The 20th Century Homosexual’s fight has been completely rebranded in the west. Apparently it’s always been about gender as well. Descriptions have been changed to people fighting for “LGBTQ+ Rights.” The Mattachine Society apparently fought to end gender norms. Drag queens are re-imagined into transgender people and black transwomen now started the entire movement.
This plain never happened.
The vast, vast majority of gay rights activists of the 20th Century, especially before the 90s, fought explicitly about homosexual rights. The right for men to love men and women to love women. Trans people were largely on the periphery of the movement when they were even involved at all. Almost all the drag queens of the 20th Century were just gay men who dressed as women. Marsha P Johnson, the so-called transwomen of color who “literally founded the LGBT movement” (according to a particularly dumb twink I know), went on record to say he’s a man, not a woman.
In other words, gay men and women by and large were always fighting for other gay men and women.
To be clear, I am not anti-trans. Trans people are fine and my anger has nothing to do with them. My anger is directed at the (largely straight) liberals who decided to rewrite our history.
I am particularly angry at this because the western liberal will preen on and on about right-wing historical revisionism and how that’s been used to push and uphold white supremacy. And they’re not entirely wrong when they say that! Yet they are more than willing to do that to gay people and they’ll tell us we’re being bigoted when we call them out for it! Ridiculous.
There was a situation once where I have had to get up and leave the room because some spicy straight was mocking gay men who “deny trans people are responsible for gay rights today.” I was not about to kill the vibe (FYI to incel posters here, you get invited back to parties by deciding to not kill the vibe with facts and logic).
It’s a cruel irony. And once again gay men aren’t allowed to celebrate their own accomplishments. Same as it ever was.
I think we can all (or almost all) agree that there is much to love in socialist values. Particularly that it is immoral to profit at the expense of one's fellow countrymen, and a more egalitarian division of wealth is more preferable to a more hierarchical division of wealth.
But.
I've had some run-ins with users on this forum who like to pretend that the USSR was democratic (wtf) or that they didn't outlaw and imprison people for political dissent (wtf) or that the gulags just straight up didn't exist. I've even seen some users glorifying North Korea, of all places.
Denialism of the dark side of history helps no one. Also, it's pretty gross. Socialist values can be fought for and won in the context of a liberal democratic framework, so let's please not glorify authoritarian states that were so convinced of their own ideological purity that they locked up or killed anyone who disagreed.
Also, let's please stay openminded. I, like most people here, do not believe that unbridled capitalism leads to good outcomes. But it would be unhealthy for me or (anyone else) to be so self-assured that I am infallibly correct. There always exists the possibility that I or any one of us could change our political views in favor of another ideal. No matter how fervent we are in our current political beliefs, we must also remain committed to the ideals of liberal democracy -- that every person be allowed to decide for himself what policies he wants, and that every person be given the freedom to form and vote for opposing political parties.
Obviously Pam and Roy should have broken up earlier, and definitely shouldn’t have gotten back together, but framing it as though Pam is the toxic one and Roy is the victim is completely ludicrous.
All these posts that suggest that Roy only grows after he’s free of Pam completely disregard Roy’s emotional neglect (talking about how he’s annoyed when Pam wants to talk about her day, not supporting Pam’s decision to take art classes, of all things) and anger problems (yelling, assault & battery, physical violence at the bar).
Yes Roy and Pam were bad for each other, and it’s great that Roy finds love and grows and deals with his problems, but he was a borderline abusive partner. Pam was not the cause of Roy’s issues.
When Leni wins, what happens next?
During this time, the evil partylists will do their best to continue spreading false information, converting even more gullible people to their cause.
Sara Duterte will have her own YouTube channel. More money will be stolen to fund their marketing.
Marcos Jr. will continue posting in its YouTube channel, guesting in TV shows to gain even more exposure, and all the while refuting the crimes against it. It will give interview answers that will make crimes seem not as bad. Maybe even do more pictorial sessions during natural disasters. And it will work. They will have more fans, which will become more voters in the future, because of course they will.
As such, once Leni's term ends, Sara Duterte will just run again. Marcos Jr. will just run again.
And it's not like the people who voted for them before are gone. They'll still be there. And if we stop bringing up how evil they really are, if all this unrest at their evil deeds just stop after the 2022 election is over, they'll have even more votes waiting for them.
So, don't stop. Keep doing your best to educate the gullible. Continue contesting the evil voters who only seek to spread the lies of their evil politicians.
#Halalan2028
Referring to the (ongoing) Wheatley family arc btw,
I remember more than enough people wouldn't stop gushing over it early on, now fast forward after the Albanian arc ended and shifted focus back to the Wheatley family, I've seen some lukewarm comments over it....?
I say this as someone who greatly enjoyed the Albanian storyline btw.
Re: the revisionism of Stonewall and the conflation of LGB and TQIA+ in the history of the gay rights movement discussed in this thread.
Marshall McLuhan's big thesis regarding electric media was that its technical dimensions and the ways we engage with it will effectuate the retribalization of a culture that was detribalized by written and especially print media, which promote private experience, individuality, detachment, abstraction, etc. In a lot of ways McLuhan was just throwing ideas out there and seeing what stuck (and he was arguably wrong about post-literacy, given that the social media is still largely text-based), but it's hard to deny he was wrong about mass media's instrumental role in transforming North American civic life into an acrimonious narrative of warring tribes, where reports of facts inconvenient to one side's worldview will be eschewed by that group and its mass media representatives, and seized upon by the other. By pointing out and citing documents corroborating the fact that aesexuals weren't even an afterthought during the twentieth-century gay rights movement, you can label yourself as an enemy. If you challenge the historical accuracy of the 1619 project, you flag yourself as a white supremacist. Etc, etc.
I've been reading Orality and Literacy by Walter Ong (a student of McLuhan's), and found this fascinating tidbit about how oral ("tribal") cultures conceptualize a "homeostatic" relation between the past and the present. Emphases are mine.
>Goody and Watt (1968, pp. 31–3) cite Laura Bohannan, Emrys Peters, and Godfrey and Monica Wilson for striking instances of the homeostasis of oral cultures in the handing on of genealogies. Some decades ago among the Tiv people of Nigeria the genealogies actually used orally in settling court disputes have been found to diverge considerably from the genealogies carefully recorded in writing by the British forty years earlier (because of their importance then, too, in court disputes). The later Tiv have maintained that they were using the same genealogies as forty years earlier and that the earlier written record was wrong. What had happened was that the later genealogies had been adjusted to the changed social relations among the Tiv: they were the same in that they functioned in the same way to regulate the real world. **The integrity of the past was subordinate to the integri
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Two parts in...
I think that Jackson understands the actual narrative, in a way that Lindsay-Hogg was just guessing at. Hindsight. So sussing out the good bits of dialogue to paint a dramatic history of a downfall...
I think this will win awards for getting it right, or at least better? The original Let it Be was conceived to be unadulterated. This accomplishes it. But jeez...this is not the last of it.
I know there are differences between Deng’s China and, say, Gorbachev’s USSR or post 1986 Vietnam, but I’m not sure what they are. I suspect it has to do with control by a principled party but I could be off. Can someone help?
Edit: to clarify, I’m not one of those who will say “China and America??? Basically the same!!!” or that Deng is revisionist. Was just more curious about what the reforms were in both examples and how they fall in a Marxist analysis
This is long and I won’t apologize.
The 20th Century Homosexual’s fight has been completely rebranded in the west. Apparently it’s always been about gender as well. Descriptions have been changed to people fighting for “LGBTQ+ Rights.” The Mattachine Society apparently fought to end gender norms. Drag queens are re-imagined into transgender people and black transwomen now started the entire movement.
This plain never happened.
The vast, vast majority of gay rights activists of the 20th Century, especially before the 90s, fought explicitly about homosexual rights. The right for men to love men and women to love women. Trans people were largely on the periphery of the movement when they were even involved at all. Almost all the drag queens of the 20th Century were just gay men who dressed as women. Marsha P Johnson, the so-called transwomen of color who “literally founded the LGBT movement” (according to a particularly dumb twink I know), went on record to say he’s a man, not a woman.
In other words, gay men and women by and large were always fighting for other gay men and women.
To be clear, I am not anti-trans. Trans people are fine and my anger has nothing to do with them. My anger is directed at the (largely straight) liberals who decided to rewrite our history.
I am particularly angry at this because the western liberal will preen on and on about right-wing historical revisionism and how that’s been used to push and uphold white supremacy. And they’re not entirely wrong when they say that! Yet they are more than willing to do that to gay people and they’ll tell us we’re being bigoted when we call them out for it! Ridiculous.
There was a situation once where I have had to get up and leave the room because some spicy straight was mocking gay men who “deny trans people are responsible for gay rights today.” I was not about to kill the vibe (FYI to incel posters here, you get invited back to parties by deciding to not kill the vibe with facts and logic).
It’s a cruel irony. And once again gay men aren’t allowed to celebrate their own accomplishments. Same as it ever was.
