GLR Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Read "Sixteen Propositions" by Michael Denneny in our online-Library!

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 10
 on: Wed, Jan 15, 2014, 23:02 
Started by Sage - Last post by Feral
If I have accidentally committed some act of brilliance, my only defense is that it WAS accidental. If I have also accidentally offended anyone by seeming to claim that someone who disagreed with me was insane, the fault lies with my repeatedly demonstrated inability to convey what I mean.

I read my recent response to my husband. I didn't manage to read as many as a dozen words before he interrupted. "Not THIS again." By the time I had read twenty-four words, he added, "When is it going to stop?" Twelve more words produced, "It doesn't stop. It just doesn't stop." My husband has, as I have, heard this all many times before.

My thoughts here are not meant to be an attack of any kind, or even a credible assessment. My only qualifications in psychiatry are as a patient. I am sensitive, though, to things that do not make sense. When the same nonsensical things are repeated by many people over many years, I start seeing patterns.

One of the problems with Identity Politics is that groups who practice it tend to rely heavily on victimhood for coalition building. A negative consequence of that strategy is that over time victimhood starts to sink into the collective psyche and can make a people perceive themselves as powerless.

There may be some truth in this, but I suspect there is something more. I don't know what it is, so I am of little use on that subject.

I am most reminded (and you shall have to forgive me for the digression) of discussions I participated in many years ago about Gay schooling. At issue was the insufferable bullying Gay youths so often face in US schools. By 'insufferable' I really do mean that it is often, ultimately, fatal. The proposed solution: remove the at-risk kids to a safe place and give them their own school. Separatism is separatism, whether we are discussing a classroom or a nation, and I am a Separatist.

Apparently, this is unforgivable blasphemy in one or more flavors of superstition. Suggesting that Gays independently educate Gay young people produces shrieks of 'segregation' and 'discrimination.' It is neither. While one might (and people do) argue that Gay youths have every right to an education, that right is meaningless if they end up dead or homeless because of it. "We have to change society," the superstitious fanatics say. Meanwhile, boys and girls suffer and die. Gay schools would remove them from a demonstrably dangerous environment. It has been tried in a number of places. It works. It should be expanded.

The digression comes to an end here. Those twisted souls who would permit a thousand children to be tormented to death in the name of gradually perfecting an imperfect society then change their tune. "They will just be bullied there, too."

They become irrational. I know of not even one instance of bullying in an all-Gay or predominantly Gay educational environment. It seems extreme to say, but there really are no indications that bullying exists at all in these situations. Yet, opponents of separate schooling for Gay youths seem to invariably make the unsupported claim.

Where does this knee-jerk excuse for inaction come from? Here, too, some imaginary monster lurks under the bed.

Homophobic bullying comes from homophobes. Get rid of the homophobes, and you get rid of the bullying. Simple transitive principles suggest that removing the Gay kids and doing nothing at all about the homophobes has the same end result. Bullying is not some nebulous wraith that will hunt you down no matter where you go; it is the culpable behavior of specific individuals.

The same can be said for wars of aggression. Military attacks are undertaken by states that possess the motivation, means, and will to do so. It doesn't much matter how universally hated Gay people might or might not be in (for example) the Kingdom of Tonga. What Tonga might reasonably be able to do about that hatred does matter. If someone has designs on Minerva Reef, Tonga's diminutive military will come into play. They have one plane. They have three patrol boats. Under no circumstances should the Kingdom of Tonga (as an example) be conflated with a nuclear super-power. That country just isn't a super-power. They do have armed personnel, about 500 of them, but it would be insensitive and pointless to compare that to the White Party.

When one suspects that there are monsters under the bed, I would suggest first looking under the bed. It cannot ever be sufficient to just tape a sign with "Here Be Monsters" scrawled on it to a problem and leave it at that. It is bad enough to be beset by monsters, but there is nothing worse than succumbing to imaginary monsters. You defeat yourself. If you think there are monsters under the bed, look under the bed. If it turns out that there really are monsters, the simplest solution is to be elsewhere. There isn't a lot of room under most beds, though.

The topic here is "Justification for a Nation." I will offer you mine. It has two parts, and both are necessary.

1      You want one
2   You succeeded

Afterward, all manner of words will be written down about it, and most of them will be untrue.

I do think the 'monsters under the bed' issue is of some importance. In my youth, much was made (too much, in my opinion) of 'internalized homophobia.' I don't see any homophobia in the belief that we are so hated that some state would avail itself of any convenient opportunity to exterminate us. I see fear. Fear itself is not a problem. It's not like there aren't monsters in the world. There ARE monsters.

The key to fighting monsters is to be sterner than the monsters. The trap there is that, in being sterner than the monsters, you become monstrous yourself. If you steel yourself against imaginary monsters, you become a monster for no reason. If you refuse to confront the real ones, you destroy yourself for no reason. You become monster bait. If you volunteer yourself as monster bait to an imaginary monster... there is something going on there, something that shouldn't be going on.

 on: Wed, Jan 15, 2014, 22:10 
Started by Sage - Last post by Sage
Feral, you have thoroughly impressed me with your brilliance! That is no easy feat I assure you!

A nuclear strike is the only military scenario I can think of that could theoretically destroy an entire nation and its people. At present there are fewer than 10 nuclear powers; only 5 of which are equipped with delivery systems necessary for long range deployment. Thus proximity is a factor.

 on: Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 21:43 
Started by Sage - Last post by Feral
I shall try to be temperate.

i think we'd get bombed...

religious countries could declare some war on sinners... we'd be an easy target.

dispersed, they can't kill us off in one attack.

not everyone is against us

There does not seem to be any reason in this progression, nor does there seem to be much rationality.  I would dismiss it as raving, but I cannot, because it has come up before.

1   This 'Bombing' Thing

Bombing is expensive. It is also not reasonably classed in the category of 'easy things.' While there really are state-actors which have demonstrated both the capacity and the willingness to bomb, a great many states with the capacity to bomb generally refrain from doing so. A great many states just don't realistically have the capacity to bomb. I suspect it may be a large majority of states.

Location is important in the real world. If a thing, like a sovereign Gay nation, has material reality, it has a location in space. This is just true. This hypothetical conversation absolutely requires a physical location before it can reasonably proceed. Then we need to fuss about the vile specifics of the instruments of war. Does the verb 'bomb' actually mean bombs that are dropped from planes? Does it include the wide array of missiles that various states have constructed to molest each other with?

Cato Island is difficult to get to as a tourist. It isn't any easier to get to as a bombardier. The list of states that lack the means to even attempt to bomb Cato Island is very long. The list of states that do possess the means is not trivial, but it's not a long list. I will grant that Russia, in my mind, counts as one of these 'religious states.' Russia is most assuredly on the list of states that can, in theory, project military force to Cato Island. They may not do so on a whim, however. Just leaving Russian airspace would disturb one or two or three other prominent states. Additionally, and this is an important part, Russia has, despite its demonstrated religiosity, several other concerns. Someone with a greater familiarity of Russia could probably list the many things Russia might prefer to do with its weapons that are more important than bombing Cato Island to get rid of both the nasty homos there and the symbolism of a sovereign Gay State.

The name of the French island that some Republic or other has put forward as a physical location escapes me, but it is very nearly impossible to get there as a casual tourist. Serious tourists can manage, but there we're properly in the realm of 'adventurers' having 'adventures,' not 'tourists' paying a visit to a remote beach. The French military manages to visit from time to time, but even they find it a costly proposition. Sending carrier-based planes, long range bombers, or comparatively sophisticated missiles are all options, but the list of states that possess such weapons of war is, as I have said, short. 'Bombing' that tiny island (assuming that the technically difficult task is defined as 'likely successful') would require a major expenditure of capital, including political capital. I cannot conjure up a realistic fictional scenario wherein any of the greater powers does anything of the sort.

2   The 'Religious Countries' Thing

There are religious countries. Religious countries have, in the past, declared war for reasons which seem vacuous and absurd to me (but clearly, not to them). Sure. Which countries am I to quake in my closet about? Countries in the Middle East have a well-founded concern about the missiles and airplanes possessed by Iran, but countries outside the Middle East very rationally place Iran somewhat lower on their list of concerns.

It has been my observation that most of the countries with the most universally virulent contempt for Gay people lack the ability to project military force for any appreciable distance beyond their borders. 'Appreciable' is the operative word here. 'Near' their borders is not the same thing at all as 'far from their borders.' This is a reason to refrain from visiting those hateful places. If one were to found a hypothetical Gay State, proximity to one of these states would be ill-advised in the extreme. The idea that the entire planet constitutes 'proximity' to hostile theocracies is absurd and not worth entertaining.

3      The 'Dispersed Defense Against One Attack' Thing

This is where my sympathy for clinical madness starts to become aroused.

'One Attack.'

We have, it seems, really been discussing the possibility of a Gay rendition of Hiroshima. I understand.... Here I thought 'conventional warfare' was absurd enough. We're talking about nuclear war. Huh. Few countries are physically capable of such a feat at all. Depending on location, even fewer countries are physically capable of successfully completing such an attack.

Population dispersal is a relic of the Cold War. It is intended to survive nuclear attack. Am I really to argue about whether China, Russia, or the United States are willing to lob an intercontinental ballistic missile at the homos or not? Yes... well... those things are expensive. Just the delivery system is expensive. Apart from their unseemly (and criminal) utility, nuclear weapons function more as 'crown jewels' than as tools. To the best of my recollection, you can count the number of historical nuclear attacks on one hand that's missing three fingers. While past performance is no guarantee of future results, I really don't think the potential threat of intercontinental missiles should be allowed to influence Gay policy. I absolutely will not endorse even the idea of population dispersal as a safeguard against it. The likelihood that the destruction of a hypothetical Gay State will be the third hostile nuclear detonation in world history is... low.

4      The 'Not Everyone Is Against Us' Thing

Everyone isn't against us and that's why we may not permanently congregate in groups lest we form a convenient target for an annihilating airstrike.

That right there... that makes my sympathy for clinical madness go into full bloom.

There is something psychological here, possibly psychiatric. I don't say that to be cruel or to demean. I mention it only because this string of postulates has come up before. This is not a novel situation. It's not even a rare situation. It's common. It has come up more frequently than I am comfortable with. Several people have argued this, and the nonsense of it is staggering.

We cannot have our own country because 'they' will massacre us if we come to 'their' attention.

Who is this 'they?'

I believe that, while prudence is always a virtue in government, a Gay State would have comparatively little to fear from state-actors. By 'comparatively little' I mean very nearly nothing at all. War is expensive and difficult to do. It upsets the neighbors.

Non-state-actors are a different matter entirely. A Gay State would, I think, have much reason to be concerned about attacks from non-state-actors. I have two reasons for this belief. First, most states today have very reasonable concerns about non-state-actors. Some of these states are more histrionic than others, but their concerns are reasonable. Why would a Gay State be exempt from such concerns? Second, as anyone who can read can testify, non-state-actors have been waging a bloody war against the Gay people for many decades. Gays are attacked, tortured, and murdered, pretty much everywhere in the world, as far as I can tell. Sometimes these acts are not whimsical flights of fancy; they are committed in an organized and systemic manner. That's history, and that's now. You cannot avert the possibility of attacks that are already underway or have already happened.

There is no reason to believe that a hypothetical Gay State, even on some remote island in the Pacific, would be forever immune from attack by non-state-actors. A Gay State would, however, have many if not all of the resources that other states currently employ to combat such attacks. In the absence of a Gay State, the Gay people have only what they, individually, can provide. More often than not, this amounts to nothing at all.

Certainly not 'everyone' is against us, but some people are. In some places, this 'some' constitutes a majority. In others, the 'some' is just some. Those who are 'against us' are often plentiful enough to produce constituencies capable of swaying even large secular democracies. The existence of this 'some' is not a argument for hiding from them; it is an argument for organizing a defense against them. That, in some places, this 'some' is smaller in number than it has been in the past is not an argument for inactivity; it's an argument for even more assertive organization.

 on: Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 01:09 
Started by Sage - Last post by Mogul
Not to mention the current developments in Uganda and Nigeria:

 on: Mon, Jan 13, 2014, 17:41 
Started by Sage - Last post by Sage
I recently posted the following article in the Facebook group:

It has initiated an interesting exchange which can be view via the following link:

Feel free to carry the conversation into this forum as well.

 on: Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 14:45 
Started by Louis Parsons - Last post by Sage
Allow me to answer one cute drive-by post with another. Why don't you folks think a gay "homeland" is the way to go?  Why wouldn't I (or anybody else) want to live in a nation entirely made up of gay people?  As for "What (beside who and how I fuck) do I really have in common with other gay people that I don't also have in common with straight people" why does that matter? Please explain.

 on: Thu, Dec 12, 2013, 06:25 
Started by Sage - Last post by Sage
Without a sovereign state Gay people will always be subject to the opinions and mercy of non-Gay majorities. Majority opinions are subject to change and not always for the better.

 on: Tue, Nov 05, 2013, 04:17 
Started by Feral - Last post by Feral
Lastly, what do you think the guy in "Station Four" starring at the pizza is thinking?

That it's nowhere near enough pizza for nine burly fellows.

 on: Thu, Oct 24, 2013, 08:48 
Started by Feral - Last post by Sage
I am partial to the work of Rick Chris:

Especially "Safe Warm:

and "Get Secure":

Since it's Halloween:

Lastly, what do you think the guy in "Station Four" starring at the pizza is thinking?

 on: Sat, Aug 24, 2013, 09:32 
Started by Mogul - Last post by Sage
I am wondering if anyone would like to volunteer to design one to appeal to the Lesbian community? My intention is not to be divisive; quite the opposite in fact. I believe that a “one size fits all” approach tends to weaken artist edge and which limits appeal. Instead of ignoring our differences let’s take advantage of them.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 10