Having been very active in both dance and theater during most of my adult life, I've probably had the opportunity to get to know far more gay folks than most people here.
And, I've never heard any one of them talk about any kind of agenda except the desire to be treated like everyone else. Sure, you may be able to find loonies who spout off about something crazy, but that doesn't an agenda make.
Here's what I think. The people who are afraid of some supposed 'agenda' of gays, feminists, blacks, etc. are simply nervous about losing the automatic privilege that comes with being white and male in the US.
No wonder that the White Male Agenda is that everything should either remain as it is or revert back to the good old days when people who aren't white and male knew their place.
as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton's rhetoric is not representative of the views of most black people.
There is a "gay agenda" that promotes such issues as hate crimes and other "special rights" for gays. I don't believe that most gay people are concerned with getting special protection under the law, most gay people I know are happy to be left alone to be with whomever they choose without fear or ridicule.
The truth is, almost every minority group has activists that promote "special rights" for their particular group. Affirmative Action, hate crime legislation, etc are all forms of "special rights" disguised as "leveling the playing field".
Don't bother playing the "white male" card on me, having met me you know I am not white. I never asked for any special rights in my life, just equal rights, and that is what I got. What you do with those rights is quite a different matter. People who fail in life find it much easier to blame a system that is against them, rather than take personal responsibility for their failures.
I am not afraid of losing "automatic privilege" that comes from being white, you can't lose something you never had. I am OTOH concerned that my hard work, and the hard work of other people of color will be negated by making two sets of rules, one for "the majority" whoever the fuck that is anymore, and another for people of special interest groups. Some of us have worked very hard to overcome prejudice in this country, myself included, why should some other minority groups so called rights trump mine just because they have a better lobbying group and are better able to guilt white society?
Then the use of the term 'gay agenda' is useless, isn;t it? If most gay people don't advocate the 'gay agenda' all you do by using the term is make the conversation less clear.
As for the rest of your post, I don't recall anything suggesting special rights but you go ahead and rant away on your pet peeve. lol
I know that many of you have heard Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and others speak of the "Homosexual Agenda," but no one has ever seen a copy of it. Well, I have finally obtained a copy directly from the Head Homosexual. It follows below:
6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch
2:00 PM
1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments,
2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle,
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages,
4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels,
5) Establish planetary chain of homo breeding gulags where over-medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership,
6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and
7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.
2:30 PM Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest
4:00 PM Cocktails
6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)
8:00 PM Theater
11:00 PM Bed (du jour)"
it should be Captain_Oblivious
The typical point of view of someone who has trust issues, in general; always looking to a person's motives or "agenda" before really getting to know them.
Also, pointing to someone's else's purported agenda is a strategy to deflect attention from one's own. Like those mentioned by Captain Obvious; Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and their ilk, they have a agenda's that they are comfortable in disclosing, yet others they are not. One of them is the White Male Agenda." I know this because I've been in their churches.
The "Agenda" issue is reminiscent of Glenn Beck talking about churches preaching social justice, were just using a code for socialism and communism. Talk about a "White Male" church; Mormonism.
And, you're right. I've not come across any such "Gay Agenda."
When it comes to people, everybody is an individual. There is really no such thing, in terms of universally held desires, as "white," "black," "hetero," "gay," "hobbyists," "providers," etc.
Every person is an individual.
Nobody is saying that "ALL white males think X" or "ALL gay men want Y."
If THAT is the criteria for an "agenda" then no such thing as an agenda exists.
Furthermore, it cannot be definitively stated that "ALL gun owners want/believe Z." Each gun owner is an individual, replete with his own ideas and opinions.
BUT -- are you going to be so STUPID as to tell me that the NRA does not exist? That the NRA does not have an AGENDA? Or that the NRA does not purport to represent the *interests* of gun owners?
Obviously, the NRA does NOT represent all gun owners. Hell, fewer than 10% of legal gun owners are even members. And there is a fair amount of dissent on various issues -- such as the NRA stance on Project Exile.
But that does NOT change the fact that when the NRA lobbies, it DOES put forth a distinct AGENDA that it purports to represent the interests of gun owners. Nor does it change the fact that the NRA ceaselessly attempts to recruit the other 90% of gunowners to its ranks -- usually using some form of scare-tactic as a method.
(I say this with all due respect as an actual member of the NRA. But I'm objective enough to step back and see the forest AND the trees.)
Well -- do you think the KKK doesn't have an AGENDA that it purports to represent the interests of a given demographic? The NAACP? La Raza? Act Up? Queer Nation?
All of these organizations put forth an agenda that they claim to represent the interests of the target demographic; and they recruit from within that demographic through various appeals and techniques. Yet each one only effectively has the support and membership of a fraction of that demographic. No different from the NRA.
So there IS a "gun rights" AGENDA that does not necessarily represent the views of all gun owners. There IS a "white," "black," and "Latino" agenda put forth by some organization or another that does not necessarily represent the views of all members of that demographic. YET that agenda is named and PORTRAYED as representing the entire demographic.
And, similarly, there is, in fact, a gay AGENDA that is put forth by activist organizations that do not necessarily represent the views of all or even a majority of gays; but is PORTRAYED as representing the views and interests of gays.
Opposition to an AGENDA is not the same thing as opposition to the GROUP purported to be represented by a self-interested organization.
Opposing the KKK's agenda doesn't mean you hate white people. Opposing the New Black Panther Party's agenda doesn't mean you hate black people. Opposing the Queer Nation or Act Up agenda doesn't mean you hate gay people. Opposing the ADL agenda doesn't mean you hate Jewish people. Opposing the La Raza agenda doesn't mean you hate Hispanic people.
It simply means you oppose an existing Agenda put forth by an organization.
Nothing more.
Got it?
for everyone to accept KISSING,ANAL, AND ORAL SEX between to people of the same sex and FOR THEM TO GET THE SAME RIGHTS OR MORE RIGHTS.
"Oy veh! Must I explain EVERYTHING?"
Apparently so. As your extraordinarily voluminous posts indicate.
Unfortunately, much of what you post is merely pontificating bullshit.
Does the KKK represent the White Male Agenda? If someone said that the KKK represents YOUR agenda, would you argue that they don't and that there is no White Male Agenda but there IS a KKK agenda?
For someone who uses so fucking many words, you sure seem confused pretty often about what they mean.
I believe your post is bullshit.
The idea that the only reason someone would oppose hate-crime laws or changes to marriage laws is because he is defending "white male privilege" is utter garbage.
There are plenty of black folks and women who oppose these things; and I assure you it has nothing to do with white male privilege. Same with GaGambler who also isn't white.
So in few words, your pontificating eructation is useless drivel.
Impugning the motives of people who disagree with you is shallow and very very small.
-- Modified on 5/10/2010 9:02:53 PM
No need to go on and on and on and on endlessly showcasing your vocabulary in building a house of cards. Eructation? LOL! How long have you been waiting to use that?
So, are you of the opinion that there is no white male privilege? If your answer is no, then that tells me you don't observe the real world very keenly. If the answer is yes, then do you really think that white males are accepting the loss of that privilege graciously or do you think they are angry about it and lashing out at the people they see as 'usurping' their rightful place at the head of the table?
As for black folks opposing gay marriage, homophobia isn't bound by ethnicity and claiming that just because many blacks are homophobic there is no white male privilege is specious.
Finally, the fact that you still adhere to the sophomoric 'philosophy' of Ayn Rand tells me that you haven't actually thought or read very deeply. Real thinkers leave her behind before they graduate from college.
You have ASSUMED for purposes of an ad hominem and made an ass out of yourself. I have posted many times that my handle is because I appreciate the way Rand brought the importance of philosophy to a wide audience, and NOT because I accept her philosophy (largely derived -- uncredited -- from Nietzsche and Aquinas) uncritically.
Of course, since I doubt you know anything much about it; the fact you'd be fooled is unsurprising. If you are going to make an ad hominem, at least try to get your facts straight.
As for who is a "real thinker" -- I'll just let that slide as a pointless derivation of an incorrect premise. You would have flunked the philosophical ethics course that I've taught.
Now to show you why you'd flunk that course.
>"No wonder that the White Male Agenda is ..."
Here, you clearly acknowledge the existence of an ethnic/sexual agenda WITHOUT the prerequisite of agreement of all members of the referenced group. Accordingly, your reasoning is that the fact I might not agree with that agenda doesn't mean that such an agenda (based on ethnicity and/or sex) does not exist.
> "Sure, you may be able to find loonies who spout off about something crazy, but that doesn't an agenda make."
In this case, you are referencing gays. Gays don't have an agenda.
Problem: Contradiction. You are seeing gays as individuals; but white male heterosexuals as a group.
> "The people who are afraid of some supposed 'agenda' of gays, feminists, blacks, etc. are simply nervous about losing the automatic privilege that comes with being white and male in the US."
Here is the final proof that you are out of your mind. Unless you intend to deny the equal humanity of white heterosexual males; you are saying that THEY have an agenda (see above), but that nobody else does.
But worse, you have already acknowledged your belief in a "white male agenda." Unless you plan to dehumanize white people; you must allow them to fit in your sentence above:
"The people who are afraid of some supposed 'agenda' of gays, feminists, blacks, whites, etc. are simply nervous about losing ..."
Well, YOU are afraid of this alleged white male agenda.
And as you have acknowledged, there is no legitimacy to such fear.
You have just invalidated your own argument.
FINALLY; your original statement was that THE PEOPLE (and I assume ALL ethnicities are "PEOPLE") who are afraid ...
You are flip-flopping back and forth essentially creating a circumstance, paradoxically, where only hetero white males can meet your definition of "PEOPLE" for purposes of condemnation.
Perhaps you think Rand's philosophy is sophomoric -- and I agree it has many errors -- but your writing on this is so muddled with contradictions that I think you might benefit from a simple class in Aristotelian logic.
1. You make ad hominems based upon non-facts
2. You contradict your own arguments at every turn
3. When you aren't outright contradicting yourself, you are changing context at will
4. Based on your posts in this thread, you would flunk the philosophical ethics course I've taught due to failure to think your way out of a wet paper sack.
Finally: The fact that someone opposes some legislative initiative is NOT proof of his philosophy in terms of race and sex. There are other legitimate reasons for opposing legislation.
Psychopathologizing dissent has been done since Lenin's time. It only works when you have legions of dummies with guns waiting to do your bidding. Otherwise people (like me) laugh at the attempt.
-- Modified on 5/11/2010 9:14:19 AM
Talk about backsliding!!!
Here. I'll show you how it's done
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
I, for one, am very glad not to have had to suffer through the philosophical ethics class that you have taught.
Were the students allowed to talk or did they simply have to listen to the endless masturbation that you think passes for intellectual inquiry?
You apparently don't realize it but in large measure we're on the same side on a bunch of stuff.
So rather than poke you back, I'll just let it stand. We're friends -- not enemies and I'll not escalate your additional ad hominems.
as it suits him. Like most Libertarians, if you ask him what time it is he will tell you how to build a watch.
Someday he'll grow up and become a full fledged Anarchist, which is what Libertarians unwittingly aspire to.
In the words of Thom Hartmann, a Libertarian is just a Republican who wants to wants to smoke dope and get laid.
Like any reasonable person; I pull from many sources but am a slave to none. I apply my own reason and judgment rather than substituting someone else's.
While I'll admit to some libertarian tendencies (for example, I don't want government telling you who you can fuck, who you can marry, or if you can do dope); there are many arenas where my views are far from libertarian.
Of course, Objectivism sees Libertarianism as a "perversion of liberty" to quote Peter Schwartz in a book he wrote for the Ayn Rand Institute.
Being consistent to what someone else thinks you should think is pretty maladaptive, IMO. 