques and the other is looking to separate the Transgender people from the LGBT as they are homosexuals who support banning and legislating against transgender people because they think it is wrong and don't want to use their political clout to advocate for them.

"White male privilege"? Okay, sorry, but I'm out. Carry on with your agenda.

This is a whole world of controversy I had not heard about. interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36633951/two-proposals-and-other-pride-moments-to-make-us-feel-good

Here's how the UK handle these things, the police propose marriage to the marchers, and each other, and everyone has a great time. Though I'm sure we'll be back to hate and baton charges soon, it's all going that way.

 Darkjim wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36633951/two-proposals-and-other-pride-moments-to-make-us-feel-good

Here's how the UK handle these things, the police propose marriage to the marchers, and each other, and everyone has a great time. Though I'm sure we'll be back to hate, helmet and baton charges soon, it's all going that way.

Fixed

Parade Organizers probably went along with it to avoid a major backlash from (possible) BLM negative activity during the parade....

 Jihadin wrote:

 Darkjim wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36633951/two-proposals-and-other-pride-moments-to-make-us-feel-good

Here's how the UK handle these things, the police propose marriage to the marchers, and each other, and everyone has a great time. Though I'm sure we'll be back to hate, helmet and baton charges soon, it's all going that way.

Fixed

Parade Organizers probably went along with it to avoid a major backlash from (possible) BLM negative activity during the parade....

yup they probably did it as the least confrontational way to get the parade moving

 jreilly89 wrote:

Are you intentionally being ignorant? He had a problem with corrupt government, corrupt police, and religious leaders who refused to admit that racism existed. However, he vehemently argued white people were allies for justice, not the enemy.

Letter from a Birmingham Jail

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

I said "white moderates", which may not be every white person (for better or for worse, hah!), but there are still plenty of them around. He certainly believed that white people could be comrades in the struggle for justice but that would depend on them actually joining it.

 AlexHolker wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
The LGBT movement must remain fundamentally radical or it will splinter and fail.

You have a fundamentally broken understanding of what the LGBT movement is. If the LGBT movement splinters because it is no longer radical, it is because it has won.

A movement can lose unity and momentum long before it achieves victory. The worker's movement has seen far better days in the West and it sure hasn't won. The LGBT movement's existence as a movement was and is not automatic, it required and requires hard work.

 stanman wrote:
I'm confused, I thought BLM was a US thing? I wasn't aware that Toronto was a hotbed of racial tension and police brutality, the only thing I've ever thought Canada was suffering from were people being far too nice (and the occasional moose attack).

Can we come up with something other than the Bureau of Land Management, which is an unpopular organization in most Western US states already.......

Unless of course we are drawing parallels of disgust here?

 jreilly89 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Serious question. Have you actually met any gay men? Gay, white men?

Yes... I am part of a national men's music fraternity where I have met and made friends with a large array of men in the LGBT community and been to many of their events and in their community. The racial divide and bigotry is disgusting and very 'out there'.

It really has become a huge issue, and it is about people born with white male privilege for the first time being denied their birthright when they come out of the closet and not caring about those who grew up as minorities and LGBT. It also helps promote groups who can 'accept' some token members of the LGBT and then continue to actively work against them under the cloak of 'see? we support them!'.

There are real issues based upon race and bigotry within the Pride event world, so I am glad to see anything which tries to expose it to people.

Two of the major issues in DC are the "gayborhood" and "drop the T" movements. One is based around actively making 'white only' gay neighborhoods via redlining techniques and the other is looking to separate the Transgender people from the LGBT as they are homosexuals who support banning and legislating against transgender people because they think it is wrong and don't want to use their political clout to advocate for them.

"White male privilege"? Okay, sorry, but I'm out. Carry on with your agenda.

It's like he's completely glossing over the fact that two of the most homophobic ethnic groups in America are the Black and Latino communities. And that's not the fault of White gay men in any which way.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
The LGBT movement must remain fundamentally radical or it will splinter and fail.

You have a fundamentally broken understanding of what the LGBT movement is. If the LGBT movement splinters because it is no longer radical, it is because it has won.

A movement can lose unity and momentum long before it achieves victory. The worker's movement has seen far better days in the West and it sure hasn't won. The LGBT movement's existence as a movement was and is not automatic, it required and requires hard work.

But the LGBT movement is not the Workers' Movement. The goal of the LGBT movement is not to overthrow capitalism to make way for a Gay World Order, it is to assimilate into the existing society. Capitalism cannot co-opt that without giving them what they want.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
Part of getting what you want is diplomacy, and BLM hasn't understood this. All they're doing is creating more enemies instead of gathering more supporters.

There's no point to diplomacy when the other side does not want to talk to you no matter what and have nothing to gain from talking to you.

Bernie Sanders clearly has no care for Blacks and no desire to talk to them. That's why BLM chased him off the podium at his rally in Seattle.

Relapse wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
Part of getting what you want is diplomacy, and BLM hasn't understood this. All they're doing is creating more enemies instead of gathering more supporters.

There's no point to diplomacy when the other side does not want to talk to you no matter what and have nothing to gain from talking to you.

Bernie Sanders clearly has no care for Blacks and no desire to talk to them. That's why BLM chased him off the podium at his rally in Seattle.

The biggest thing we all have to gain is for them to get the hell out of traffic. Because making people annoyed and slowing people down does not win hearts.

 Frazzled wrote:
This is a whole world of controversy I had not heard about. interesting.

My closest friend is transgender, and previously I had not known of the antipathy that exists between the transgender community and the larger gay community. She says that they were thrown under the bus by the gay community, because it was thought that the public could accept gays easier than transgender people.

Relapse wrote:
Bernie Sanders clearly has no care for Blacks and no desire to talk to them. That's why BLM chased him off the podium at his rally in Seattle.

99% sure you're being sarcastic here right?

 AlexHolker wrote:

But the LGBT movement is not the Workers' Movement. The goal of the LGBT movement is not to overthrow capitalism to make way for a Gay World Order, it is to assimilate into the existing society. Capitalism cannot co-opt that without giving them what they want.

It isn't a very good movement that wants to fully integrate its members into an unjust society divided up along race, gender and class. Assimilating into the existing society isn't all that great if you're black, for example. Poor or mentally ill LGBT people wouldn't do well either. You don't actually care about all, say, gay men if you don't care that some are going to end up living in want and some are going to end up vastly more likely to be shot by police. Likewise you don't actually care about all LGBT people if you don't care that some will be mistreated as women, some will struggle with depression and some will be homeless. That isn't solidarity at all.

Capitalism absolutely can co-opt that by claiming to care about LGBT people but only actually accepting the demographics with the most purchasing power as long as they aren't too far from what straight people want them to be. Indeed, middle class white gay cismen can suppress their gayness to gain acceptance but as soon as they veer outside of that narrow range of accepted behaviour they become a target.

I saw BLM and thought "Bureau of Land Management"... I was very confused for about the first three posts of this thread.

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Bernie Sanders clearly has no care for Blacks and no desire to talk to them. That's why BLM chased him off the podium at his rally in Seattle.

99% sure you're being sarcastic here right?

Hope so, considering, ya know... the photos from the 1960s showing a spry young Bernard walking alongside the likes of MLK, and even being arrested alongside other Civil Rights marchers....


I think that the huge difference between BLM, and MLK (since he's been brought up) is that MLK was extremely clear in what he wanted, and had a very eloquent way of showing it. The BLM people just come off as uneducated, unclear on their goals, and generally portray themselves in such a way that they force the public into two camps: for and against.

Thinkgs getting tense in the cities...

A cop is reported shot and "not moving" in Dallas
EDIT:

DFW Scanner
‏@DFWscanner

Shots Fired (Dallas) Dallas PD reports shots fired at a large demonstration in downtown Dallas. Requesting EMS on a rush. AVOID THIS AREA.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Bernie Sanders clearly has no care for Blacks and no desire to talk to them. That's why BLM chased him off the podium at his rally in Seattle.

99% sure you're being sarcastic here right?

Hope so, considering, ya know... the photos from the 1960s showing a spry young Bernard walking alongside the likes of MLK, and even being arrested alongside other Civil Rights marchers....


I think that the huge difference between BLM, and MLK (since he's been brought up) is that MLK was extremely clear in what he wanted, and had a very eloquent way of showing it. The BLM people just come off as uneducated, unclear on their goals, and generally portray themselves in such a way that they force the public into two camps: for and against.

I think Bernie didn't engage them at all at that rally. Engaging as in discussing their issue. He made the smart move of not saying anything and walking away. IIRC

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Hope so, considering, ya know... the photos from the 1960s showing a spry young Bernard walking alongside the likes of MLK, and even being arrested alongside other Civil Rights marchers....

I'm sure Relapse can speak for himself but I am fairly certain he meant it ironically; that some BLM protests are so divisive they alienate natural allies.

OgreChubbs wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
Part of getting what you want is diplomacy, and BLM hasn't understood this. All they're doing is creating more enemies instead of gathering more supporters.

There's no point to diplomacy when the other side does not want to talk to you no matter what and have nothing to gain from talking to you.

Bernie Sanders clearly has no care for Blacks and no desire to talk to them. That's why BLM chased him off the podium at his rally in Seattle.

The biggest thing we all have to gain is for them to get the hell out of traffic. Because making people annoyed and slowing people down does not win hearts.

Finally someone else who understands.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
This is a whole world of controversy I had not heard about. interesting.

My closest friend is transgender, and previously I had not known of the antipathy that exists between the transgender community and the larger gay community. She says that they were thrown under the bus by the gay community, because it was thought that the public could accept gays easier than transgender people.

I'm uncertain what thrown under a bus means, but I will say there's this misconception that because LGBT is one word, we are one warm house full of people.
The thing we have in common is that we are all fighting for the same things - equality, protection, safety and acceptance.
There are gays who do not support Bi, Trans or other minorities. There are even feminist trans who do not support the wider group of trans.
It's a beautiful flag, but an ugly house.

This division is just a symptom that's reached the public eye.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
This is a whole world of controversy I had not heard about. interesting.

My closest friend is transgender, and previously I had not known of the antipathy that exists between the transgender community and the larger gay community. She says that they were thrown under the bus by the gay community, because it was thought that the public could accept gays easier than transgender people.

I'm uncertain what thrown under a bus means, but I will say there's this misconception that because LGBT is one word, we are one warm house full of people.
The thing we have in common is that we are all fighting for the same things - equality, protection, safety and acceptance.
There are gays who do not support Bi, Trans or other minorities. There are even feminist trans who do not support the wider group of trans.
It's a beautiful flag, but an ugly house.

This division is just a symptom that's reached the public eye.

I was unaware of a division as well. Granted I've only personally known a few gay individuals, and they were either white or latino. Interesting.

I've known of the division between gay and bi for a long time.

I think it's fething stupid.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I've known of the division between gay and bi for a long time.

I think it's fething stupid.

Hell, there was even division between gay men and lesbians in the past (don't know whether it is still there now).

OT but anybody interested in the political nature of the gay rights struggle in the UK should check out Pride. It's a great true story and has an amazing cast.

I had a discussion with a friend of mine who is one of the leaders of the LGBT movement in the state and specifically talked about how throwing everyone together would eventually be problematic. There are certain elements of crossover but in the end the issues transgender Americans are dealing with are not the same as gay Americans, or even bisexual ones. The longer it goes on the greater the gulf and its visibility become especially as one group gains acceptance but the other does not.

I was reminded of when the NAACP asked AIM (American Indian Movement) to join them back in the 60s and AIM said no because, while both minority groups, they had completely different problems.

 Frazzled wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
Part of getting what you want is diplomacy, and BLM hasn't understood this. All they're doing is creating more enemies instead of gathering more supporters.

There's no point to diplomacy when the other side does not want to talk to you no matter what and have nothing to gain from talking to you.

Bernie Sanders clearly has no care for Blacks and no desire to talk to them. That's why BLM chased him off the podium at his rally in Seattle.

The biggest thing we all have to gain is for them to get the hell out of traffic. Because making people annoyed and slowing people down does not win hearts.

Finally someone else who understands.

I have been friends with people like this who see disrupting traffic and other such protests(My school personally had on where they prevented people from entering the library.
The sentiment is weird, but from what I can gather is that
Because protests are about disrupting the peace, and that anger is good, that if you get angry and disrupt enough, people will finally see the problems.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I've known of the division between gay and bi for a long time.

I think it's fething stupid.

I have known a gay man who dislikes people who are Bi.
His reasoning was that because they are attracted to both, it just proves to people that you can just choose to be gay or not if you wish.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
This is a whole world of controversy I had not heard about. interesting.

My closest friend is transgender, and previously I had not known of the antipathy that exists between the transgender community and the larger gay community. She says that they were thrown under the bus by the gay community, because it was thought that the public could accept gays easier than transgender people.

I'm uncertain what thrown under a bus means, but I will say there's this misconception that because LGBT is one word, we are one warm house full of people.
The thing we have in common is that we are all fighting for the same things - equality, protection, safety and acceptance.
There are gays who do not support Bi, Trans or other minorities. There are even feminist trans who do not support the wider group of trans.
It's a beautiful flag, but an ugly house.

This division is just a symptom that's reached the public eye.

The only person to openly criticise me for being Bi was themselves Trans. It's apparently just a "cool" sexuality that people made up to fit in.

hotsauceman1 wrote:
I have known a gay man who dislikes people who are Bi.
His reasoning was that because they are attracted to both, it just proves to people that you can just choose to be gay or not if you wish.

Nothing stopping gay people from being absolutely idiotic.

Avatar 720 wrote:
The only person to openly criticise me for being Bi was themselves Trans. It's apparently just a "cool" sexuality that people made up to fit in.

Hey I criticise you for it too.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:
The only person to openly criticise me for being Bi was themselves Trans. It's apparently just a "cool" sexuality that people made up to fit in.

Hey I criticise you for it too.

I said 'person'.

 Ahtman wrote:
I had a discussion with a friend of mine who is one of the leaders of the LGBT movement in the state and specifically talked about how throwing everyone together would eventually be problematic. There are certain elements of crossover but in the end the issues transgender Americans are dealing with are not the same as gay Americans, or even bisexual ones. The longer it goes on the greater the gulf and its visibility become especially as one group gains acceptance but the other does not.

I was reminded of when the NAACP asked AIM (American Indian Movement) to join them back in the 60s and AIM said no because, while both minority groups, they had completely different problems.

While comparable, that's really where it stops.
There is a very muddied ground between LGBTQ, it's not a team sport where you can only be one of the things.

Why the hostility between subsegments?

 Ahtman wrote:
Was this protest before or after two more black men were killed by police recently?

It was after.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
This is a whole world of controversy I had not heard about. interesting.

My closest friend is transgender, and previously I had not known of the antipathy that exists between the transgender community and the larger gay community. She says that they were thrown under the bus by the gay community, because it was thought that the public could accept gays easier than transgender people.

Part of that has to do with changes within the gay subculture, specifically gay males. In the first part of the 20th century, gay men, if they were talked about at all, were universally viewed as "sissyboys" "nancys" "pussys" what have you. The image was of a limp-wristed, lisping, effeminate male.

There was a huge push away from this starting in the 70's with what was called "Castro culture". The big, muscle-bound, leather wearing, walrus mustache stereotype. It was a deliberate attempt to make male homosexuality more masculine. Suddenly every gay guy needed ripped abs and huge pecs.

Transgenderism, at least Male to Female, drudges up a lot of the negative stereotypes of gay men as weak, effeminate males, for a lot of gay men, something they wish to avoid.

The fact that transgenderism is quite different from homosexuality, but still overlap a lot on the old Venn diagram is why, to me at least, there is some animosity between the groups.

The situation could be similar amongst the lesbian population, but I only know 2, and they're so femme and hot that I don't think they worry about these things, or at least ever brought it up in passing.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why the hostility between subsegments?

Being LGBT does not mean you are a good or bad person, any more than being straight or cisgender.
So basically, donkey-caves exist in all walks of life, and use their opinions to hurt people.

In the case of gays vs bisexuals, it's often that they refuse to accept it is a valid sexuality. That there is no middle-ground of identity.

Gays vs trans, the same reasons other people dislike trans people, but with the added difficulty of "is a trans man who likes men gay or straight?" and "is a trans women who likes men gay or straight?" Etc etc until we run out of combinations of genders and sexualities.

Trans vs trans - not all trans people wish to physically transition to the same extent others do. Transition is very personal. Some believe if you ain't done it all, you're a .. Wishy washy trans person? Uncommitted.

There's also old gay and trans vs young gay and trans - youngsters do not have to deal with the pain that people over 50 lived through. "You don't know how good you have it." / "Don't complain about a 1 year waiting list for treatment, when I was your age there was no clinic." etc

Feminist LGBT vs trans - "FtM is a betrayal of your fellow women and a free pass into the patriarchy." MtF - you cannot be a true woman as you have not suffered as women do."

... I could go on all day, but it's much like Dakka or going to work; having one thing in common with people is not enough to mean you get along with them all.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why the hostility between subsegments?

A lot of it, at least of the sort mentioned in the past few posts, comes from the fact that "the LGBT movement" often really means "white middle-class gay people can have their long-term monogamous relationships recognized with the title 'marriage'", while people who don't fit this nice clean "we're just like you, except gay" image are pushed out of the picture. So, for example, trans issues are given the token T in the acronym, but often ignored when it comes to doing anything with any real substance to it. Or, as in the case of the BLM protest, poor LGBT people who are often the victims of police violence have their concerns ignored, while the police get to use the parade as a way to improve their public image.

Ok, so here's my crazy 2am ramblings (this seems to be the common time most of my ramblings happen).


The more and more I've been reading into the "great debates of our age" diversity stuff - partially spurred by being more involved in the Geek And Sundry community and partially influenced by it being an increasing aspect of my office's focus.

Anyway, my whole thought of this is, does so much of this stuff end up coming down to Gender, in the dictionary definition of the word, being a thing that society decides exists.

Would, for example, things be improved if society and legislation starts thinking of people as transsexual as opposed to transgender.

Transsexuality, is effectively just a biological wiring difference. Like some people are left handed, some people can roll their tongues, some peoples bodies display different physical characteristics than their mind expects.

Anything more than that, I'm left questioning, "isn't that just layers put on by society?"

 Compel wrote:
Anything more than that, I'm left questioning, "isn't that just layers put on by society?"

It is, but at the same time those layers are really significant. And a lot of the trouble transgender people get from society involves gender roles and presentation, not what a person has in their pants.

 Ouze wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Hope so, considering, ya know... the photos from the 1960s showing a spry young Bernard walking alongside the likes of MLK, and even being arrested alongside other Civil Rights marchers....

I'm sure Relapse can speak for himself but I am fairly certain he meant it ironically; that some BLM protests are so divisive they alienate natural allies.

You are correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
Part of getting what you want is diplomacy, and BLM hasn't understood this. All they're doing is creating more enemies instead of gathering more supporters.

There's no point to diplomacy when the other side does not want to talk to you no matter what and have nothing to gain from talking to you.

Bernie Sanders clearly has no care for Blacks and no desire to talk to them. That's why BLM chased him off the podium at his rally in Seattle.

The biggest thing we all have to gain is for them to get the hell out of traffic. Because making people annoyed and slowing people down does not win hearts.

Finally someone else who understands.

That is my biggest bitch about these people.

SemperMortis wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps I need to go to basic English comprehension school.

That, and stop trying to stir gak, which as a mod I find amusing.

What he said may have been wholly incorrect, but to then put words in his mouth is trashy. He said they're excessively racist, and as a group they discriminate. He did not say that they do so more than the aforementioned groups.

I've already said before when a poster said that BLM is as bad as KKK, that the poster was 100% incorrect.

Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself. Killkrazy if you would like to have words with me in private feel free to PM me, if you do not then please stop "trying to stir Gak" to quote MrDwhitey.

I would also like to agree that the KKK is worse then BLM, but given time they might become just as bad.

I am happy to have words in public.

Your claim that BLM is excessively racist is not supported by the evidence. Just look at pictures of their rallies and count the number of white people.

I am not trying to stir the gak. As a user when I disagree with someone's opinions I have a right to make a statement against it. I used sarcasm in this case because I found your particular statement to be silly and wished to poke fun at it.

I am glad that you agree the KKK is worse than BLM. I guess in time BLM might become just as bad, or maybe KKK and Aryan Nation will become a lot worse than they already are. Or maybe they will reform completely. It's pure speculation, and not much use when we are supposedly discussing a factual event of recent history.

Here is a long but very good legal opinion on the BLM and people's reaction to them, which points out reasons why BLM are not racist.

http://backspace.com/notes/2016/07/law-professors-response-to-black-lives-matter-shirt-complaint.php

 Kilkrazy wrote:


http://backspace.com/notes/2016/07/law-professors-response-to-black-lives-matter-shirt-complaint.php

This may be one of the greatest and most concise insights into education I've ever read.

Premise: You are not paying for my opinion.

Critique: You are not paying me to pretend I don’t have one.

By wearing the shirt any student who is not black can now argue any negative grade they receive is because of his bias. As a lawyer he should know that. but its ok because...reasons.

 Frazzled wrote:
By wearing the shirt any student who is not black can now argue any negative grade they receive is because of his bias. As a lawyer he should know that. but its ok because...reasons.

They could argue it. I doubt they could argue it any more successfully than the countless other times "clever" students have tried to claim bias when they got bad grades.

I can understand BLM protest especially now, but some of their locations are questionable at best, like why a protest in Dallas? which is very progressive and then this recent rally at Taste of Chicago:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-police-protests-0710-20160709-story.html# which to my understanding is a very diverse event, so why have a protest there along with a die in? are they even having protests in the cities where the latest individuals were shot?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
By wearing the shirt any student who is not black can now argue any negative grade they receive is because of his bias. As a lawyer he should know that. but its ok because...reasons.

They could argue it.

To who? Surely a disciplinary board would conclude in the first five minutes that no code of conduct was breached and the dismiss the sore loser. And then dismiss all following similar complaints.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
To who? Surely a disciplinary board would conclude in the first five minutes that no code of conduct was breached and the dismiss the sore loser. And then dismiss all following similar complaints.

Yes, that's why the second sentence in my post (the one you cut out) says that such an argument wouldn't go any better than any of the countless similar ones tried by "clever" students in the past.

Asterios wrote:
I can understand BLM protest especially now, but some of their locations are questionable at best, like why a protest in Dallas? which is very progressive and then this recent rally at Taste of Chicago:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-police-protests-0710-20160709-story.html# which to my understanding is a very diverse event, so why have a protest there along with a die in? are they even having protests in the cities where the latest individuals were shot?

Do you expect the protestors to fly to distant locations just to satisfy some arbitrary requirements that they protest in locations with the most violent cops? You do understand that not everyone can afford to leave their job for a few days and blow several hundred dollars for the trip. Or are only middle class people allowed to protest police violence that happens against largely disadvantaged citizens?

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Asterios wrote:
I can understand BLM protest especially now, but some of their locations are questionable at best, like why a protest in Dallas? which is very progressive and then this recent rally at Taste of Chicago:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-police-protests-0710-20160709-story.html# which to my understanding is a very diverse event, so why have a protest there along with a die in? are they even having protests in the cities where the latest individuals were shot?

Do you expect the protestors to fly to distant locations just to satisfy some arbitrary requirements that they protest in locations with the most violent cops? You do understand that not everyone can afford to leave their job for a few days and blow several hundred dollars for the trip. Or are only middle class people allowed to protest police violence that happens against largely disadvantaged citizens?

no its about why protest where there is no problem? in fact all the protest in Dallas did was manage to get several officers killed and/or wounded, and it was for a protest in a place that did not have issues, so why? if you want to protest change you do it where the problems exist, put it this way if your arm is cut should I put a bandage on your leg to prevent the bleeding?

also Dallas to Lousiana is less then 400 miles, thats only a few hours drive.

Asterios wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Asterios wrote:
I can understand BLM protest especially now, but some of their locations are questionable at best, like why a protest in Dallas? which is very progressive and then this recent rally at Taste of Chicago:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-police-protests-0710-20160709-story.html# which to my understanding is a very diverse event, so why have a protest there along with a die in? are they even having protests in the cities where the latest individuals were shot?

Do you expect the protestors to fly to distant locations just to satisfy some arbitrary requirements that they protest in locations with the most violent cops? You do understand that not everyone can afford to leave their job for a few days and blow several hundred dollars for the trip. Or are only middle class people allowed to protest police violence that happens against largely disadvantaged citizens?

no its about why protest where there is no problem? in fact all the protest in Dallas did was manage to get several officers killed and/or wounded, and it was for a protest in a place that did not have issues, so why? if you want to protest change you do it where the problems exist, put it this way if your arm is cut should I put a bandage on your leg to prevent the bleeding?

Because there is a problem. Just because the Dallas cops are better than the national standard doesn't make those deaths go away. I mean, to extrapolate on your example if you were riddled with lacerations would it be right for the doctor to tell you to stop complaining because he put a band-aid on just one of them?

And frankly, this dismissive attitude towards the BLM movement is exactly the problem in America. People dismiss the grievances of the black community jut because some minor progress was made somewhere, they don't satisfy the public desire in some way or some kind of fringe violence was associated with it.

Asterios wrote:
no its about why protest where there is no problem?

Because that's where people are. I suspect that a lot of those protestors were local residents, not some weird BLM army that descends upon a target location and ruins everything.

also Dallas to Lousiana is less then 400 miles, thats only a few hours drive.

You do realize that this a significant and expensive trip unless you're pretty well off, right?

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
no its about why protest where there is no problem?

Because that's where people are. I suspect that a lot of those protestors were local residents, not some weird BLM army that descends upon a target location and ruins everything.

also Dallas to Lousiana is less then 400 miles, thats only a few hours drive.

You do realize that this a significant and expensive trip unless you're pretty well off, right?

not really I used to do that kind of trip several times a week when working, but then again I was in the same state doing it and i'm not rich, but if it was something I believed in 400 miles is nothing.

All I know is protesting in such an area is redundant when nothing is wrong there, it shows the wrong thing and ended up costing several good cops their lives.

Asterios wrote:
not really I used to do that kind of trip several times a week when working, but then again I was in the same state doing it and i'm not rich, but if it was something I believed in 400 miles is nothing.

Yeah, I don't really know what to say here. A 400 mile trip would be a big deal for me and anyone I know, and none of us are poor. If you think people should just do that to go protest because it's such a small trip then you're really not understanding things.

All I know is protesting in such an area is redundant when nothing is wrong there

It still gets media attention, and attention for people who do live in places where there are more serious problems. That's the wonderful thing about how connected the world is in 2016, events in one place can be broadcast all over the country and people can participate in the discussion no matter where they live.

and ended up costing several good cops their lives.

The protest did not cost cops their lives. A murderer cost cops their lives. Without the protest the murderer probably would have just picked another event with a heavy police presence to murder people.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
not really I used to do that kind of trip several times a week when working, but then again I was in the same state doing it and i'm not rich, but if it was something I believed in 400 miles is nothing.

Yeah, I don't really know what to say here. A 400 mile trip would be a big deal for me and anyone I know, and none of us are poor. If you think people should just do that to go protest because it's such a small trip then you're really not understanding things.

if you believed in the reason its not that far.

 Peregrine wrote:

All I know is protesting in such an area is redundant when nothing is wrong there

It still gets media attention, and attention for people who do live in places where there are more serious problems.

and it would have brought negative attention on a city trying to do good, but in this case it hurt the BLM movement more then anything.

 Peregrine wrote:

and ended up costing several good cops their lives.

The protest did not cost cops their lives. A murderer cost cops their lives. Without the protest the murderer probably would have just picked another event with a heavy police presence to murder people.

we do not know that, or can you see the future? problem with events and protests like this it brings out the radicals. look what happened to Fergusen, something that should never have happened and yet several people and businesses were destroyed because of lies believed on social media.

Dallas was a utobia for police relations in the minority community, but even though there were no problem a thousand people decide to march just so that somebody could shoot the cops that they didn't have a problem with because race relations are fine in Dallas.

I'm glad we got that straightened out.

 d-usa wrote:
Dallas was a utobia for police relations in the minority community, but even though there were no problem a thousand people decide to march just so that somebody could shoot the cops that they didn't have a problem with because race relations are fine in Dallas.

I'm glad we got that straightened out.

Gosh, those unreasonable BLM protestors. How dare they be so ungrateful that the cops in one city won't immediately shoot their young men for acting funny?

Asterios wrote:
if you believed in the reason its not that far.

Belief in the reason doesn't magically make money for gas/hotel rooms/etc appear in your bank account.

and it would have brought negative attention on a city trying to do good, but in this case it hurt the BLM movement more then anything.

It "hurt the BLM movement" because a murderer decided to murder some people. Unless you're going to claim that the BLM leaders knew that someone was going to murder people at their protest then I don't think you can blame this one on them.

we do not know that, or can you see the future? problem with events and protests like this it brings out the radicals. look what happened to Fergusen, something that should never have happened and yet several people and businesses were destroyed because of lies believed on social media.

No, of course I can't prove beyond any doubt that he would have shot people somewhere else. But if someone is at the point of deciding to get a gun and start shooting as many cops as they can before dying then it's probably a safe bet that they're going to find an opportunity to shoot at cops. Stop blaming BLM for having a legitimate protest just because someone else took advantage of it.

 Peregrine wrote:

It "hurt the BLM movement" because a murderer decided to murder some people. Unless you're going to claim that the BLM leaders knew that someone was going to murder people at their protest then I don't think you can blame this one on them..

no I doubt the BLM movement even knew about the guy, and while I don't agree with the BLM movement since I believe all lives matter and not just Black lives, and yeah I heard that there is no invisible "only" in front of it, but if that was the case why not just say all lives matter? but I digress, the animosity such protests bring about by some only provokes them to do more damage, the BLM movement while many trying to keep it peaceful and civil has been marred by radicals in the group who want to hurt and destroy, so yes, because of that protest it brought out anger in that sniper to the point he wanted to kill people and white people at that. to think otherwise is a fools errand.

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

It "hurt the BLM movement" because a murderer decided to murder some people. Unless you're going to claim that the BLM leaders knew that someone was going to murder people at their protest then I don't think you can blame this one on them..

no I doubt the BLM movement even knew about the guy, and while I don't agree with the BLM movement since I believe all lives matter and not just Black lives, and yeah I heard that there is no invisible "only" in front of it, but if that was the case why not just say all lives matter?

Because all evidence points to the fact that to American society black lives don't matter? I mean, since when were whites disproportionately the victims of systematic persecution including police brutality?

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

It "hurt the BLM movement" because a murderer decided to murder some people. Unless you're going to claim that the BLM leaders knew that someone was going to murder people at their protest then I don't think you can blame this one on them..

no I doubt the BLM movement even knew about the guy, and while I don't agree with the BLM movement since I believe all lives matter and not just Black lives, and yeah I heard that there is no invisible "only" in front of it, but if that was the case why not just say all lives matter?

Because all evidence points to the fact that to American society black lives don't matter? I mean, since when were whites disproportionately the victims of systematic persecution including police brutality?

the Dallas shooting.

Asterios wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

It "hurt the BLM movement" because a murderer decided to murder some people. Unless you're going to claim that the BLM leaders knew that someone was going to murder people at their protest then I don't think you can blame this one on them..

no I doubt the BLM movement even knew about the guy, and while I don't agree with the BLM movement since I believe all lives matter and not just Black lives, and yeah I heard that there is no invisible "only" in front of it, but if that was the case why not just say all lives matter?

Because all evidence points to the fact that to American society black lives don't matter? I mean, since when were whites disproportionately the victims of systematic persecution including police brutality?

the Dallas shooting.

You mean the national tragedy? That's your counter-point? I mean, using that same logic I could argue that skyscrapers are incredibly unsafe to live in because of 9/11.

Asterios wrote:
but if that was the case why not just say all lives matter?

Because we're talking about an issue that disproportionately affects black people. To borrow an analogy from a friend, if someone is standing on my foot and I say "get off my foot" replying with "get off all feet" doesn't make any sense. It's my foot that someone is standing on, and you're just ignoring the practical problem in favor of some theoretical point.

the animosity such protests bring about by some only provokes them to do more damage

IOW, "STOP COMPLAINING OR DEMANDING CHANGE, BE CONTENT WITH EVERYTHING THE WAY IT IS NOW OR WE'LL BLAME YOU FOR MAKING PEOPLE ANGRY". I think it should be obvious why this is a bad thing to say.

the BLM movement while many trying to keep it peaceful and civil has been marred by radicals in the group who want to hurt and destroy,

So, BLM is peaceful and civil except for some people taking advantage of the group, but it's still all BLM's fault. Do you apply a similar chain of reasoning to the republican party and their responsibility for angry white guys with AR-15s? I don't think you do.

so yes, because of that protest it brought out anger in that sniper to the point he wanted to kill people and white people at that. to think otherwise is a fools errand.

Yes, clearly it was that particular protest that did it. He was a peaceful law-abiding citizen with no intent to murder until that horrible day, when BLM told him that the police are bad. And so, without a moment of hesitation, he grabbed his rifle and started shooting. This is clearly the most plausible explanation for what happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
the Dallas shooting.

Do you understand what "systematic" means?

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
but if that was the case why not just say all lives matter?

Because we're talking about an issue that disproportionately affects black people. To borrow an analogy from a friend, if someone is standing on my foot and I say "get off my foot" replying with "get off all feet" doesn't make any sense. It's my foot that someone is standing on, and you're just ignoring the practical problem in favor of some theoretical point.

so you are saying the police are not killing any other race?

 Peregrine wrote:

the animosity such protests bring about by some only provokes them to do more damage

IOW, "STOP COMPLAINING OR DEMANDING CHANGE, BE CONTENT WITH EVERYTHING THE WAY IT IS NOW OR WE'LL BLAME YOU FOR MAKING PEOPLE ANGRY". I think it should be obvious why this is a bad thing to say.

or try demanding change where it is needed not where it is not.

 Peregrine wrote:

the BLM movement while many trying to keep it peaceful and civil has been marred by radicals in the group who want to hurt and destroy,

So, BLM is peaceful and civil except for some people taking advantage of the group, but it's still all BLM's fault. Do you apply a similar chain of reasoning to the republican party and their responsibility for angry white guys with AR-15s? I don't think you do.

was the Republican party and or the NRA having protests where such things occured? no, has the BLM? yes on several occasions.

 Peregrine wrote:

so yes, because of that protest it brought out anger in that sniper to the point he wanted to kill people and white people at that. to think otherwise is a fools errand.

Yes, clearly it was that particular protest that did it. He was a peaceful law-abiding citizen with no intent to murder until that horrible day, when BLM told him that the police are bad. And so, without a moment of hesitation, he grabbed his rifle and started shooting. This is clearly the most plausible explanation for what happened.

Did the sniper have a record? had he done anything before this? had he shown any indication of doing something like this before the Protest? think the answers are all no, so the common denominator is?

 Peregrine wrote:


Do you understand what "systematic" means?

well lets see how many Black people have shot cops lately? would you call that systematic?

Asterios wrote:


so you are saying the police are not killing any other race?

Disproportionately=/=exclusively. More black people are killed in proportion to their overall population than whites by a significant margin by the police.

or try demanding change where it is needed not where it is not.

I wasn't aware Dallas was a sovereign, isolated island with no means of communications with the outside world. What an interesting development!

Did the sniper have a record? had he done anything before this? had he shown any indication of doing something like this before the Protest? think the answers are all no, so the common denominator is?

Not all spree-killers were repeat offenders. You should know this by now since you seem to frequent the OT thread which features a lot of threads about mass shootings.

well lets see how many Black people have shot cops lately? would you call that systematic?

Do you understand that there is no system by which black people shoot cops?

Asterios wrote:
so you are saying the police are not killing any other race?

Thank you for this demonstration of what a straw man fallacy is.

or try demanding change where it is needed not where it is not.

Aaaand now we're back to where we started, as if I never said any of that stuff about how people protest where they live even when they're talking about national-interest events.

was the Republican party and or the NRA having protests where such things occured? no, has the BLM? yes on several occasions.

Why does it matter if BLM was having the protest? The murderer was not part of BLM and certainly was not invited to be there by BLM. By your "BLM made him angry" argument conservatives have responsibility for those angry white guys with AR-15s threatening violence against the government.

Did the sniper have a record? had he done anything before this? had he shown any indication of doing something like this before the Protest? think the answers are all no, so the common denominator is?

...

Do you actually believe that, because of one protest, he went from being a peaceful law-abiding citizen with no intent to hurt anyone to mass murder-suicide? That he just woke up one day and said "you know, this BLM protest is right, I'm going to go die murdering as many cops as I can"? This is such utter lunacy that I don't even know what to say if you really believe that it's true.

well lets see how many Black people have shot cops lately? would you call that systematic?

I don't know, how many? You seem to believe that it's a significant number, and I'm sure you have facts to back up your belief. I'm sure you're reasonable enough not to believe random stuff without any evidence, so it must be there.

This thread is done, without civil discussion there's no need to keep it open. If you are finding yourself unable to ignore a certain user you're better off just putting their posts on ignore and discussing the topic with people who don't get threads locked