Tennessee getting ready to throw poor students under the bus.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Hey everyone, remember how the Civil Right movement got its traction by alienating white males as loudly and obnoxiously as possible, then high-fiving and giggling amongst themselves?

No? You don't remember that? Then you need to check your privilege. Specifically, your privileged knowledge of history.

The whole POINT of the civil rights movement was the politics of inclusion.  Then, later on, "we're here, we're queer, learn to live with it", which was also inclusion.  After all, the politics of inclusion doesn't dictate that you be POLITE about it.

But what these echo chamber noobs are jabbering are the politics of exclusion.  Because it feels more outre, more "HEY I'M IN YOUR FACE REBELLING!  LOOK!  LOOK, DAMN YOU!  I'M FUCKING SPECIAL!" than forming coalitions.

Again, this is precisely how Occupy died.  The jackasses in the funny little hats and the deliberately bad Italian shoes and fur-trimmed jackets got in and shat all over everything so they could be SPECIAL.

The whole fucking crowd of exclusion-based fucktards are special, all right.  They're such special fucking snowflakes, I want to buy them the world's biggest bus, so they can sit in it and lick the windows. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

As much as there are bigots and fools, there are many, many members of the gay community who see us as allies. Case in point: I belong to a GLTB EMS activism community who, right from the start, opened its doors to us "breeders" (intended benignly) in the EMS community and who has posted several updates in thanks for their straight supporters.

We're all playing for the same team here. Does it really matter who's batting and who's pitching?

And tell your daughter, Rog: we ain't leavin her side. She's not alone.

I can't accept the breeders thing.  I wouldn't call a homosexual a pillow-biter or a donut-puncher, and I won't take "benign" derogatory names off of anyone else, either.

That's how this exclusion shit starts.  Little tiny hypocrisies.

[Cainad (dec.)]

I almost wish I'd had it in me to jump in on Occupy and hurl poop at those fucktards. But then I would have been uninvited from their cappuccino parties.

[navkat]

As much as there are bigots and fools, there are many, many members of the gay community who see us as allies. Case in point: I belong to a GLTB EMS activism community who, right from the start, opened its doors to us "breeders" (intended benignly) in the EMS community and who has posted several updates in thanks for their straight supporters.

We're all playing for the same team here. Does it really matter who's batting and who's pitching?

And tell your daughter, Rog: we ain't leavin her side. She's not alone.

I can't accept the breeders thing.  I wouldn't call a homosexual a pillow-biter or a donut-puncher, and I won't take "benign" derogatory names off of anyone else, either.

That's how this exclusion shit starts.  Little tiny hypocrisies.

I guess it doesn't bother me because I used to hear it all the time when I used to volunteer for LIGaLy in NY. They meant it in an inclusive way and usually while they were referring to themselves as "fags." As in: "We love you guys. We're just a happy family of fags and breeders."

There are subtle connotations attached to these colloquialisms (IE: the difference between "fag hag" and "fruit fly") and mostly, they're intended to be colorful but not outright derrogatory. It's why I find the whole "Cis" thing to be downright repugnant: it's not colorful or playfully teasing at all. It's a serious, hardcore label glued onto people while there are so many of us crouched down with a scraper and a bottle of goo-gone.

However, I know things change and I lose track. Perhaps that one has?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

As much as there are bigots and fools, there are many, many members of the gay community who see us as allies. Case in point: I belong to a GLTB EMS activism community who, right from the start, opened its doors to us "breeders" (intended benignly) in the EMS community and who has posted several updates in thanks for their straight supporters.

We're all playing for the same team here. Does it really matter who's batting and who's pitching?

And tell your daughter, Rog: we ain't leavin her side. She's not alone.

I can't accept the breeders thing.  I wouldn't call a homosexual a pillow-biter or a donut-puncher, and I won't take "benign" derogatory names off of anyone else, either.

That's how this exclusion shit starts.  Little tiny hypocrisies.

I guess it doesn't bother me because I used to hear it all the time when I used to volunteer for LIGaLy in NY. They meant it in an inclusive way and usually while they were referring to themselves as "fags." As in: "We love you guys. We're just a happy family of fags and breeders."

There are subtle connotations attached to these colloquialisms (IE: the difference between "fag hag" and "fruit fly") and mostly, they're intended to be colorful but not outright derrogatory. It's why I find the whole "Cis" thing to be downright repugnant: it's not colorful or playfully teasing at all. It's a serious, hardcore label glued onto people while there are so many of us crouched down with a scraper and a bottle of goo-gone.

However, I know things change and I lose track. Perhaps that one has?

Well, context means a lot.  If everyone's okay with it, I'm not going to slap my Culture Police hat on and start thumping on people.

As for the CIS thing, I found it to be a little horrormirthy at first, but eventually isolated my problem with it as "YOU CAN'T LABEL ME!  I'M NORMAL!  UUUNG!", and then had a good laugh at myself.

But you may notice that since the term ceased to be offensive, it was then morphed into "CISHET", meaning CIS/heterosexual, which is a deliberately calculated means to blast home the point that the exclusionary policy is being expanded.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

As much as there are bigots and fools, there are many, many members of the gay community who see us as allies. Case in point: I belong to a GLTB EMS activism community who, right from the start, opened its doors to us "breeders" (intended benignly) in the EMS community and who has posted several updates in thanks for their straight supporters.

We're all playing for the same team here. Does it really matter who's batting and who's pitching?

And tell your daughter, Rog: we ain't leavin her side. She's not alone.

I can't accept the breeders thing.  I wouldn't call a homosexual a pillow-biter or a donut-puncher, and I won't take "benign" derogatory names off of anyone else, either.

That's how this exclusion shit starts.  Little tiny hypocrisies.

I guess it doesn't bother me because I used to hear it all the time when I used to volunteer for LIGaLy in NY. They meant it in an inclusive way and usually while they were referring to themselves as "fags." As in: "We love you guys. We're just a happy family of fags and breeders."

There are subtle connotations attached to these colloquialisms (IE: the difference between "fag hag" and "fruit fly") and mostly, they're intended to be colorful but not outright derrogatory. It's why I find the whole "Cis" thing to be downright repugnant: it's not colorful or playfully teasing at all. It's a serious, hardcore label glued onto people while there are so many of us crouched down with a scraper and a bottle of goo-gone.

However, I know things change and I lose track. Perhaps that one has?

Well, context means a lot.  If everyone's okay with it, I'm not going to slap my Culture Police hat on and start thumping on people.

As for the CIS thing, I found it to be a little horrormirthy at first, but eventually isolated my problem with it as "YOU CAN'T LABEL ME!  I'M NORMAL!  UUUNG!", and then had a good laugh at myself.

But you may notice that since the term ceased to be offensive, it was then morphed into "CISHET", meaning CIS/heterosexual, which is a deliberately calculated means to blast home the point that the exclusionary policy is being expanded.

Nailhead, meet hammer.

And it didn't take very long, did it? I expect even more fucked up labels to come down the pike shortly.

My reaction when I see this stuff is that if I have to essentially MARRY INTO a damn community forsaking all others etc., etc., to be seen as supportive or whatever, fuck it. I can override that when necessary, but is everybody going to do that? It's really off-putting, and that's sad because trans people get fucked over a LOT.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

As much as there are bigots and fools, there are many, many members of the gay community who see us as allies. Case in point: I belong to a GLTB EMS activism community who, right from the start, opened its doors to us "breeders" (intended benignly) in the EMS community and who has posted several updates in thanks for their straight supporters.

We're all playing for the same team here. Does it really matter who's batting and who's pitching?

And tell your daughter, Rog: we ain't leavin her side. She's not alone.

I can't accept the breeders thing.  I wouldn't call a homosexual a pillow-biter or a donut-puncher, and I won't take "benign" derogatory names off of anyone else, either.

That's how this exclusion shit starts.  Little tiny hypocrisies.

I guess it doesn't bother me because I used to hear it all the time when I used to volunteer for LIGaLy in NY. They meant it in an inclusive way and usually while they were referring to themselves as "fags." As in: "We love you guys. We're just a happy family of fags and breeders."

There are subtle connotations attached to these colloquialisms (IE: the difference between "fag hag" and "fruit fly") and mostly, they're intended to be colorful but not outright derrogatory. It's why I find the whole "Cis" thing to be downright repugnant: it's not colorful or playfully teasing at all. It's a serious, hardcore label glued onto people while there are so many of us crouched down with a scraper and a bottle of goo-gone.

However, I know things change and I lose track. Perhaps that one has?

Well, context means a lot.  If everyone's okay with it, I'm not going to slap my Culture Police hat on and start thumping on people.

As for the CIS thing, I found it to be a little horrormirthy at first, but eventually isolated my problem with it as "YOU CAN'T LABEL ME!  I'M NORMAL!  UUUNG!", and then had a good laugh at myself.

But you may notice that since the term ceased to be offensive, it was then morphed into "CISHET", meaning CIS/heterosexual, which is a deliberately calculated means to blast home the point that the exclusionary policy is being expanded.

Nailhead, meet hammer.

And it didn't take very long, did it? I expect even more fucked up labels to come down the pike shortly.

My reaction when I see this stuff is that if I have to essentially MARRY INTO a damn community forsaking all others etc., etc., to be seen as supportive or whatever, fuck it. I can override that when necessary, but is everybody going to do that? It's really off-putting, and that's sad because trans people get fucked over a LOT.

But to this particular echo chamber, it isn't about trans people getting randomly murdered, etc.  It's about THEM and how SPECIAL they are.

The people who get dead are just grist for their mill.  It's offensive as hell.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

As much as there are bigots and fools, there are many, many members of the gay community who see us as allies. Case in point: I belong to a GLTB EMS activism community who, right from the start, opened its doors to us "breeders" (intended benignly) in the EMS community and who has posted several updates in thanks for their straight supporters.

We're all playing for the same team here. Does it really matter who's batting and who's pitching?

And tell your daughter, Rog: we ain't leavin her side. She's not alone.

I can't accept the breeders thing.  I wouldn't call a homosexual a pillow-biter or a donut-puncher, and I won't take "benign" derogatory names off of anyone else, either.

That's how this exclusion shit starts.  Little tiny hypocrisies.

I guess it doesn't bother me because I used to hear it all the time when I used to volunteer for LIGaLy in NY. They meant it in an inclusive way and usually while they were referring to themselves as "fags." As in: "We love you guys. We're just a happy family of fags and breeders."

There are subtle connotations attached to these colloquialisms (IE: the difference between "fag hag" and "fruit fly") and mostly, they're intended to be colorful but not outright derrogatory. It's why I find the whole "Cis" thing to be downright repugnant: it's not colorful or playfully teasing at all. It's a serious, hardcore label glued onto people while there are so many of us crouched down with a scraper and a bottle of goo-gone.

However, I know things change and I lose track. Perhaps that one has?

Well, context means a lot.  If everyone's okay with it, I'm not going to slap my Culture Police hat on and start thumping on people.

As for the CIS thing, I found it to be a little horrormirthy at first, but eventually isolated my problem with it as "YOU CAN'T LABEL ME!  I'M NORMAL!  UUUNG!", and then had a good laugh at myself.

But you may notice that since the term ceased to be offensive, it was then morphed into "CISHET", meaning CIS/heterosexual, which is a deliberately calculated means to blast home the point that the exclusionary policy is being expanded.

Nailhead, meet hammer.

And it didn't take very long, did it? I expect even more fucked up labels to come down the pike shortly.

My reaction when I see this stuff is that if I have to essentially MARRY INTO a damn community forsaking all others etc., etc., to be seen as supportive or whatever, fuck it. I can override that when necessary, but is everybody going to do that? It's really off-putting, and that's sad because trans people get fucked over a LOT.

But to this particular echo chamber, it isn't about trans people getting randomly murdered, etc.  It's about THEM and how SPECIAL they are.

The people who get dead are just grist for their mill.  It's offensive as hell.

Yes. And creepy, in a cultish kind of way.

[navkat]

My reaction when I see this stuff is that if I have to essentially MARRY INTO a damn community forsaking all others etc., etc., to be seen as supportive or whatever, fuck it. I can override that when necessary, but is everybody going to do that? It's really off-putting, and that's sad because trans people get fucked over a LOT.

Yeah, I was surprised, in spite of my own believed familiarity in the GLBT community at my lack of comprehension about "labelless gender" until we had the conversation with Kai.

I'm leaning more and more towards a "who gives a shit?" model. Just trying to find the neutral ground between shoving people into boxes or steamrolling/failing to acknowledge someone's identity.

[navkat]

Labels are for the reader, not the wearer.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

As much as there are bigots and fools, there are many, many members of the gay community who see us as allies. Case in point: I belong to a GLTB EMS activism community who, right from the start, opened its doors to us "breeders" (intended benignly) in the EMS community and who has posted several updates in thanks for their straight supporters.

We're all playing for the same team here. Does it really matter who's batting and who's pitching?

And tell your daughter, Rog: we ain't leavin her side. She's not alone.

I can't accept the breeders thing.  I wouldn't call a homosexual a pillow-biter or a donut-puncher, and I won't take "benign" derogatory names off of anyone else, either.

That's how this exclusion shit starts.  Little tiny hypocrisies.

I guess it doesn't bother me because I used to hear it all the time when I used to volunteer for LIGaLy in NY. They meant it in an inclusive way and usually while they were referring to themselves as "fags." As in: "We love you guys. We're just a happy family of fags and breeders."

There are subtle connotations attached to these colloquialisms (IE: the difference between "fag hag" and "fruit fly") and mostly, they're intended to be colorful but not outright derrogatory. It's why I find the whole "Cis" thing to be downright repugnant: it's not colorful or playfully teasing at all. It's a serious, hardcore label glued onto people while there are so many of us crouched down with a scraper and a bottle of goo-gone.

However, I know things change and I lose track. Perhaps that one has?

Well, context means a lot.  If everyone's okay with it, I'm not going to slap my Culture Police hat on and start thumping on people.

As for the CIS thing, I found it to be a little horrormirthy at first, but eventually isolated my problem with it as "YOU CAN'T LABEL ME!  I'M NORMAL!  UUUNG!", and then had a good laugh at myself.

But you may notice that since the term ceased to be offensive, it was then morphed into "CISHET", meaning CIS/heterosexual, which is a deliberately calculated means to blast home the point that the exclusionary policy is being expanded.

Nailhead, meet hammer.

And it didn't take very long, did it? I expect even more fucked up labels to come down the pike shortly.

My reaction when I see this stuff is that if I have to essentially MARRY INTO a damn community forsaking all others etc., etc., to be seen as supportive or whatever, fuck it. I can override that when necessary, but is everybody going to do that? It's really off-putting, and that's sad because trans people get fucked over a LOT.

But to this particular echo chamber, it isn't about trans people getting randomly murdered, etc.  It's about THEM and how SPECIAL they are.

The people who get dead are just grist for their mill.  It's offensive as hell.

The thing that is odd and particularly offensive about it is how often the echo chamber takes on the tone of "Champion of the Oppressed", when at the same time railing AGAINST people who are "cishet white males" calling themselves "allies". It sounds a lot like saying that when the people I love, who love me, demonstrate their support of me, they're really trying to steal my "specialness". That's offensive on a number of levels.

I don't like it. The echo chamber doesn't speak for me. I don't speak for gay men. I can't even speak for mixed race bisexual single moms, other than relating my own attitudes and opinions and those of other mixed race bisexual single moms.

And for fuck sake, leave me out of the separatism bullshit completely. I am SO not down with the "I hate straight white men" thing. That is not my bigotry and I don't accept it.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Some of my best friends are cishet white men 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Just thought of something.  I was reading Johnny's transcription, and it occurred to me that the hipster was basically justifying the "Gay panic" defense.

[Cain]

There is this really bizarre notion in American academia (only there, it seems) that discrimination only exists within a power relationship between groups.

Therefore, so long as white straight men have more power than everyone else, no comment or act against straight white men can be discriminatory.  Or, if they are, it doesn't matter because of said power disparity.

Needless to say, this is retarded.  It mistakes the very problems of institutional racism as all acts of racism, that institutional sexism as all acts of sexism etc.  I won't deny that institutional discrimination is the greater evil.  That's the point of power, you can do stuff with it, and therefore when power and discrimination are married together, it is pretty awful.  But does that mean, for example, a young Asian male in the UK who sets fire to a synagogue because he believes Jews perpetuate the suffering of the Ummah, is not being a bigot? 

Power springs from the barrel of a gun.  Or from a box of matches and access to petrol.  It's crude power, but a very real sort.  To focus on the insitutional problems obscures the different varieties of bigotry and discrimination that exist, all of which inflict pain and suffering based on a person's skin colour, or gender, or sexual orientation/gender affiliation.

[LMNO]

Well put, Cain.