Godwin's Law: Always funny.

SF Chronicle: Tactics against anti-Semite go too far
Like 2 out of 3 Oakland voters, I voted against the Jewish marriage ban.

But at the same time, I need to know that the guy next to me, who hates Jews, won't be marginalized, ostracized or excluded because of it.

The nation's changing culture is proof positive that Loopes' standard of marriage is no longer the only valid viewpoint of society's ultimate union, but in a democracy based on individual religious and political freedoms, seeking to exclude dangerous lunatics is just wrong.

Also, here's a photo essay about a nice old lady seamstress.

Tags: , , ,

44 Responses:

  1. rasterbation says:

    Of course, this is state-sanctioned discrimination against a minority group that was actually persecuted in the holocaust. As such, I'd say that Godwin's law is about as useful and insightful as theories postulating the wetness (and unbreathability) of water would be to somebody who's just been thrown into a lake.

  2. edouardp says:

    Hang on, hang on - my popcorn still has a minute left in the microwave.

  3. bifrosty2k says:

    Amazing that Jews are more persecuted than Gays or Pedos in our society. Guess it says something about how crazy our crazies are.
    I like Gays and Jews, not so much Pedos, but srsly...

  4. korgmeister says:

    *facepalm*

    Goddamit. I am quite in favour of gay marriage being legalised (not that it's really my business as I'm not American) but it really depresses me just how the hardcore on both sides are determined to see who can act more juvenile and idiotic than the other.

    This sort of shit doesn't open up dialogue, it just alienates people. Hell, one of the negative stereotypes about gay people is that they'll shout "HOMOPHOBE!" at the drop of a hat. Throwing kerosene on that bonfire isn't the best PR move.

    • gryazi says:

      That's one of the negative stereotypes about [insert every minority, religious, or ideological group on the planet]. Except for the mutes.

    • rasterbation says:

      So, just out of curiosity...
      If spending tens of thousands of dollars on making sure "teh gays" can't get married doesn't make one a homophobe, what exactly does? I think MAYBE that might qualify as slightly more than "the drop of a hat".

    • _candide_ says:

      You miss the point.

      We fags all recognize these ballot initiatives for what they are: putting our existence up for a vote.

      No matter how the christianists try to mask it, no matter what languagte they use, that's what they're out for: the annihilation of me and many people who I love. They just don't want to look bad while doing it.

      Many of us LGBT-folk who are livid about these ballot initiatives don't even care about gay-marriage. (My spouse and I are two of them.) But that's because, as I keep saying, we recognize that these ballot initiatives are not about gay-marriage, but about the audacity of us queers daring to continue drawing breath.

      Every time one of these propositions or amendments get put up for a vote, its supporters start spreading all manner of horrible, nasty, disgusting claims about ho-mo-sekshals … to their churches. On the airwaves, they just imply it between the lines.

      So tell me, korgmeister, how would you feel if someone went around saying that you screw animals every 2-4 years, over and over again?

      So, you see, we fags Really. Don't. Care. if standing up for ourselves is a bad PR move.

      • korgmeister says:

        Actually, since most people think I'm gay, your problems with homophobia are effectively my problems, too.

        Don't know where I said gay people shouldn't stand up for themselves, can you please point it out to me?

        Making peevish little Godwins Law editorials for the lulz, is not such a good idea if you're a minority group with serious PR issues. The idea is to look classier than the bigot.

        • rasterbation says:

          Uh, I dunno what universe you're living in, but in my universe being perceived as something is quite a bit different from being something. Otherwise I would be quite a bit wealthier than I am (since I have a name-brand college education, and work in computers). I'd also be sleeping exclusively with women and, for less than $100, be able to receive 1400+ state and federal rights & protections for any romantic relationship I had. (Since, for some reason, people think that I'm straight, even after I tell them I'm not.) And, mind you, even though I'm perceived as straight, I've still been fag-bashed half to death. And so on and so forth.

          So, no, our problems with homophobia are actually NOT your problems with homophobia. Thank you for playing, please try again.

          Also, see my above post. The comparison to anti-semitism is not at all off-base, since in both cases a minority group is treated as sub-human, with the sole justification being religious ideology. What's more, since state-sanctioned oppression of homosexuality was very much a part of the Nazi regime, even a direct reference to Nazism would not be entirely off base. Also note that all the article did was substitute one brand of religion-based bigotry for another.

          • korgmeister says:

            *sigh*

            Fuck it. Since I can't seem to get a handle on how anything but uncritical and unconditional acceptance of everything you say and do, no matter how goddamn ridiculous it looks, will satisfy you, I guess I'll have to just accept the fact that I look like a bigot to you.

            Sweet, have fun seeing how much mainstream acceptance you get with that attitude.

            • rasterbation says:

              Where did I say you were a bigot? Unless you're the person in question who donated $26k to the Prop8 campaign, in which case you are most definitely a bigot. I'm simply deconstructing your assertions that:
              A) The article in question is off-base
              B) You are impacted by homophobia in the same (or even a similar) way as to how actual homos are impacted by it.

              • korgmeister says:

                Lemmie put it this way. The injuries sustained from a vicious beating because someone mistakenly assumed I was gay are not, in any significant way, different from the injuries sustained from a vicious beating I actually was gay.

                Or does being same-sex attracted cause you to bruise more easily and have fragile bones? I haven't caught up with the medical literature on the subject.

                • rasterbation says:

                  Well, first off it sucks that you went through that, and I don't want to minimize it.

                  But the psychological impact *is* significantly different. Speaking from personal experience:
                  I'm caucasian, but when I was younger, I was frequently perceived as either asian, hispanic, or (after 9/11) middle eastern. I had people do things ranging from simply calling me various racist epithets to screaming "Go back where you came from you fucking terrorist" as they drove by. I've also experienced all of those (and, as stated, then some) based on my sexual orientation.

                  Being attacked because somebody perceived you as an identity that is not yours sucks, but it does not have the same systematic impact in making you view your OWN identity as something that others hate to the point where they will attack you. It doesn't make you feel that part of yourself makes you less than human.

                  A physical assault is horrific in its own right, but the way it's internalized is not the same. Quick example: you holding hands with your partner in public will not trigger flashes of "Oh no I'm going to get beaten again."

                  I've experienced racism, but I'm not systematically oppressed by racism. You've experienced homophobia, but you're not systematically oppressed by homophobia. Does that make sense?

                  • korgmeister says:

                    Not in the slightest.

                  • carnivillain says:

                    Makes perfect sense to me, mister.

                    I got jumped by 8 high school guys when I was in middle school because they thought I was gay, and yeah, it sucked. But there was no real lingering fear, since they were striking at something that isn't a part of me. I didn't feel like I had to repress something, or that it'd happen again if I didn't hide.

                    I'm just rephrasing here something that you said better, so I'll stop here.

        • _candide_ says:

          I've heard far, far too many people say, "Well, if only you homosexuals would play nice and not do XYZ, then you wouldn't be hurting yourselves." Which should explain part of why I reacted the way I did.

          I've even heard/read this sort of thing from other queers, after which, I immediately point out the following: In the late 1960's, there were a few groups that, "didn't want to offend Normal People." They held quiet, polite demonstrations, where all of the women wore dresses and looked pretty, all of the men wore suits and looked "masculine", and everyone marched quietly carrying a placard.
          They accomplished nothing.
          What finally did accomplish change was the Stonewall Riots — the fags had enough of being victimized and harassed, and fought back. And who started it all, who got fed up first, fought back, and led the charge?
          The drag queens.

          But to your Godwin's Law retort — if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's not a wily trilobite. And the Dominionists have been fairly openly taking techniques and strategies from 1930's-Europe playbook.

          • korgmeister says:

            The extent of my criticism, simply, is that I believe the some of the more extreme actions of anti-Prop8 agitators, such as the aforementioned editorial, are counterproductive.

            The ultimate aim is to have it simply be the normal opinion that those members of the GLBTI sandwich are OK folks.

            It's never going to be possible to convince the hardcore "Fuck St Augustine, I'm going to treat the Bible like it's a received text, no matter what insane outcomes that leads to" crowd. Anyone who has set that as their ultimate goal can enjoy their ride on the failboat.

            But responding to their provocations in a way that makes the GLBTI community look just as crazy isn't going to help anyone. It's important that people recognise the GLBTI as the good guys, not the "other guys who are just as bad".

            • _candide_ says:

              We will have to agree to disagree, then.

              Because, from my perspective and experience, no matter what LGBTI folk do, or how hard we try to "play nice" and "be the good guys," we will be treated as crazy.

        • _candide_ says:

          BTW: I think that it's bullshit that people assume your gay, for whatever reason. (I'm not gonna make the trite, "Oh I'm so sorry that you have to go through that," comment, since I think that any decent person would sympathise.)

          It pisses me off that we still have this assumption that gay==effeminate(==woman==insert-19th-century-misogynist-BS-here).

          It equally pisses me off that men in our society can't express basic, normal human affection for each other without fear of being labeled a homo.

          I wish I had some sage advice that you could use to tell people to stop being rude and making assumptions about what you do in the bedroom … but anything that comes to mind is offensive. ^_^

          • korgmeister says:

            It's not without its benefits. I enjoy fucking with people's heads as a secret test of character. People express their true selves more accurately when they react to the unexpected.

            It's interesting to see who bothers to investigate beyond the superficial and who is intelligent and perceptive enough to notice what my actions say about my personality rather than my appearance.

            Makes the quality control process for establishing friendships a helluva lot more efficient, I'll say that much.

            • _candide_ says:

              Back when I was in grad school, I used to complain, "Yyyyeah. This town is soooo liberal … in theory. But when the Theory plants itself on the living room sofa and goes, 'Hi there,' people start singing a different tune really fast."

              ^_^

  5. nidea says:

    As a queer Jewish seamstress, my mind is in a whirl right now...

  6. _candide_ says:

    Zing!

    Isn't it interesting what happens to all of these initiatives and talking points when you take the word, "homosexual" and replace it with, "negro" or "Jew"?

    Why, you get the very bigotted language we used to hear back a century ago!

    Who'd have ever thought?

    • gryazi says:

      ...the same thing, with furries.

      -The Furry

      [captcha: oi useless]

      • _candide_ says:

        You're about 160 years too late, there.

        ^_^

        • lionsphil says:

          While studies have shown that the rate of furry media coverage is increasing, I don't think they've been taken seriously enough yet to cause sufficient drahmah outside of the Internets. They're still that funny little group of people who sometimes show up on CSI, rather than that outstanding threat to our way of life that the government must act upon to protect our way of life.

          If you think the possibility of a gay president is a few decades off, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a furry one. Although the inauguration ceremony would be something to see.

    • lionsphil says:

      You can draw kind of awkward parallels between lol-blackface and lol-comedy-gay-with-lisp, too. (I wouldn't pick at that argument too much, though; it might fall apart in your hands.)

      The horrible consideration that one day all comedy or dramatic "boundary-pushing" shows will end up with a token furry on the cast does not endear me to the future.

      But, hey, at least Star Trek's Original Era will have been way ahead of the curve again! (The animated series, specifically.)

      • _candide_ says:

        I admit, I like a lot of the Furry art out there.

        However, I'm also disturbed by the fact that there are people who Do Not Want to be human, including but not limited to furrys. Not, mind you, because they want to be something else. No. Because they find "being human" abhorrent. What the H311 have we done to ourselves, our culture, our societies, our world to cause that sort of reaction?

        Being human: Ur Doing It Wrong.

        • lionsphil says:

          Yeah, it sure sucks being one of the few species on the planet that, say, doesn't consider infanticide an acceptable everyday occurence. Boy, are we evil on two legs.

          • _candide_ says:

            Um, well…

            Some ancient cultures did consider infanticide acceptable. Whaddya think, "exposing a baby," meant? The Ancient Greeks would toss babies onto hilltops to freeze to death overnight and/or be eaten by wild animals.

            But that's not what I was referring to.

            A sense of community. Basic non-sexual human affection. Feeling your emotions. These are all normal human needs and behaviors. We seem, however, to live in a society actively pressures people away from these basic needs, holding up as models for how to live some very inhuman behavior. I'm not surprised, therefore, that there are humans who don't want to be part of this species.

            I regularly lament that the human species hasn't gotten its $h1t together and learned just what "being human" truly is.

      • edouardp says:

        Dear Americans, what is it with your "gay men have a lisp" stereotype? Was there some famous gay man with a lisp? Or was it invented by the movies? Was it or is it emulated by young gays, thereby perpetuating the stereotype? Or is it just lazy writing by TV and Movie writers? Is there a wikipedia article on it?

        Foreigners (from non-lisping-gay-lands) want to know.

        • edouardp says:

          Huh - google first, post second.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_lisp

          Still - I've only ever seen the stereotype from America, and not, from memory from any other english speaking country.

          • I assume it's exactly the same as any other subcultural accent - you start with a relatively small group of people where one or two charismatic/admired individuals have a distinctive speech style, others pick up the accent, it snowballs. US military aviators are (or were) likely to pick up a Texan-like drawl even if they're originally midwesterners. In the 80s, a few surfers in Southern California made youth across the entire country sound like potheads. Etc.

          • Also, the "Lavender Linguistics" page on wikipedia gives a lot of possibilities for why the lisp is perpetuated.

          • lionsphil says:

            It's pretty prevailant in the UK, too, but then again we are Airstrip One. And, more pressingly, we have the likes of Julian Clarie. (I was going to list Eddie Izzard, but apparently he considers himself a straight transexual.)

        • vordark says:

          I've probably known about a dozen gay men over the years. With a couple of them, you'd never know it unless they told you. With the rest, every single one had the full-on lisp, prancing about, hyper-effeminate thing going on. We're talking every conceivable stereotype, to a degree that it was mind-boggling. They were all great people and I'm glad I was friends with them at one point or another, but it was downright weird.

          I wanted to shake them and scream "There's nothing wrong with dick, but goddammit can't you at least change a fucking tire!?!"

          I keep thinking (hoping?) that I grew up around some kind of strange anomalous cluster, but it's hard to keep the faith.

          • gregv says:

            I tend not to blame people for latching on to the more harmless stereotypes because the people who serve as counterexamples are not easily recognizable. I work with one person who has the stereotypical gay vocal patterns (though no lisp, think the redhead from Modern Family but more so.) He's not a complete stereotype like the people you've known, but it's obvious to anyone who talks to him that he's gay. I on the other hand easily pass for straight: I don't have the voice, the mannerisms, and definitely not the style. As such most people don't know I'm gay and I don't serve as a counterexample. Is it reasonable to blame them then?

            This of course does not excuse the more vile stereotypes and bigotry, where they're definitely expected to know better.