This....is not easy to watch. [CW - homophobic violence]

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

So this guy who lives somewhere in Appalachian country comes out as gay to his family and.....well, see for yourself.

1df_i26wh-w

I won't lie, it's not pretty. His mother basically disowns him and then punches him while his grandmother cheers her on.

Sadly, this is a far too common thing here in the States.


EDIT: Thanks to Quail for adding the content warning. I should have done that myself. I is dumbass :B

[BIXX]

Fuck this. I feel sick.

[Loony Le Fist]

They are lucky I wasn't their child. I was extremely violent as a teenager. I probably would have ended up becoming both a felon and an orphan after an encounter like that.

[Deep Sea]

They seem more angry about Facebook posts than anything else.

[Decolonize The Left]

Good for this kid video taping this and putting it in public. That shows a lot of courage and strength. I wish them all the best in what will almost assuredly be a better future than they would have had in that reactionary household.

[Sasha]

There is a fundraiser to relocate the guy and his boyfriend and get them a house,
The pink dollar doing something good for a chance

[Rafiq]

Firstly, as far as the video is concerned it is rather sickening. Such reactionary families, existing outside the jurisdiction even of the hegemonic bourgeois state, and hegemonic ideas - which by the way are not necessarily 'homophobic'. Prevailing, legitimate ruling ideas have begun to fit homosexuality within the paradigm of ruling sexual relations - the prevalence of homophobia is now a reactionary phenomena and an expression of petite bourgeois sentiment. Oh, and don't kid yourselves, American republicans (overwhelmingly popular for the petite bourgeoisie) are not legitimized, they are rather the ugly little brother that serves only to make the older one appear more handsome - to change standards. The counter-culture aside, Socialist organizations throughout the world were SECOND to oppose homophobia, second to liberals (if only to demonstrate the petite bourgeois nature of "Socialism" today).

Why does homophobia persist? For many reasons. One of those reasons is the fact that ruling ideas will accept homosexuality - so long as it is certain that it is not a choice. Of course any good idiot knows homosexuality is not a choice, but that's beyond the point.

What is the importance of it not being a choice? Ruling class ideology DETESTS the notion of something that exists unrestricted outside existing gender relations (which are considered "natural", nature is interchangeable with God, with any cosmic justification, that which gender relations LEGITIMIZE themselves by) without proper categorization and without a proper place. Do not take this for something else: The notion of "free love" is liberal and degenerate (and not in the conservative sense). Sexuality does not need to be "free" for it to be outside of existing gender relations, sexuality must be conquered so that it does not need to be legitimized by "freedom" or "nature".

We also must not be so foolish as to enter the domain of hypocritical, and worthless identity politics and muddied privilege theory wherein we categorize homosexuals (and whatever else 'group') as eternal victims incapable of empowerment through Communism. Among homosexuals there are class enemies, reactionaries even (One only needs to take a single look at the prevailing sexuality of many Fascist organizations throughout the western world, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html).

We must therefore recognize the fight for sexual emancipation and the fight against homophobia not on individual terms (or even necessarily collective terms), but as challenging sexual relations themselves as a whole. It is an ideological battle. So long as there is aversion towards men taking a passive sexual role, but not women (because it's their "place" to be submissive), the sexual enslavement of women is all the more strengthened. That is not to say direct action is to be opposed (for example, giving the father in the above video a good ass kicking) in individual circumstances, but how we approach the struggle to begin with.

[BIXX]

I want to say that I agree with rafiq on some points but not at all on others. I will respond more in full during my dinner in about 3 hrs.

[The Feral Underclass]

We also must not be so foolish as to enter the domain of hypocritical, and worthless identity politics and muddied privilege theory wherein we categorize homosexuals (and whatever else 'group') as eternal victims incapable of empowerment through Communism.

That interpretation of privilege theory is so erroneous it borders on comical. This paragraph demonstrates quite clearly that you have only ever had a cursory and biased reading of privilege theory, and then taken it upon yourself to act as if you're some kind of expert on the subject.

What on Earth are you talking about?

[The Feral Underclass]

There is a fundraiser to relocate the guy and his boyfriend and get them a house

Do you have details/links to this? I'd like to promote it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

They seem more angry about Facebook posts than anything else.

What is that supposed to mean?

[Deep Sea]

What is that supposed to mean?

Just look at what they start raising their voices about. The mother calmly says (at the very start, no less) she "knew" her son was gay since he was a "tiny little boy." The grandmother (or another female voice) says she has "a lot of friends that are gay," and that's fine, but they're "not related" to her. The father only becomes incensed when the son denies posting stuff on Facebook about him being a racist, and everyone gets pissed when the son says he wasn't "raised" by his father just because he fed him and "put a roof over" his head. Homosexuality appears largely just to be a background issue in this segment of the video (as it is clear the conversation continues longer, as the father is cut-off mid sentence toward the end of the clip).

It also seems to me that they are aware they are on camera, even though in the video it seems he is attempting to hide the camera. When the grandmother (or some other woman) says not to "fill these people full of bullshit," I just wonder why she doesn't say "us" instead of "these people," when it appears only immediate family is in the room. It seems to me "these people" represents an implied internet audience, and hence the family is aware they are being filmed.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yes I'm sure the hostile family intervention they're having has nothing to do with him being a homosexual.

[Deep Sea]

Yes I'm sure the hostile family intervention they're having has nothing to do with him being a homosexual.

Given how they feel about having "friends" who are gay and the mother's 'knowledge' of the son being a homosexual since he was a "tiny little boy," it seems they've already largely accepted the mainstream cultural discourse on the issue. The mother's main concern seems to only be that she doesn't want to "let people believe" she "condones" what her son does (i.e. her church buddies). All this is stated calmly, and the conversion only gets heated when it moves away from the son being a homosexual.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

So just to be clear deep sea, you feel the need to come here and defend the homophobic parents of this guy because....?

[Deep Sea]

So just to be clear deep sea, you feel the need to come here and defend the homophobic parents of this guy because....?

How am I 'defending' the parents in any fashion?

[Deep Sea]

Do you have details/links to this? I'd like to promote it.

$59,455 (http://www.gofundme.com/dnoqgg) (as of this linking). That will certainly get Daniel a nice new house for a 5 minute Youtube video.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think it's perfectly clear that Deep Sea isn't defending the parents, he is giving a fairly accurate appraisal of the argument. Despite the very confused, bigoted and hurtful views of the family towards their son, the argument only really becomes as heated and aggressive as it does when the son belittles and undermines what his parents consider to have been their duty to him as parents. When the son dismisses the father's efforts to earn money and provide economic security, it's at that point the mother becomes so angry. That's not a defence of the parents, that's just what actually happens.

Nevertheless, this situation is very common. Being thrown out of your home by your parents because of your sexuality is a terrible thing to have happen to you. It's not a particularly Christian thing to do from their perspective either. Jesus taught compassion and forgiveness, right? From a Christian stand point, which she apparently claims to adhere to, there was not much forgiveness and compassion there. Also, from the perspective of the Christian faith, she is actually being blasphemous by judging her son, since the Bible is quite clear that it is only God who can judge. She also makes very little sense when she claims she knew he was gay as a young boy but then also claims it is a choice, since that would imply she believes young children can make conscious and informed choices about how they like having sex -- specifically anal sex with other boys...So clearly she's not particularly the sharpest tool in the box.

She's ignorant and intellectually deficient, as well as being cruel, un-Christian and bigoted. He is better off without them.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Given how they feel about having "friends" who are gay and the mother's 'knowledge' of the son being a homosexual since he was a "tiny little boy," it seems they've already largely accepted the mainstream cultural discourse on the issue.

Oh, and what is the "mainstream cultural discourse on the issue"?


I think it's perfectly clear that Deep Sea isn't defending the parents, he is giving a fairly accurate appraisal of the argument.

You don't think this:


$59,455 (http://www.gofundme.com/dnoqgg) (as of this linking). That will certainly get Daniel a nice new house for a 5 minute Youtube video.

Is a defense of the parents, or at least the belittling of what happened?



Nevertheless, this situation is very common. Being thrown out of your home by your parents because of your sexuality is a terrible thing to have happen to you. It's not a particularly Christian thing to do from their perspective either. Jesus taught compassion and forgiveness, right? From a Christian stand point, which she apparently claims to adhere to, there was not much forgiveness and compassion there. Also, from the perspective of the Christian faith, she is actually being blasphemous by judging her son, since the Bible is quite clear that it is only God who can judge. She also makes very little sense when she claims she knew he was gay as a young boy but then also claims it is a choice, since that would imply she believes young children can make conscious and informed choices about how they like having sex -- specifically anal sex with other boys...So clearly she's not particularly the sharpest tool in the box.

She's ignorant and intellectually deficient, as well as being cruel, un-Christian and bigoted. He is better off without them.

No, what she did was very Christian, as Christianity is more than some vague "compassion and forgiveness" (not that there is anything positive about "forgiving" people for homosexuality, as that implies homosexuality is something negative).

[The Feral Underclass]

Is a defense of the parents, or at least the belittling of what happened?

Well, to be honest I do have concerns over these kinds of things. Fundraising of this kind is sort of a way for people to feel like they're able to do something in otherwise impotent circumstances.

Raising $60,000 for one individual who was privileged enough to have the technology and the support base for someone to set that up ignores the very structural issues that face thousands of young people who do not have access to these sorts of things. There are people who are no doubt in far worse circumstances than Daniel who could do with some of that money.

I don't know what Deep Sea's motives are for that comment and I'm not going to speculate, they can make their own defence, but I think it can only really be interpreted as "belittling of what happened" if that is how you choose to read it.


No, what she did was very Christian, as Christianity is more than some vague "compassion and forgiveness" (not that there is anything positive about "forgiving" people for homosexuality, as that implies homosexuality is something negative).

I can't quite believe I'm being put into a situation where I have to justify Christian doctrines, but very well.

While her behaviour was indicative of a cultural Christianity that sees the castigation of homosexuals as some kind of duty, the New Testament is very clear about what it means to be a Christian.

As we all know, Christians tend to pick and choose which parts they want to pay attention to, but I assure you the idea of compassion and forgiveness is very much a central theme. I can provide Biblical quotes if you really want?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, to be honest I do have concerns over these kinds of things. Fundraising of this kind is sort of a way for people to feel like they're able to do something in otherwise impotent circumstances.

Raising $60,000 for one individual who was privileged enough to have the technology and the support base for someone to set that up ignores the very structural issues that face thousands of young people who do not have access to these sorts of things. There are people who are no doubt in far worse circumstances that Daniel who could do with some of that money.

There always are. That is the nature of capitalist society. I don't think donations will help the structural problem, but at the same time it is very odd for a socialist to complain about a structurally oppressed person being privileged, compared to the bourgeoisie and their lieutenants.


I can't quite believe I'm being put into a situation where I have to justify Christian doctrines, but very well.

While her behaviour was indicative of a cultural Christianity that sees the castigation of homosexuals as some kind of duty, the New Testament is very clear about what it means to be a Christian.

As we all know, Christians tend to pick and choose which parts they want to pay attention to, but I assure you the idea of compassion and forgiveness is very much a central theme. I can provide Biblical quotes if you really want?

Sure, you can find quotes in the Bible to support pretty much anything. But you're not reading the text in context - the context being formed by both the preceding religious text (Jesus, after all, was effectively a Pharisee rabbi), and by the subsequent doctrinal and theological texts and practice. The doctrine of almost every church on homosexuality is very clear. I don't know why you think it is a good idea to presume to teach Christians what being a Christian means, but it won't succeed.

[Rafiq]

That interpretation of privilege theory is so erroneous it borders on comical. This paragraph demonstrates quite clearly that you have only ever had a cursory and biased reading of privilege theory, and then taken it upon yourself to act as if you're some kind of expert on the subject.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Privilege theory is the death of politics. It's not simply recognition that you may be better off, or luckier being born a certain race, sexuality or gender. Any idiot knows this. Privilege theory direct coincides with the despair, utter hopelessness of proletarian class consciousness. It is the trimming of fine edges on a state of affairs presumed to exist indefinitely. It is the negative conscience of capitalist ideology, which serves as just that - to act as a conscience for bourgeois liberalism. Like most academic trends, it not only takes comfort in - it parasitically suckles ruling ideology. Like most of today's Left its basis is obfuscatory language and carefully trimmed specifialities under the watchful eye of their political correctness. What does this tell us? They do not possess their own ideology and language. Throughout the history of the Communist movement specified, detailed and obscure theories which have to challenge ruling ideas at every which turn (be careful about how you read this) did not exist. From the existence of the movement itself - the class movement, spawned an entirely new language and ideology which did not have to cater, or address the ideological presumptions of liberalism. Meaning it was their word against the word of the ruling class, which were based in entirely different ideological languages. The Communists did not have to apologize for their language, or justify themselves. The revolutionary movement alone was their providence.

Oceans of text on racism, privilege were necessary for academics (as though they presume existing relations invincible - that capitalism is here to stay): But within the Communist movement, especially during the 1920's throughout, there was no need for this. The very spirit of anti-racism was vested in the hearts of the Communists, by merit of the nature of their struggle alone. The Communist universe, the power of Communist ideology destroyed, pommeled through the walls of racism built over the course of a century, decades long traditions and trends of racism, of which these academics attribute existing racism, were smashed through the worker's struggle.

We know that history has a short-memory, it is not decades old cultural traditions within capitalism that sustain racism, it is the continual reproduction of racism through their necessity in the American capitalist totality. Racism in our society is not old, but continually and indefinitely new. Liberals are keen on painting racism as residue in retreat - while their "Marxist" academic counter parts will claim something similar, that this residue is simply far too strong, that it has existed for too long and has been institutionalized over the course of centuries. These are both wrong. The oceans of text on privilege theory do not even amount in worth to a single expression of revolutionary consciousness. They rely on the presumptions of existing ideology. And of course there are flashes of exceptions. No one is claiming there are none. But speaking generally, the summation of what privilege theory is allows us to come to this conclusion. Communism and privilege theory are incompatible. Because the latter relies on the absence of Communism (the real existing movement derived from present conditions).

[The Feral Underclass]

Privilege theory is the death of politics. It's not simply recognition that you may be better off, or luckier being born a certain race, sexuality or gender. Any idiot knows this. Privilege theory direct coincides with the despair, utter hopelessness of proletarian class consciousness. It is the trimming of fine edges on a state of affairs presumed to exist indefinitely. It is the negative conscience of capitalist ideology, which serves as just that - to act as a conscience for bourgeois liberalism. Like most academic trends, it not only takes comfort in - it parasitically suckles ruling ideology. Like most of today's Left its basis is obfuscatory language and carefully trimmed specifialities under the watchful eye of their political correctness. What does this tell us? They do not possess their own ideology and language. Throughout the history of the Communist movement specified, detailed and obscure theories which have to challenge ruling ideas at every which turn (be careful about how you read this) did not exist. From the existence of the movement itself - the class movement, spawned an entirely new language and ideology which did not have to cater, or address the ideological presumptions of liberalism. Meaning it was their word against the word of the ruling class, which were based in entirely different ideological languages. The Communists did not have to apologize for their language, or justify themselves. The revolutionary movement alone was their providence.

Oceans of text on racism, privilege were necessary for academics (as though they presume existing relations invincible - that capitalism is here to stay): But within the Communist movement, especially during the 1920's throughout, there was no need for this. The very spirit of anti-racism was vested in the hearts of the Communists, by merit of the nature of their struggle alone. The Communist universe, the power of Communist ideology destroyed, pommeled through the walls of racism built over the course of a century, decades long traditions and trends of racism, of which these academics attribute existing racism, were smashed through the worker's struggle.

We know that history has a short-memory, it is not decades old cultural traditions within capitalism that sustain racism, it is the continual reproduction of racism through their necessity in the American capitalist totality. Racism in our society is not old, but continually and indefinitely new.

The problem here is that your conceptualisation of privilege theory isn't real. It is something you have constructed in your strange little mind to argue against.

I really have nothing to say to this verbiage other than to suggest that maybe you should ease off on the psychedelic drugs.

[The Feral Underclass]

There always are. That is the nature of capitalist society. I don't think donations will help the structural problem, but at the same time it is very odd for a socialist to complain about a structurally oppressed person being privileged, compared to the bourgeoisie and their lieutenants.

You live in your own little fantasy world, don't you?


Sure, you can find quotes in the Bible to support pretty much anything. But you're not reading the text in context - the context being formed by both the preceding religious text (Jesus, after all, was effectively a Pharisee rabbi), and by the subsequent doctrinal and theological texts and practice. The doctrine of almost every church on homosexuality is very clear. I don't know why you think it is a good idea to presume to teach Christians what being a Christian means, but it won't succeed.

Christianity is founded on the principles of forgiveness and by extension compassion. Catholicism, for example, is fundamentally predicated on that principle. I don't really understand what you're arguing about. I'm not teaching Christians what being a Christian means, I am simply articulating what Christianity is found on.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You live in your own little fantasy world, don't you?

So far the evidence suggests another theory entirely.


Christianity is founded on the principles of forgiveness and by extension compassion. Catholicism, for example, is fundamentally predicated on that principle. I don't really understand what you're arguing about.

I am arguing against the whitewashing of Christian ideology by reducing it to mind-numbing platitudes about compassion and forgiveness. If you want to know the Catholic position on homosexuality - in fact I suspect you already do - pick up the Catechism. Christianity is defined by what it is, not by what you think it should be because it's "fundamentally predicated" on some vague notion,

[The Feral Underclass]

So far the evidence suggests another theory entirely.

My suggest to you would be to take a deep breath, walk away from your computer for five minutes, drink a hot chocolate, come back, and re-read what I said without some blinkered, irate lens on.


I am arguing against the whitewashing of Christian ideology by reducing it to mind-numbing platitudes about compassion and forgiveness.

Well, here's your problem. I'm not talking about Christian ideology, as I made clear in a previous post, I'm talking about the "word of God", which is what that women was talking about. It's not me that reduces it to mind-numbing platitudes, it's the Bible.


If you want to know the Catholic position on homosexuality - in fact I suspect you already do - pick up the Catechism.

Right, and gay people can be forgiven if they repent, because God forgives. That's the whole basis of the religion.


Christianity is defined by what it is, not by what you think it should be because it's "fundamentally predicated" on some vague notion,

It's not a vague notion, it's the fundamental basis of the Christian faith.

[Rafiq]

The problem here is that your conceptualisation of privilege theory isn't real.


The terminology is wrong. While it is inarguable that a worker might benefit by being male, heterosexual and white - this must not trivialize, or downplay their condition as a worker. The absence of something like "privilege" theory in Communist movements isn't because today we're more knowledgeable, advanced, enlightened or what have you: It's because today there is no communist movement.

My problem isn't the idea itself, that one might benefit from not having in their identity something that puts them in societal disadvantage. My problem is the fundamental implications drawn from this: Something like "privilege theory" isn't just what it claims to be. It represent something bigger, which is the death of politics. Every child knew what it cosmetically and apparently entails for a hundred years: Why does it only prevail now, when the worker's movement is dead? The problem is the prevalence of privilege theory as opposed to real politics, and they cannot exist synonymously. It is grossly post modern - it presumes on a very tacit level that somehow, we have entered a special age in which society is simply composed of individuals and their identities, some of which are more oppressed, and disadvantaged then others. That we're all just like the comfortable academics sitting in their apartments with a steady income on their laptops on tumblr writing it in the first place - all that is left is to destroy the "residue" or legacy of privilege. This just as much, if not more, reproduces prevailing ideas and the suppression of Communism as affirmative bourgeois ideology and politics (because it assumes the role, falsely, of the opposition).

[The Feral Underclass]

The terminology is wrong. While it is inarguable that a worker might benefit by being male, heterosexual and white - this must not trivialize, or downplay their condition as a worker.

And since it doesn't, I don't really see what your argument is.


The problem is the prevalence of privilege theory as opposed to real politics

That's not a problem with privilege theory, that's a problem with communists being inept.

[Rafiq]

I am arguing against the whitewashing of Christian ideology by reducing it to mind-numbing platitudes about compassion and forgiveness. If you want to know the Catholic position on homosexuality - in fact I suspect you already do - pick up the Catechism. Christianity is defined by what it is, not by what you think it should be because it's "fundamentally predicated" on some vague notion,

The anti-homosexuality of Christians today is uniquely pagan. Why? Because it roots sexual legitimacy in "nature", whether it is a "choice" or not. Christianity entailed the cutting of roots with any notion of destiny or that which "binds" us by the cosmic order. The holy ghost, was the holy community of which carried destiny in their hands after the death of god.

Spare me some drivel about the role of Christianity in feudalism: any integration with Christianity as a ruling ideology in social relations like feudalism will naturally assume such a role. Notice how in the East, in places like Tibet, Feudalism worked well with other religions, too.

Why was early Christianity grossly anti-humanistic? Because humanity for paganism meant having a special place in the order of things, what humanity entailed for pagans was also pre-supposed by Christians, albeit rejected. Humanism, as it were from the renaissance, was affirmative in that it appropriated the notion of humanity and exalted it in Christian terms.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

My suggest to you would be to take a deep breath, walk away from your computer for five minutes. Drink a hot chocolate, come back, and re-read what I said without some blinkered, irate lens on.

And my counter-suggestion would be for you to drop the patronising attitude, although I suspect I might as well go to the beach and start yelling at the sea to stop being so bloody salty.


Well, here's your problem. I'm not talking about Christian ideology, as I made clear in a previous post, I'm talking about the "word of God", which is what that women was talking about.

You're talking about something that only exists in Christian ideology, and of course, the Bible itself is murderously homophobic.


It's not me that reduces it to mind-numbing platitudes, it's the Bible.

Well, no, not really. Perhaps "the popular understanding of the Bible". But of course at no point in the Bible do any of the authors say that "compassion and forgiveness" (and, of course, you are reading your own notions of what compassion and forgiveness are into the text, ignoring the context I mentioned) are the only thing that is relevant.


Right, and gay people can be forgiven if they repent, because God forgives. That's the whole basis of the religion.

They can be "forgiven" (how lovely) if they repent and stop acting gay. I deeply suspect that if a Hoxhaist said something like this about the penal code of the PSR Albania, you wouldn't buy it (and you shouldn't, it's stupid). So why does the Pope get a free pass where comrade Xha-Xha doesn't?


It's not a vague notion, it's the fundamental basis of the Christian faith.

Except, of course, your weird mixture of Sola Scriptura, modern-day apologetics and the sensibility of a particular part of the LGBT milieu would be rejected by just about every church that exists, but hey...

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I think it's perfectly clear that Deep Sea isn't defending the parents, he is giving a fairly accurate appraisal of the argument. Despite the very confused, bigoted and hurtful views of the family towards their son, the argument only really becomes as heated and aggressive as it does when the son belittles and undermines what his parents consider to have been their duty to him as parents. When the son dismisses the father's efforts to earn money and provide economic security, it's at that point the mother becomes so angry. That's not a defence of the parents, that's just what actually happens.

Nevertheless, this situation is very common. Being thrown out of your home by your parents because of your sexuality is a terrible thing to have happen to you. It's not a particularly Christian thing to do from their perspective either. Jesus taught compassion and forgiveness, right? From a Christian stand point, which she apparently claims to adhere to, there was not much forgiveness and compassion there. Also, from the perspective of the Christian faith, she is actually being blasphemous by judging her son, since the Bible is quite clear that it is only God who can judge. She also makes very little sense when she claims she knew he was gay as a young boy but then also claims it is a choice, since that would imply she believes young children can make conscious and informed choices about how they like having sex -- specifically anal sex with other boys...So clearly she's not particularly the sharpest tool in the box.

She's ignorant and intellectually deficient, as well as being cruel, un-Christian and bigoted. He is better off without them.

I haven't seen him object to a 20 year old man being physically attacked, only that we are apparently misunderstanding why his parents are physically attacking him, it looks like a defense to me.

[Rafiq]

And since it doesn't, I don't really see what your argument is.



That's not a problem with privilege theory, that's a problem with communists being inept.

Oh, but it does. Not only does it trivialize the condition of the worker, it renders it unrecognizable. Not in a victimizing sense, but in a sense of downplaying the fighting spirit. It impedes the class consciousness of the worker.

Privilege theory is anti-political. Politics is the domain of power, not our identities. When you resign the field of politics, you cede to the enemy power. Privilege theory not only cedes the enemy power and renounces political struggle - it actively works as a means of reproducing the power of ruling ideology - and therefore the power of the enemy. Not because it is sinister, but because it tacitly presumes ruling ideology.

[The Feral Underclass]

And my counter-suggestion would be for you to drop the patronising attitude, although I suspect I might as well go to the beach and start yelling at the sea to stop being so bloody salty.

I'm not being patronising, I'm suggesting that you have taken some inexplicably hostile and combative attitude towards me for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

All I have said is that I have concerns about fundraising campaigns of this nature and identified a central theme of Christian faith that this woman somehow hypocritically ignored.

From that, you have managed to work yourself up into some epiplectic outrage that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said.


You're talking about something that only exists in Christian ideology, and of course, the Bible itself is murderously homophobic.

Well, no, not really. Perhaps "the popular understanding of the Bible". But of course at no point in the Bible do any of the authors say that "compassion and forgiveness" (and, of course, you are reading your own notions of what compassion and forgiveness are into the text, ignoring the context I mentioned) are the only thing that is relevant.

They can be "forgiven" (how lovely) if they repent and stop acting gay. I deeply suspect that if a Hoxhaist said something like this about the penal code of the PSR Albania, you wouldn't buy it (and you shouldn't, it's stupid). So why does the Pope get a free pass where comrade Xha-Xha doesn't?

Except, of course, your weird mixture of Sola Scriptura, modern-day apologetics and the sensibility of a particular part of the LGBT milieu would be rejected by just about every church that exists, but hey...

Do you think I am trying to defend Christianity as non-homophobic?

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh, but it does. Not only does it trivialize the condition of the worker, it renders it unrecognizable. Not in a victimizing sense, but in a sense of downplaying the fighting spirit. It impedes the class consciousness of the worker.

It could only do that if privilege theory and class analysis were not inextricably linked.


Privilege theory is anti-political. Politics is the domain of power, not our identities. When you resign the field of politics, you cede to the enemy power.

Your assumption that privilege theory is not linked to class struggle is precisely why you have no idea what you're talking about.


Privilege theory not only cedes the enemy power and renounces political struggle - it actively works as a means of reproducing the power of ruling ideology - and therefore the power of the enemy. Not because it is sinister, but because it tacitly presumes ruling ideology.

I just have no idea how you have come to this conclusion...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Do you think I am trying to defend Christianity as non-homophobic?

Given that you constantly talk about how homophobic actions by Christians are somehow the result of their hypocrisy, instead of, you know, the material basis of society as reflected in the homophobic Christian ideology, and that you constantly mention how in Christianity gays can be "forgiven", how magnanimous of the Christians, draw your own conclusion.

[The Feral Underclass]

I haven't seen him object to a 20 year old man being physically attacked, only that we are apparently misunderstanding why his parents are physically attacking him, it looks like a defense to me.

But you haven't seen me object to it either, so what does that mean? In fact, Sasha didn't object to it either, what do you think that means?

[The Feral Underclass]

Given that you constantly talk about how homophobic actions by Christians are somehow the result of their hypocrisy

What I said was that according to the Bible Christians are supposed to forgive people of their sins, not judge them. That is not incorrect. That's not a defence of Christianity or a suggestion that Christians or their faith isn't homophobic.

Trying to turn it into that only demonstrates your myopic dogmatism and inability to differentiate between an assessment of something and a defence of something.


instead of, you know, the material basis of society as reflected in the homophobic Christian ideology

That sentence makes no sense.


and that you constantly mention how in Christianity gays can be "forgiven", how magnanimous of the Christians, draw your own conclusion.

But gay people can be forgiven...That's just a fact. It doesn't make Christianity non-homophobic...

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

But you haven't seen me object to it either, so what does that mean? In fact, Sasha didn't object to it either, what do you think that means?

Those users were not belittling the individual. I get that you like to argue for the sake of it, but I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this. Side with him if you want, I don't actually give a shit.

[The Modern Prometheus]

They are lucky I wasn't their child. I was extremely violent as a teenager. I probably would have ended up becoming both a felon and an orphan after an encounter like that.

No shit they are lucky i wasn't their kid because i learned early on in this world to respect people that respected me but if someone tried to harm me i always fought back no matter what the odds. I was a violent little bastard at times so i most likely would have fucking decked someone right there and then.

I still can't believe that in this day and age people still have these backwards attitudes. It really is sickening to think that so many people still believe in this type of reactionary bullshit.

[The Feral Underclass]

Those users were not belittling the individual.

Do you think it's perfectly fine for one gay man to be given $60,000 by complete strangers for experiencing something thousands of other people experience daily? Do you honestly think that is completely beyond any kind of analysis and that we should just accept it as the right thing to do without even considering what it means? Because if you do, that makes you a liberal.


I get that you like to argue for the sake of it, but I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this. Side with him if you want, I don't actually give a shit.

Wait a minute! You mean someone comes to a debating message board and actually debates?...That is shocking.

I'm not siding with anyone, this isn't a fucking high school play ground. All I am doing is objecting to the very petty way in which you and 870 have decided to conduct yourselves in this thread.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What I said was that according to the Bible Christians are supposed to forgive people of their sins, not judge them. That is not incorrect. That's not a defence of Christianity or a suggestion that Christians or their faith isn't homophobic.

Here is an honest question: have you ever read the Bible? Have you read the Catechism, or any doctrinal work that postdates the Bible? I would hazard a guess that you're severely out of your depth. Furthermore, you did explicitly call this sort of homophobic behaviour "non-Christian". That is a defence of Christianity no matter how much you protest.


That sentence makes no sense.

Now I'm going to do my best impression of batko tatko and suggest you haven't read it carefully.


But gay people can be forgiven...That's just a fact. It doesn't make Christianity non-homophobic...

They can be forgive if, and this is the crucial part you ignore, they stop acting gay. Sorry, but you won't be able to force a religion that matured in the so-called Dark Ages into the mould of your modern sensibilities.


Do you think it's perfectly fine for one gay man to be given $60,000 by complete strangers for experiencing something thousands of other people experience daily? Do you honestly think that is completely beyond any kind of analysis and that we should just accept it as the right thing to do without even considering what it means?

Talking about hypocrisy, you were attempting to promote the fundraiser before your new buddy Deep Sea started criticising it. I think you've just run out of things to say and you're worried people will forget the all-important fact of your existence.

But if the above paragraph really does represent your thinking, it is a pretty damning indictment of your policies. "How dare these oppressed people ask for anything! Don't they know there are people who have it worse than them!" What are you, Tim Wohlforth's long-lost brother or something?

I have better things to do than to listen to your angry self-important crying, in any case.

[The Feral Underclass]

Here is an honest question: have you ever read the Bible? Have you read the Catechism, or any doctrinal work that postdates the Bible? I would hazard a guess that you're severely out of your depth. Furthermore, you did explicitly call this sort of homophobic behaviour "non-Christian". That is a defence of Christianity no matter how much you protest.

I have not read the entire Bible, nor have I read the Catechism, or any doctrinal work that postdates the Bible. I can safely say that I am not an expert on Christianity.

Nevertheless, I know that the Bible teaches forgiveness and compassion. How Christians interpret this is, as I've already said, a matter for them. I'm not suggesting that Christians or Christianity is not fundamentally homophobic.

All I was doing was making a connection between her attitude and the attitude inherent in the Christian faith that she espouses. That is it. It was essentially glibness.


Now I'm going to do my best impression of batko tatko and suggest you haven't read it carefully.

The sentence reads: "instead of, you know, the material basis of society as reflected in the homophobic Christian ideology"

That doesn't make sense. It's not a question of not reading it carefully, it's a question of the meaning being unclear. If you want to make more sense of it, then I am happy to give it another go.


They can be forgive if, and this is the crucial part you ignore, they stop acting gay. Sorry, but you won't be able to force a religion that matured in the so-called Dark Ages into the mould of your modern sensibilities.

I don't understand what is happening here. Am I being trolled?

First off, I'm not trying to mould Christianity into anything, least of all these alleged "modern sensibilities." Secondly, I'm not ignoring the fact that Christians want gay people to stop being gay. That was never in my equation. I made a flippant statement about how Christians are supposed to forgive people and not judge them, a statement that is not untrue.

I don't understand how you have taken that and turned it into this huge fucking dilemma.


Talking about hypocrisy, you were attempting to promote the fundraiser before your new buddy Deep Sea started criticising it.

I've not only promoted it (you can ask Quail since she's on my FB), I've also donated $5 to it (I've attached a screenshot for you). So...Have you donated to it?

Also, Deep Sea isn't my "buddy." I don't know them and I certainly don't share any political allegiances with them.


I think you've just run out of things to say and you're worried people will forget the all-important fact of your existence.

Dude, why are you being a dick to me? Why has this suddenly become so personal? I don't understand why you're being so fucking spiteful to me for simply suggesting that a Christian woman was a hypocrite and accepting fundraising campaigns unquestioningly might not be the most appropriate response of a communist...I don't get why you're so angry...


But if the above paragraph really does represent your thinking, it is a pretty damning indictment of your policies. "How dare these oppressed people ask for anything! Don't they know there are people who have it worse than them!" What are you, Tim Wohlforth's long-lost brother or something?

That isn't what I said though...All I have said was that these things require analysis. I don't think things should just happen because they're good without any kind of assessment. I don't see why that is so controversial.


I have better things to do than to listen to your angry self-important crying, in any case.

But I'm not angry...I'm also not crying...Nor do I think my self particularly important...

This whole thing is fucking baffling to me.

[Deep Sea]

Oh, and what is the "mainstream cultural discourse on the issue"?

Sexual essentialism.


Is a defense of the parents, or at least the belittling of what happened?

It's actually pretty awesome. Daniel has managed to turn around being kicked out of his parent's home into hard cash and simultaneously shaming his family. Though the money seems to be a happy accident, as someone else seems to have setup the gofundme page for him.


I haven't seen him object to a 20 year old man being physically attacked, only that we are apparently misunderstanding why his parents are physically attacking him, it looks like a defense to me

One would think it would just be mutually understood that you shouldn't be assaulted for getting into an argument with your parents.