Gay Bashers, Gays Bashing

[Kulindahr]

Yes, justdra, love the Southern sayings lol

Thanks Jayqueer for your comments and I'm a little south of Birmingham, so pretty close to where you are talking about. It's true, pretty much anywhere in the state you have to be discreet if you want to go anywhere in your career and such. Atlanta is proabably the only place in the Deep South where people truly don't care, probably because most of them aren't native Georgians lol.

Thanks Kulindahr for your comments, I'm glad you see where I am coming from.

I'm not suggesting we be push overs, but I'm not suggesting we act like a bunch of barbarians like they do. I truly believe if a majority of gays have and display a "fuck you" attitude we'll never move forward. There's plenty of reasons for us to be bitter, but we've got to be better if we want to win over the average American. I'm not suggesting we bow down to John Boehner or any other Republican, but we must simply show everyday Americans that we are everyday Americans too, while maintaining our own culture, and they will vote accordingly. I'm Southern and while I have a distinctly Southern culture, a casual observer would merely see me as an average American. Hope this all makes sense.

Yes. Gandhi won by getting people to be more civilized than their opposition. He even inspired people to engage in protests where they knew they would be attacked and beaten -- and not to fight back. They demonstrated not only that the British Raj was unfit to be in charge of the country, but that Indians could do a better job, because they had learned everything of the best of British culture -- and set aside the rest.

 

[BostonPirate]

Who said anything about not speaking out?

From the OP

I guess what I advocate is more of a non-violent, non-hate approach to equality. I believe we should clearly assert our goals and actively find ways to attain equal rights, but I don't believe we will do it by being haters like some Republicans are.

are you now qoing to try to say this isn't about speech? is it the gay pride parades that has the OP disturbed or perhaps its what?

Barney frank?

Gay porn dialogue?

what?

Throw glitter at people?

what is it that you are now trying to twist around to justify arguing for limiting gay peoples speech from within as a means of attracting a mainstream audience, cause I have to tell you... from what I've read, there are now more americans who don't really have a problem with gay people than HAVE a problem with us.

so what is it exactly that you are saying the OP meant?

once again

enlighten me

 

[BostonPirate]

Yes. Gandhi won by getting people to be more civilized than their opposition. He even inspired people to engage in protests where they knew they would be attacked and beaten -- and not to fight back. They demonstrated not only that the British Raj was unfit to be in charge of the country, but that Indians could do a better job, because they had learned everything of the best of British culture -- and set aside the rest.

hmmm.....

Thinking over these things deeply and sleeping over them night after night, it is impossible for me to dissociate myself from the diabolical crimes of Chauri Chaura or the mad outrages of Bombay. He is quite right when he says, that as a man of responsibility, a man having received a fair share of education, having had a fair share of experience of this world, I should have known the consequences of every one of my acts. I know them. I knew that I was playing with fire. I ran the risk and if I was set free I would still do the same. I have felt it this morning that I would have failed in my duty, if I did not say what I said here just now.

I wanted to avoid violence. Non-violence is the first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed. But I had to make my choice. I had either to submit to a system which I considered had done an irreparable harm to my country, or incur the risk of the mad fury of my people bursting forth when they understood the truth from my lips. I know that my people have sometimes gone mad. I am deeply sorry for it and I am, therefore, here to submit not to a light penalty but to the highest penalty. I do not ask for mercy. I do not plead any extending act. I am here, therefore, to invite and cheerfully submit to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen. The only course open to you, the Judge, is, as I am going to say in my statement, either to resign your post, or inflict on me the severest penalty if you believe that the system and law you are assisting to administer are good for the people.

Mohandas Gandhi

where do you get this mythological idea from that Gandhi was entirely non violent???

he used that to bait the brittish into imprisoning him, shich he knew would cause riots.

 

[TX-Beau]

Gandhi won because he convinced hundreds of millions of Indians to stop cooperating with a hundred thousand Englishmen. Gandhi already had the vast majority on his side. It had nothing to do with being polite, nor was he polite. I know there's this fad out there to consider him a pacifist, but that is simply not the truth.

At every turn he provoked them, and there was plenty of violence. Some on their side, some on the side of the British. What non-violence effectively did was keep the situation from spinning wildly out of control and it cast the British in the role of tyrants. I don't think I ever heard of him saying that they should be nice to the British so other Englishmen would vote for them.

Anyway, that was a completely different situation and context. As much as I would love to drive the Republicans into the sea, that's not the goal here and never was.


I actually joined this forum because in 2008 during the election all these "be nice to Republicans 'cause deep down they're your friends," topics kept showing up.


So, I'll say now what I said then, Bully for you Republican for condescending to admit we're not child rapers and abominations. Thank you very much - see how polite I can be - and know that I exactly comprehend how much your principles mean to you as you march to your respective polls and happily try to vote my rights away.

Thank you for your kindness, your respect, and your hypocrisy.

That's all, nothing else.


To all you Pub-loving faggots out there, show me a voting record that expresses all that Republican friendliness to us queers, and I'll be as nice as peaches.

I dare you. Find me a Republican who doesn't vote for the haters and vote with the haters because they love us so much.


Plus, y'all are fooling yourselves if you think that being nice to Republicans is going to swing independent votes. Most people who are not gay simply do not have enough stake in our causes to make it a big issue in the decisions they make. It's why you have to be loud to get anywhere, if you're not, they forget you exist. They don't really care how nice you are, they care about economies and health care and other things that eclipse us because that's what's real to them. Don't ever forget that.

Being nice to Independants now, that might help.

 

[TX-Beau]

Back in 2000 (or maybe 2004 - I don't remember exactly) When Junior was ramping up his "Compassionate Conservative," campaign, all the Cabbies in Austin were running around town creaming in their panties about how inclusive it was all going to be, and just look, the word compassionate, all over the campaign materials and isn't it wonderful - and to be fair, I don't think Junior is actually a rabid homophobe, but then his campaign found the Cabbie donation, they sent it back immediately.

It sends a pretty big signal when a Republican won't even take your money.

 

[Kulindahr]

From the OP


are you now qoing to try to say this isn't about speech? is it the gay pride parades that has the OP disturbed or perhaps its what?

Again: who said anything about not speaking out?

He's saying don't be vile and hateful. That doesn't mean shut up.

 

[BostonPirate]

Not interested in censoring the gay community from within when we already get told to sit down, act right and shut up by altogether too many people.

You have fun with that, and I will remember that the next time you go on about the right to free speech....lol

You are not being consistent.

 

[Kulindahr]

where do you get this mythological idea from that Gandhi was entirely non violent???

he used that to bait the brittish into imprisoning him, shich he knew would cause riots.

And he regretted it causing riots -- he told the people that was wrong.

Gandhi won because he convinced hundreds of millions of Indians to stop cooperating with a hundred thousand Englishmen. Gandhi already had the vast majority on his side. It had nothing to do with being polite, nor was he polite. I know there's this fad out there to consider him a pacifist, but that is simply not the truth.

At every turn he provoked them, and there was plenty of violence. Some on their side, some on the side of the British. What non-violence effectively did was keep the situation from spinning wildly out of control and it cast the British in the role of tyrants. I don't think I ever heard of him saying that they should be nice to the British so other Englishmen would vote for them.

Anyway, that was a completely different situation and context. As much as I would love to drive the Republicans into the sea, that's not the goal here and never was.

He had the majority of Englishmen on his side? He had the majority of the British government on his side?

He provoked them very carefully and strategically, not randomly. Each provocation was designed to make very, very plain an immoral aspect of the British Raj. And he won because British opinion was changed -- not Indian opinion.

I actually joined this forum because in 2008 during the election all these "be nice to Republicans 'cause deep down they're your friends," topics kept showing up.

I haven't seen any for a while -- and this definitely isn't one.

The point of being nice to the enemy is to show that he's a barbarian and you're not. As with Gandhi, the audience isn't those already on our side, and not those adamantly opposed to us, it's the people who can be persuaded.

And if those people consistently seeing gays being polite and respectful and just good people, they'll contrast that with the ReligioPublicans and their strident shrieking, and conclude that the elephangelical claims of our being a danger to the whole of society is not only untrue, but likely the reverse of the case.

You and others are thinking about the wrong audience/target. The idea is to be polite to ReligioPublicans precisely because they're the enemy, precisely because they'll keep acting like narrow-minded reprobates. And the contrast between them and us will bring independents to our side, if for no other reason than to make the elephangelicals shut up.

 

[BostonPirate]

Gandhi would never have been successful if he hadn't baited the brittish into violence and he readily admitted that he wanted that.

He was just the flip side of the coin, but he owned his culpability and admitted he had no regrets for it.

its right there in his own words.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not interested in censoring the gay community from within when we already get told to sit down, act right and shut up by altogether too many people.

You have fun with that, and I will remember that the next time you go on about the right to free speech....lol

You are not being consistent.

So you think self-discipline is inconsistent with free speech.

Interesting.


And where has anyone proposed "sit down, act right, and shut up"? "Act right", maybe -- because it's more effective.

 

[Kulindahr]

Gandhi would never have been successful if he hadn't baited the brittish into violence and he readily admitted that he wanted that.

He was just the flip side of the coin, but he owned his culpability and admitted he had no regrets for it.

its right there in his own words.

He baited THEM into violence.

And he did so very politely, with calm dignity. He didn't taunt or insult or vandalize.

And that's the OP's point: we should be doing things that way. If Gandhi had done those things, he would have been just another malcontent, and when we do those things, we're just another batch of complainers. Act the way he did, and the middle of America will see the tables flipped, so to speak: the ReligioPublicans will be revealed as what they claim we are -- undisciplined, uncivilized, and dangerous to society.

 

[BostonPirate]

You are back pedaling buddy.

I am responsible for every action I take. YOU and the OP however are NOT responsible for MY actions.

I do not think its appropriate to infer that we need to coddle the people that seek to harm us to get a better result from them, OR do I think it serves anyone to try to "pass" as straight to make them comfy.

 

[Kulindahr]

You are back pedaling buddy.

I am responsible for every action I take. YOU and the OP however are NOT responsible for MY actions.

I do not think its appropriate to infer that we need to coddle the people that seek to harm us to get a better result from them, OR do I think it serves anyone to try to "pass" as straight to make them comfy.

So you're saying that Gandhi "coddled" the British. That's an interesting perspective.

From your position, you should be telling everyone to shut up when they criticize the talibangelicals for hateful behavior -- after all, it's just free speech.

 

[TX-Beau]

He had the majority of Englishmen on his side? He had the majority of the British government on his side?

Last time I checked this took place actually in India. Where he had the vast majority already on his side.

He provoked them very carefully and strategically, not randomly. Each provocation was designed to make very, very plain an immoral aspect of the British Raj. And he won because British opinion was changed -- not Indian opinion.

Not once was he overly concerned with the opinions of the British. I'm sure he was happy to take any goodwill that came his way, but the British DID NOT give India it's freedom because they saw how horrible they were. He won because he demonstrated to the British government the futility of trying to govern a country where they were massively outnumbered and the natives weren't going to cooperate.

And ANYWAY this is a completely different situation and context.

The point of being nice to the enemy is to show that he's a barbarian and you're not. As with Gandhi, the audience isn't those already on our side, and not those adamantly opposed to us, it's the people who can be persuaded.

And if those people consistently seeing gays being polite and respectful and just good people, they'll contrast that with the ReligioPublicans and their strident shrieking, and conclude that the elephangelical claims of our being a danger to the whole of society is not only untrue, but likely the reverse of the case.

You and others are thinking about the wrong audience/target. The idea is to be polite to ReligioPublicans precisely because they're the enemy, precisely because they'll keep acting like narrow-minded reprobates. And the contrast between them and us will bring independents to our side, if for no other reason than to make the elephangelicals shut up.

There's a huge difference between being civil, and being nice or polite, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean civil. There's also a difference between civil disobedience and being a barbarian, and most people are capable of seeing the difference.

Everyone knows what the right has to say about us. They already know we're going to protest - and while I agree that tossing Molotov cocktails and assassination attempts are not helpful, demonstration and confrontation, challenging the lies out there is what has got us this far. NOT being civil to anyone.

No one will stand up for us no matter how nice we are to them, and no one changed their mind because we were nice to haters either. That's just the way it went. We changed opinions by demanding to be heard - and it was the fairness of the cause, and the refusal to hide that changed minds, not civility, or niceness or any of their cousins.

 

[Kulindahr]

Last time I checked this took place actually in India. Where he had the vast majority already on his side.
[/QHUOTE]

So your argument is that he was trying to convince the people who were already on his side?

The people of India were irrelevant -- he was trying to convince the British.

Not once was he concerned with the opinions of the British. I'm sure he was happy to take any goodwill that came his way, but the British DID NOT give India it's freedom because they saw how horrible they were. He won because he demonstrated to the British government the futility of trying to govern a country where they were massively outnumbered and the natives weren't going to cooperate.

LOL

You say he wasn't concerned with the opinions of the British, but then say he won because of the opinions of the British.

He convinced the British -- it was their opinions which counted. And he convinced the government because he convinced the British public. Having lived elsewhere in the British Empire, he knew the people in Britain itself were reading about it all, and that their MPs would be listening to their reactions.

There's a huge difference between being civil, and being nice or polite, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean civil. There's also a difference between civil disobedience and being a barbarian, and most people are capable of seeing the difference.

Polite and civil are the same thing. "Nice"... well, my comment on "nice" is always the movie Road House.

Thanks for making my point with your last line.

Everyone knows what the right has to say about us. They already know we're going to protest - and while I agree that tossing Molotov cocktails and assassination attempts are not helpful, demonstration and confrontation, challenging the lies out there is what has got us this far. NOT being civil to anyone.

Challenging lies can be done quite civilly, and confrontation can be done quite civilly, just as Gandhi disobeyed British law quite civilly. The point is to show THEM as not civil, and make the contrast stark.

No one will stand up for us no matter how nice we are to them, and no one changed their mind because we were nice to haters either. That's just the way it went. We changed opinions by demanding to be heard - and it was the fairness of the cause, and the refusal to hide that changed minds, not civility, or niceness or any of their cousins.

I've been involved in several situations where being polite and nice was what carried the day, because it showed the other side as ridiculous in their assertions -- I related one of those.

And I've met people who believe what the elephangelicals say about us because some of us keep acting like barbarians. All that does is hurt us. This is a phase of the game where the people who will be convinced by "the fairness of the cause" have been convinced, and the battle is over those who want to see that we're worthy of their support, that we're better than our accusers.

 

[TX-Beau]

So your argument is that he was trying to convince the people who were already on his side?

The people of India were irrelevant -- he was trying to convince the British.

No he wasn't. So it's your argument that the people of India were irrelevant in the struggle for their own freedom and the British just decided to leave because Ganhdi said please?

To quote:

LOL

You say he wasn't concerned with the opinions of the British, but then say he won because of the opinions of the British.

Even you are capable of differentiating between the British GOVERNMENT, and the British people, but since we both know you just said that to deliberately obfuscate we'll just let it go.

He convinced the British -- it was their opinions which counted. And he convinced the government because he convinced the British public. Having lived elsewhere in the British Empire, he knew the people in Britain itself were reading about it all, and that their MPs would be listening to their reactions.

Frankly I'm beginning to think that you have some kind of weird anti-India bias. Or are you just pursuing this ridiculousness from some obsessive need to be right?

Challenging lies can be done quite civilly, and confrontation can be done quite civilly, just as Gandhi disobeyed British law quite civilly. The point is to show THEM as not civil, and make the contrast stark.

I've been involved in several situations where being polite and nice was what carried the day, because it showed the other side as ridiculous in their assertions -- I related one of those.

And I've met people who believe what the elephangelicals say about us because some of us keep acting like barbarians. All that does is hurt us. This is a phase of the game where the people who will be convinced by "the fairness of the cause" have been convinced, and the battle is over those who want to see that we're worthy of their support, that we're better than our accusers.

Make nice all you want. People already know haters are haters and don't need us to point it out.

I suspect what you actually want with all of this is conformity from us, so we don't offend the sensibilities of straight people.

I don't trust your anecdotes, they always seem ...... tailored.

But anyway, we're straying from the point, and your arguments that the Indians we're inconsequential in their own freedom is tedious and I suspect not a little bit racist, so, argue away. I'm done for now.

 

[Kulindahr]

No he wasn't. So it's your argument that the people of India were irrelevant in the struggle for their own freedom and the British just decided to leave because Ganhdi said please?

So you do think he won because he convinced the Indian people. Make up your mind, because before you reconginzied that he won because he convinced the British.

Even you are capable of differentiating between the British GOVERNMENT, and the British people, but since we both know you just said that to deliberately obfuscate we'll just let it go.

I did. Try reading.

Frankly I'm beginning to think that you have some kind of weird anti-India bias. Or are you just pursuing this ridiculousness from some obsessive need to be right?

I'm trying to get you to see the point. You can't figure out who we should be trying to convince, who the OP means we should convince, what decent behavior is and why it wins more supporters than rude behavior, and more.

Make nice all you want. People already know haters are haters and don't need us to point it out.

And there are people who think gays are haters, because of bad behavior. You're arguing that's okay.

I suspect what you actually want with all of this is conformity from us, so we don't offend the sensibilities of straight people.

Where did I say that?

The whole point is to provoke the bigots, to offend their sensibilities -- politely, respectfully. That way independents will see we are the better party. I don't care if anyone conforms -- just that we all act civilized.

But anyway, we're straying from the point, and your arguments that the Indians we're inconsequential in their own freedom is tedious and I suspect not a little bit racist, so, argue away. I'm done for now.

Making stuff up doesn't help your position -- I never said that.

But you aren't seeing the OP's point, so it doesn't surprise me that you misrepresent what I'm saying, either.

 

[BostonPirate]

kuli

I think you may benefit from rereading your posts as if they were someone elses.

This idea that people need to be censored or censor themselves to make OTHERS feel better, and that the gay police need to keep us all acting right so as not to scare the straight people is kind of nutty, to be honest.

its entirely out of character.

 

[bankside]

The thing is, some of us live in places where even so-called moderate republicans wouldn't have a leg to stand on. It's a little difficult to take seriously.

 

[Kulindahr]

kuli

I think you may benefit from rereading your posts as if they were someone elses.

This idea that people need to be censored or censor themselves to make OTHERS feel better, and that the gay police need to keep us all acting right so as not to scare the straight people is kind of nutty, to be honest.

its entirely out of character.

It's called "persuasion".

Gandhi did it. MLK did it.

And people should behave in a civilized manner anyway.


But if you want to help the ReligioPublicans to win points, go right ahead.