Uuuuughh.... another 20 pages caught up on again tonight. Going to respond to some stuff that's already several pages back, because FML. It's peak season in freight forwarding land with lots of other shit going on in my life on top of.
The problem with large, peaceful protests is that it's easy to wait them out.
Occupy showed us that. They were largely peaceful, simply setting up camp somewhere visible and waiting around with signs. Eventually they gave up and left, some quicker than others, some more stubbornly than others. But eventually they all left.
They grabbed plenty of attention, but it was just that, attention, little or nothing changed as a result.
Not what I remember. I watched as every major Occupy camp got violently torn apart and evicted by law enforcement.
Told you so.
And I concede. The presidential nominee should be based off charisma, grandiose promises, and some outright lies rather than any semblance of reality.
I am salty but I am also 100% genuine, I was wrong. I have become a few years more jaded and pragmatic.
You're overreacting to the point of misinterpretation.
Hillary lacked charisma, yes. You're right on that bit. For the rest, nobody is calling for grandiose promises and lies. I know that's how you, Frumple, and others feel about Sanders. He spoke in grandiose terms, yes. But the way I interpret that kind of speech isn't as promising to accomplish those things. Maybe if I look back at his speeches, I'd find myself corrected, but I don't remember him directly promising he would accomplish the more lofty stuff.
People generally aren't stupid. They don't take promises at face value. Sanders supporters didn't look at the situation as "vote Sanders = get socialism". What you're missing is that he spoke with conviction. He made it abundantly clear what his ideals were. So for anybody who aligned with those same ideals, they could be confident they had an ally. And no one could dig up any history that contradicted the character he presented. That is energizing.
Way more energizing than someone who cautiously states the modest goals they think are realistic for the next term, and hopes that people will check out their website for more details. Maybe that's great for political junkies who really know their shit, can pick apart and assess the plan, and nod to themselves thinking "Hmm yes I do believe this is a good plan." For the mainiacs and Frumples of the world, I can understand why this would be preferable to character posturing. But most people are not political junkies. They don't have the knowledge to accurately assess what is a good political action plan. They just want to know they can trust that the person they vote for genuinely shares their convictions. It's peace of mind for people who otherwise feel disempowered.
Whether you want to argue it's deserved or not, the fact remains that the Clinton name was strongly associated with inner circle political establishment at a time when popular resentment at such is running high, and it was way too easy for her target audience to question, based on her history and statements outside the spotlight, whether she truly held convictions that aligned with their own. Again, it doesn't matter whether this was true or fair. It was blatantly fucking obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that this was a problem for her that would haunt her candidacy, and ignoring that was a matter of stubbornness.
This isn't about abandoning integrity. It's about building trust and motivation. You don't have to tell lies or offer grandiose promises to do this. Got to have charisma that not everyone has, sure. Yes, it's an unavoidable weakness of politics that a charismatic liar can hijack people's trust. Maybe it sucks that the best political operator around isn't the most charismatic. Maybe it's unfair that people can get stuck with reputations they don't deserve. But these are realities. To blatantly ignore them and tell people who are worried about it that they don't have a choice is hubris. Pure hubris. And the way I see it, that's what happened.
safe spaces
Weird, you are right that engaging people you disagree with to bridge the gap of "otherness" is the most constructive thing to do.
However, I think you are naive in expecting that a person can always respond to confrontation in this manner, or that the gesture will always be reciprocated. Hell, I think it's naive to think it will even be reciprocated often. It's a rarity to extend your hand to one who is hostile towards you, and see that hostility disarmed in response. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted whenever possible, because it is the only path to harmony. It's that or domination of your enemies. But if you really seek out the experience of those who have had much dealing with bottle throwers, you'll find that the bottle-thrower will most often double-down on their aggression when met with hospitality. To accept that hospitality and give the other a chance requires humility; a willingness to sacrifice one's own desire for validation.
And what's more... constantly trying to build bridges with people who are hostile towards you is fucking exhausting. No human being has the energy to do this all the time. It takes immense emotional and intellectual energy. With the exception of a handful of population centers, being LGBT throughout most of the country will still earn you the constant threat of hostility on a daily basis. It's not unreasonable for someone in that situation to want a retreat. Maybe of the aggressive campus centers probably don't qualify, sure, but I'm trying to respond to your general expectations regarding how people should approach cultural conflict, not just safe spaces specifically.
Also, I didn't see any LGBT people behaving smug over recent supreme court victories. I'm sure it was out there, but I completely missed it. All I saw was immense relief and joy from the LGBT people I know. I can see why the religious right would perceive that as smugness, but it's a real stretch to say this is adequate reason for people to withhold celebration over a breath of relief from lives of oppression.
Criptfiend, when was the last time Gay conversion therapy was used in a way that involved torture? And I don't mean psychological shenanigans unless it's like full on 'YOU'RE A TERRIBLE PERSON' stuff. Read a bit about it and most of that stuff is illegal now. The gay conversion camps are like weird Freudian things at worst, most of the time, from what I could tell. Not 'Okay after archery is electroshock time!'
Bringing up how something used to be practiced as evidence for why it's evil now isn't all that great for credibility. Disease research used to involve infecting minorities without their consent or knowledge and observing how they deteriorated without treatment. Psychotherapy in general used to involve electroshock therapy.
Umm... it's been a while since I've read up on these things, but I'm pretty sure the horrific variety of gay conversion camps are still a fairly recent thing. Like the torture stuff was going on at least as recently as 10 years or so ago, I want to say. Not going to go looking for confirmation of that right now. But at least recently enough that people who suffered them would still be young adults.
And illegality doesn't always do much to stop these things. If an organization can keep their facilities on a tight enough lockdown and local authorities are ideologically sympathetic, blatantly illegal shit can go on for a pretty long time. Example: the horribly corrupt and bigoted school system I attended grades 7-10.
Author
Topic: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0 (Read 1389884 times)