Khayembii Communique [Archive]

The Feral Underclass

12th October 2006, 01:37

I broke down Khayembii Communique’s argument, using those posts and constructed a response that was out of sync with the actual posts, but which followed a logical pattern (This also includes my second response):

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+Oct 9 2006, 07:04 PM--> (Khayembii Communique @ Oct 9 2006, 07:04 PM) The feminine, "flamboyant", "fabulous" one portrayed in popular culture. [/b]
But that's not just a stereotype in popular culture, that's a large and integrated section of the gay community that allot of gay men and women identify with.

Question: What is it, specifically, that you "hate" about this stereotype?

Homophobia is hatred of gay people for being gay

This is a very basic definition of homophobia, just as saying "racism is hatred for people who are black" is a very basic definition of racism.

The whole issue of oppression is far more complex than simply hatred, there are specific overt and covert nuances to the attitudes that people take towards oppressed people.

These attitudes manifest themselves in various different ways, in various different situations from various different people, including those who claim to be "radical".

Social conditioning is not just something which makes people "hate" others, it is an entire process of social, cultural and political indoctrination that makes people react to difference in ways that on the surface appear "socially acceptable". That's the real danger!

Every group of people express themselves in certain ways, and as someone who has studied gay history to some extent, I can tell you that this femininity and flamboyance was around long before capitalism began to exploit it and that it is a specifically homosexual culture.

People identify this culture specifically with their sexuality, so to hate the way they express their sexuality is essentially a hatred for who they are: Gay

Surely you aren't stupid enough to not realise the implications of that?

Being prejudiced against a certain section of the homosexual community isn't homophobic.

I find this sentence almost unfathomable.

The definition of the word 'Prejudice' is: "An unfavourable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."

So you readily admit that you have formulated this prejudice against an entire section of the gay community without knowledge, thought or reason?

You have made the claim that being prejudice against a section of the gay community is not homophobic, yet the entire world, other than you it would seem, self-evidently identify prejudice as the basis of oppression...?

The question here however, is not necessarily your bizarre reactionary opinions, but rather how those reactionary opinions manifest in reality. Whether you like it or not, many gay people are effeminate, are flamboyant and capitalism does exploit that stereotype.

Are you telling us that when you encounter these people you react to their difference with contempt and hatred, a contempt and hatred that you have politically formed? If that's the case then what else is that if it isn't homophobia?

If on the other hand you are telling us that you don't treat these gay people any differently then what fucking relevance or point is there to this prejudice that you have just admitted to?

Either you treat certain gay people with contempt and hatred because of their expression of their sexuality, thus making you a homophobe or you're an idiot? Which is it?

Unless you'd like to prove that he's against homosexuals in general and not just those that perpetuate the stereotype?

This stereotype that you wish to see eradicated is a historical identification. Gay people only "perpetuate the stereotype" insofar as you're prejudice, ignorant and intolerant attitudes towards it is maintained.

Gay people identify themselves with this culture, and it is a culture that creates acceptance, diversity and safety; it is capitalism that has co-opted this stereotype to make profit and your reaction to that is neither productive nor a bastion of radicalism in the face of oppression.

"Absolute freedom and absolute love - that is our aim; the freeing of humanity and the whole world - that is our purpose."

He openly seperated "stereotypical homosexuals" from other homosexuals.

How can you separate a cultural tendency that expresses the sexuality of many gay people from other gay people?

I'm not effeminate or flamboyant but I absolutely, unequivocally do not want it separated from a community that I am apart of.

What absolute arrogance to assume that this is wanted, possible or even justified!

My Second response:

So you didn't address my points after all. Oh well, to the slaughter we go...

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 10 2006, 06:06 PM
So you support the stereotyping of oppressed minorities, which aids in further oppression?
It only "aids further oppression" because homophobes like you attack it. This "stereotype" is, regardless of whether you like it or not, a very specific section of the gay community.

The fact that capitalism has co-opted it for profit and the fact that heterosexuals deplore it is not the fault of the gay community; it is a reactionary response against a reviled section of society that reactionaries wish to see, at the very least, kept "hush hush".

We can't have gay people celebrating their sexuality, that's just not cricket! :rolleyes:

I'm not defending them, idiot.

Now now, you don't like it when people flame others so you shouldn't do it either.

Take your head out of your ass and reread my post. I've stated that his position isn't homophobic. There's a difference.

Arguing against something in the negative in order to justify it is clearly an act of defence.

There's a vague difference, but actually it amounts to the same thing. By not acknowledging it as what it is (homophobia) you are essentially allowing it to be perpetuated and accepted. I see little difference in having the opinion and allowing the opinion exist.

Me
I don't see the problem with hating the stereotype of gay people. I hate the stereotype

I don't think I said anything about hating people here now did I? I said "I don't see the problem with hating the stereotype."

This "stereotype" manifests itself in people. How else does this stereotype exist if it isn't in people?

You hate a stereotype, fine, but my question to you is how that hatred realises itself? If you hate it, how do you hate it? How is this hate directed if not towards the people who embrace it?

Being prejudiced against a certain section of the homosexual community isn't homophobic

It's not. It's like me being prejudiced against "a certain section of the black community" for wearing brown shirts. That's not racist at all.

Don't be ridiculous! Wearing brown shirts isn't a cultural identity, is it? This "stereotype" is specifically a gay culture and identity. It's specifically how many gay people connect and identify with their sexuality. It is quintessentially gay.

You seem to think that you can remove the stereotype from the people, that's neither wanted nor even possible and even if it were what justification is there to do it?

Do you want gay people to act more like straight people? I've got news for you: Gay people aren't straight. There is a distinct culture in the gay community and just because heterosexuals are prejudiced and capitalism is exploitative does not mean that gay people should be forced to adopt what is, essentially, a heterosexual lifestyle.

You simply have to embrace that difference. You don't have to like it, but you're going have to accept it one way or the other.

The Feral Underclass

12th October 2006, 01:40

Khayembii Communique has now refused to continue to engage in this debate with me, accusing me of misrepresenting him, which is an absurd assertion to make, as I have clearly only ever responded directly to things he has said.

This is a very important issue and Khayembii Communique needs to either justify himself or admit that he was wrong.

Edelweiss

12th October 2006, 01:45

I knew someone would start this thread, I was about to start it by myself. It's really a shame that this kid ever has become a mod, not only because of this "incident", but also because he is a lousy mod, and one of the most unlikeable members on this board. But I guess there will be people again who will find a way to explain now how his comments are a clear signs of homophobia.

Official call by Malte: Get rid of KC in the next mod elections!

CCCPneubauten

12th October 2006, 01:48

Someone doesn't like a sterotype and you start a thread about it?

I don't like the 'gehtto thug' sterotype for Black people, does that mean I should be kicked out?

Sterotypes are horible things, why ever support them?

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

12th October 2006, 01:49

A little sleepy here. Is he saying he hates gay people who conform to the stereotype of gay people that the media perpetuates? Well then, he hates a lot of gay people because that is just how some people - gay or not - choose to act. If he is openly hating people who act in that way, he certainly shouldn't be a mod.

The Feral Underclass

12th October 2006, 01:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 11:49 PM
Sterotypes are horible things, why ever support them?
This stereotype of the gay community has largely been perpetuated by capitalism to create profit.

Whether it is a stereotype or not, this feminity and flamboyance is an integrated and diverse aspect of gay culture. It's not the same as being a "ghetto thug" which is largely attributed to class politics and it's certainly not something one should hate or have prejudice towards.

This gay "stereotype" is specifically how many gay people identify with their sexuality and it is a way to celebrate that identity. This section of the gay community encourage acceptance, safty and diversity. That's a good thing.

It's not our fault that capitalism exploits it and in turn make heterosexuals deplore it.

The Feral Underclass

12th October 2006, 01:56

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 11 2006, 11:50 PM
A little sleepy here. Is he saying he hates gay people who conform to the stereotype of gay people that the media perpetuates
Well, essentially that's what he is saying although he isn't directly saying that. He is simply saying he hates the stereotype, but my question, which he refuses to answer, is how does that hatred manifest itself if not towards the people who embrace that stereotype.

Entrails Konfetti

12th October 2006, 02:01

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 11 2006, 10:38 PM
You simply have to embrace that difference. You don't have to like it, but you're going have to accept it one way or the other.
Well, as someone [me] who has thought they knew it all about the gay community-- yet isn't gay I've made a similar error to. You remember my thread about how I thought that fascists can be called "faggots" because of antiquated terms (bundle of sticks), right? I was wrong, and I swallowed my pride. I think he should apologize.

I think he will.

LSD

12th October 2006, 02:07

This really should be in Discrimination.

I'll keep a link in the CC so people notice it (which I assume was your primary reason for starting this here), but this is a political issue so unless someone is proposing that administrative action be taken, there's no reason that the entire board should not see this.

If KC's going to respond, he should do so publically and if he's not it doesn't really matter.

I agree that this is an important issue, all the more reason that we should maximiz the number of people who read this.

Yeah, the thread linked to is a CC thread, but none of the quotes passages are especially administrative or otherwise confidential and so long as no one quotes anything that is, I don't see the problem with moving this where it belongs.

***

Insofar as the actual "controversy" itself, this has got to be the third or fourth thread now primarily centering on a conflict over what exactly homophboia is?

KC made the comparison of hating a "group of black people" who chose to wear "brown shirts", but I think that that's an incredibly facetious oversimplification.

The analogy isn't hating black people who wear some nondescript irrelevent article of clothing, it's hating black people who "act black". More importantly, it's condemning black people who "act black".

After all, "hate" and "prejeduce" are only as important as their manifestation. I don't know what KC meant when he said that he "hates" the "stereotype" of the effeminite flamboyant gay man in terms of his practical actions, but for a lot of people, it means openly discriminating against them.

Now you can come up with whatever semantic excuses you want for how that's not "homophobia" it's "behavioural prejeduce", but that is exactly the same argument that racists relly upon when they justify not hiring black people because they disapprove of their "culture".

Are some aspects of so-called "gay culture" products of capitalism? Of course. Just like how large aspects of all cultures are influenced by the environments in which they reside. But what matters is not the anthropological history of gay society, it's how we practically react to it now.

Do we embrace the gay community as a valid and deserving part of our society or do we condemn it as "deviant" and "alien"?

That's really the choice, here. 'Cause no one is going to abandon their cultural memes because some arrogant outsider is "put off" by them. You don't like flamboyange? Fine. Don't be flamboyant. But when you "hate" a person's cultural identity, you hate that person as well.

Political materialism doesn't just mean recognizing that conditions construct society, it also means recognizing that attacking the latter is political reaction.

The way to eliminate the influence of capitalism in the gay community is to attack capitalism not the millions of gay people trying to live out their lives.

Because no matter what you choose to call it, when you hate gay people for being gay, it's homophobia full stop.

bezdomni

12th October 2006, 02:09

There is nothing more homophobic than not hating homosexuals.

The Feral Underclass

12th October 2006, 02:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:10 AM
There is nothing more homophobic than not hating homosexuals.
What are you trying to say by that?

Mujer Libre

12th October 2006, 02:58

I think the way KC is framing this- he comes off as some straight guy telling gay people how they should behave, i.e don't be flamboyant etc. Yes, there are stereotypes associated with the gay community, but it's NOT his fucking place to try to change that community.
Obviously that doesn't sit well...

12th October 2006, 03:02

I knew something like this was going to happen, and this is generally why I stay out of issues that belong in the discrimination forum. Shit like this happens:

I knew someone would start this thread, I was about to start it by myself. It's really a shame that this kid ever has become a mod, not only because of this "incident", but also because he is a lousy mod, and one of the most unlikeable members on this board. But I guess there will be people again who will find a way to explain now how his comments are a clear signs of homophobia.

Official call by Malte: Get rid of KC in the next mod elections!

In no way are my views homophobic at all. Nor has anyone shown how I'm a "lousy mod" (yourself included Malte). I'm good friends with many people on this forum.

I have chosen to remove myself from this debate, TAT, because I knew something like this would happen - that my views would be characterized as homophobic when they clearly aren't and that accusations of homophobia would be brought against me. I expected this as I was writing my original post. Now, I realize that you put a lot of effort into your responses, and that they were well thought-out, but to avoid further accusations I have chosen not to respond to them. You don't have me to be mad at for not responding; you should be mad at people like rioters bloc and Malte who characterized my views as homophobic when they clearly aren't and who have discouraged me from posting any further.

I think the way KC is framing this- he comes off as some straight guy telling gay people how they should behave, i.e don't be flamboyant etc. Yes, there are stereotypes associated with the gay community, but it's NOT his fucking place to try to change that community.
Obviously that doesn't sit well...

That's quite an accomplishment to know that I'm straight without even making an inquiry into it. Pull that out of your ass, I'm guessing?

Also, to TAT and Ace, if you would like to know where I stand on the issue of the stereotype I suggest you read Pinkface: The Modern Minstrel Show (http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?58/#03) from issue 6 of Workers Republic. Perhaps then you will finally understand the difference between hating and fighting against the stereotype and hating those that fit it.

LSD

12th October 2006, 03:15

I have chosen to remove myself from this debate, TAT, because I knew something like this would happen - that my views would be characterized as homophobic when they clearly aren't

Then defend them!

If your "views" are reasonable, present your arguments and clarify your position. What the hell is the point of "removing" yourself from a debate like this once it's already began?

If you mispoke, correct yourself; if you stand by what you wrote, defend yourself. Either way though, "no comment" isn't going to get you out of this nor is going to prevent people from making accusations, especially seing as they've already made them.

The train's left that station, KC, so it's either make your position clear or go into the Mod vote with only other people's characterizations standing and, let me tell you, right now, that doesn't look great for you.

In your own words you "hate" a "segment" of the gay community, a "segment" which happens to constitute a rather large plurality of it and which, for better or worse, is the most associated with homosexuality in general.

Without some degree of clarification from you, you're damn right that makes you look homophobic.

Now, I'm willing to entertain that this is all a big misunderstanding or that you're just naive on the subject, but if you don't engage, all we're left with is what you've already said; and what you've said so far is pretty fucking damaging.

Not to mention that it is incredibly arrogant to storm off in a huff 'cause you don't like people's responses to your comments. You made some very controversial posts and people responded in an entirely predictable manner.

If that offends you, too fucking bad. This is a discussion board, KC, people discuss things.

If you're unable and/or unwilling to express yourself on as basic an issue as this then, frankly, you don't deserve to be a mod on a political message board.

You're the moderator of Opposing Ideologies, for Chrissakes. How can we possible trust that you can even identify, let alone "oppose", reactionary viewpoints when you're not even able to engage on as fundamental a quesiton as discrimination and prejudice?

bezdomni

12th October 2006, 03:39

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Oct 11 2006, 11:17 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Oct 11 2006, 11:17 PM)
[email protected] 12 2006, 12:10 AM
There is nothing more homophobic than not hating homosexuals.
What are you trying to say by that? [/b]
That I don't think KC is a homophobe.

Edelweiss

12th October 2006, 03:59

Originally posted by "KC"
Also, to TAT and Ace, if you would like to know where I stand on the issue of the stereotype I suggest you read Pinkface: The Modern Minstrel Show from issue 6 of Workers Republic. Perhaps then you will finally understand the difference between hating and fighting against the stereotype and hating those that fit it.

Bullshit, KC. That article is trying to counter the stereotype made of gays in the media. But I think that the article is a complete mis-analysis. All gays so far I have talked to have confirmed that TV shows like "Queer as folk" are portaying the gay live in western nations in a pretty authentic way, for some it is even a "milestone in gay emancipation". What makes shows like QAF different from the stereotype that has been made of gays by the mass media until recently, is that it's not a show where funny, stereotypical gays are some clowns for the entertainment of the heterosexual mass, is that it is directly directed to a gay audience. Gays have been become an important target audience for the advertisement industry, and the recent development in the media with TV shows like QAF is just reflecting that. That article completely misses that point, and is completely ignoring the fact how widely accepted those shows are within the gay community, especially QAF.

But back to the topic, that article has nothing to do with you hating "feminine, "flamboyant", "fabulous" type of gays. I mean, WTF? This is so obviously homophobic that I guess not even some of the notorious defenders of homophobes here will find an excusion for that.

You have digged yourself a deep hole KC...

apathy maybe

12th October 2006, 06:01

This is a very important question, what is homophobia? Now I know that what I have to say might be disliked, but I can't actually see how what Khayembii Communique said is homophobic.

Yes, I can see that what he has said is problematic, yes I accept they way his views were stated were not the best way to state them. But I do not think that Khayembii Communique has actually said anything homophobic as such (though I can see how his comments might be constructed as homophobic).

Though I wouldn't mind if he was removed from his position as a mod, after all he is a Leninist :P.

12th October 2006, 07:11

But back to the topic, that article has nothing to do with you hating "feminine, "flamboyant", "fabulous" type of gays. I mean, WTF? This is so obviously homophobic that I guess not even some of the notorious defenders of homophobes here will find an excusion for that.

My whole point was that the stereotype was homophobic. Way to completely miss the point of what I was trying to say. Although it's what I'd expect from you.

It's like someone asking me what the stereotype of a Black person in the US and I respond by saying "That all black people are lazy, drug dealing criminals." That's like you calling me racist for saying what the stereotype is. It's the dumbest shit ever.

Yes, I can see that what he has said is problematic, yes I accept they way his views were stated were not the best way to state them. But I do not think that Khayembii Communique has actually said anything homophobic as such (though I can see how his comments might be constructed as homophobic).

It seems that the favorite past time of some members is to "root out the homophobes", which usually involves misrepresenting what someone said as to make it sound homophobic.

Though I wouldn't mind if he was removed from his position as a mod, after all he is a Leninist

No I'm not. :P

Rollo

12th October 2006, 07:15

To be honest my experiences with KC have been nothing but good from short chats in the live-chat, but I haven't been a part of the thread or posts in question.

My whole point was that the stereotype was homophobic. Way to completely miss the point of what I was trying to say. Although it's what I'd expect from you.

I think i understand where you're coming from. Is it not that you hate the people that act that way but you dislike the people that portay all homosexuals as flambouyant etc?

12th October 2006, 07:34

I think i understand where you're coming from. Is it not that you hate the people that act that way but you dislike the people that portay all homosexuals as flambouyant etc?

I dislike the stereotype that all homosexual people are that way for numerous reasons. First, it's untrue. Second, it coerces people into fitting that stereotype. Third, it commodifies homosexuality.

Now, I've never said that I hate people that happen to fit the stereotype. I haven't said that anywhere because it's not true. I have friends that could probably fit the stereotype. And I've never said that this perception of homosexuality was invented by the bourgeoisie. I recognize the fact that some homosexual guys are just naturally more "feminine" (for lack of a better word, even though gender roles are bullshit), but I also realize that this stereotype coerces more people into fitting that stereotype.

I am against the perpetuation of homosexual people as this stereotype, and therefore am against the stereotype itself, and not the people that are in line with it.

Rollo

12th October 2006, 07:38

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 12 2006, 02:35 PM

I think i understand where you're coming from. Is it not that you hate the people that act that way but you dislike the people that portay all homosexuals as flambouyant etc?

I dislike the stereotype that all homosexual people are that way for numerous reasons. First, it's untrue. Second, it coerces people into fitting that stereotype. Third, it commodifies homosexuality.

Now, I've never said that I hate people that happen to fit the stereotype. I haven't said that anywhere because it's not true. I have friends that could probably fit the stereotype. And I've never said that this perception of homosexuality was invented by the bourgeoisie. I recognize the fact that some homosexual guys are just naturally more "feminine" (for lack of a better word, even though gender roles are bullshit), but I also realize that this stereotype coerces more people into fitting that stereotype.

I am against the perpetuation of homosexual people as this stereotype, and therefore am against the stereotype itself, and not the people that are in line with it.
Yeah, I thought that's what you were hitting on. It's like saying your against the stereotype that all germans are holocaust denying nazis etc.

apathy maybe

12th October 2006, 07:46

And thus I think that Khayembii Communique has justified himself. And I agree with the position that he has explained. (That is that stereotypes are bad in and of themselves, not the people who fit the stereotypes, but the generalisation from those that do to everyone in a broader group. Generalisations are bad mkay?)

No I'm not. :PYou're not? :huh: :unsure:
But you have a link to the Communist Leage which is an evil Leninist organisation ...

12th October 2006, 07:59

But you have a link to the Communist Leage which is an evil Leninist organisation ...

Haha touche.

Rollo

12th October 2006, 08:01

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 12 2006, 02:47 PM
And thus I think that Khayembii Communique has justified himself. And I agree with the position that he has explained. (That is that stereotypes are bad in and of themselves, not the people who fit the stereotypes, but the generalisation from those that do to everyone in a broader group. Generalisations are bad mkay?)

No I'm not. :PYou're not? :huh: :unsure:
But you have a link to the Communist Leage which is an evil Leninist organisation ...
Evil leninists have feelings too.
Feel free to call stalinists evil tho, Mathijis is a self proclaimed evil stalinist.

LoneRed

12th October 2006, 08:02

you're yelling at him for hating stereotypes? you're even crazier than i assumed

I don't see anything wrong with KC's posts,

If a section of the gay community supports kerry, I have all the right to attack them on that basis, or other similar things, straight people aren't immune from such attacks, either should people who aren't straight

SPK

12th October 2006, 09:47

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 11 2006, 07:03 PM
Also, to TAT and Ace, if you would like to know where I stand on the issue of the stereotype I suggest you read Pinkface: The Modern Minstrel Show (http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?58/#03) from issue 6 of Workers Republic.
TAT is correct on this, and KC is wrong.

What I think is interesting is that KC's incorrect perspective on this is very much a product of the Communist League's incorrect ideological line on the question -- Malte spoke a bit to this. People should take a look at the article KC linked, as well as this article, which is in the same issue of the Workers' Republic: What's So Special About Brokeback Mountain? (http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?58/#05)

Here is a summation of what I think those two pieces, taken together, are saying about representations of queer people. I won't quote from them extensively, at least in this post:

1. There is a division within the queer communities between those who want LGBTIQ people to be accepted for who they really are and those who want to be normalized into existing society.
2. The images we see in the mass media -- on shows like Will and Grace or Queer As Folk -- express the perspective of those seeking such normalization and further that process.
3. Those normalizing representations are the most advantageous to capitalism, as compared to other possible images – presumably of LGBTIQ people as they really are.
4. I’ll quote here from the essays. Examples of such normalizing representations include “portraying homosexuality as ‘eccentric’ and the social plaything of professionals, artists and others who are not part of ‘normal’ society”. Examples of representations which presumably reflect LGBTIQ people as they really are include: “a mainstream Hollywood film (Brokeback Mountain)… portraying gay characters outside of the usual stereotypical settings — and, most notably, as working people. No hairdressers or decorators. No actors, dancers or artists. No gay-community-poster-boy “professionals.” In other words, no ‘safe zone’ that allows homophobic viewers to keep questions of sexuality at an arm’s length.”
5. It is necessary for revolutionaries to challenge these normalizing images, and to do so from the perspective of LGBTIQ workers. As the CL notes of such images: “For working people who are questioning their sexuality, this modern-day minstrel show is just another hand closing the closet door.”

The League’s position says absolutely nothing about opposing all stereotypes or stereotypes in general. It says nothing about creating a diversity of representations of the queer communities, which would reflect the different segments. It does not view all images as equivalent. The League has a problem specifically with feminine or so-called “flamboyant” representations of gay men, i.e. ones that violate traditional masculine gender norms -- “hairdressers”, “decorators”, “artists”, “others who are not part of ‘normal society’”, and the like. It views such representations, for reasons not clearly articulated in those two essays, as beneficial to capitalism.

This is an – I admit, rather novel and creative – inversion of the traditional position taken by some elements of the queer movements. It has been argued in those struggles that certain aspects of the LGBTIQ communities, such as the feminine or gender-challenging characteristics of many gay men (I agree, that is a very common characteristic), have an inherent political or revolutionary content. This kind of view is very typical of identitarian politics. The League takes this position and simply reverses it: rather than characteristics which are not consistent with masculine gender norms having progressive potential, it is those characteristics which are consistent with such norms that have such potential. Why? I’ll take a stab at trying to interpret exactly why the League believes “feminine” or “flamboyant” stereotypes are a problem, in a way that other generalizations are not:
1. Working class queer and gay men are not characterized by such gender forms.
2. Working class straight people are alienated by such characteristics.
3. Such gender forms are intrinsically petty-bourgeois.

The League’s position is chauvinistic and does not respect the autonomy and independence of the queer communities, i.e. their right to self-determination in terms of personal expression and cultural forms. According to the torturous logic of the people on this thread who are trying to excuse KC’s position, that position is not homophobic. Well, it is a position which accepts only those elements of the queer communities which have the politically-approved forms of gender expression, and not the other elements. That is very clear from the CL essays.

Martin Blank

12th October 2006, 10:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 01:48 AM
The League’s position is chauvinistic and does not respect the autonomy and independence of the queer communities, i.e. their right to self-determination in terms of personal expression and cultural forms. According to the torturous logic of the people on this thread who are trying to excuse KC’s position, that position is not homophobic. Well, it is a position which accepts only those elements of the queer communities which have the politically-approved forms of gender expression, and not the other elements. That is very clear from the CL essays.
Given that both of the articles you cite: a) were written in collaboration with working-class gay and lesbian League members, b) were given to other working-class gay comrades for comment (including some who are not members of the League), c) received positive comments from those comrades, and d) apart from you and the other petty-bourgeois elements on RevLeft, have received supportive and positive replies from gay and lesbian readers of WR,...

Your charge of chauvinism is full of shit.

Miles

Black Dagger

12th October 2006, 10:19

Just thought id add this for context,

The origins of this debate lie in comments made by Big Manifesto, in a discussion i was having with him about hiphop artist Immortal Technique's homophobic lyrics:

Originally posted by Big Manifesto+--> (Big Manifesto)immortal technique has a few songs with slight homophobic refrences but i get the feeling it's more aimed at stereotypical homosexauls.[/b]

In response i aksed why does it matter who his homophobia is aimed at?

His reply to this question was edited 1 and half hours after it was originally posted and read:

Originally posted by BM+--> (BM)i rethought this post for some reason :) [/b]

When i asked him why he had re-thought his last post he replied:

Originally posted by BM
to answer our question ofcourse not but it's not what his lyrics are about

He still hadn't answered my question, why does it matter who IT's homophobia is aimed at?

my response:

Originally posted by BD

You said (my emphasis):

Originally posted by you
immortal technique has a few songs with slight homophobic refrences but i get the feeling it's more aimed at stereotypical homosexauls.

In response i aksed why does it matter who his homophobia is aimed at? And you've replied 'of course not'.

Of course not what?

Of course it doesnt matter who is homophobia is aimed at?

Then why say, 'but i get the feeling it's more aimed at stereotypical homosexauls' - as if that somehow excused or deflected the criticism.

If he's homophobic it doesn't matter who he 'aims' his homophobic shit at, it's insulting regardless.

He never replied to this post.

In the above exchange he attempted to defend the use of homophobic language by one of his favourite rappers, language he described as 'slightly homophobic', and when i criticised this position he attempted to deflect this criticism by asserting that the lyrics were only aimed at 'stereotypical homosexuals', as if that somehow made the use of homophobic language acceptable.

Some of Immortal Techniques' 'slightly homophobic' lyrics that are 'really' only aimed at 'stereotypical homosexuals':

You get no props in hip-hop like feminine men

But half of y'all are faggots tryin to pick up a tranny

So if I catch you bluffing, faggot, you less than nothing

And your crew is full of more faggots than Greek mythology

you coffee shop revolutionary son of a *****
but you know what the fuck I think is just pathetic and gay
when niggaz speculate what the fuck 'Pac would say

why you trying to be hardcore, you fucking homo-thug
and don't be sensitive and angry at the shit that I wrote
cuz if you can take a fucking dick, you can take a joke

cuz you got jealousy in ya voice like star scream
and that's the primary reason that I hate ya faggots

Immortal Technique insinuate degenerate fags

------------------------------------------

In response to posting the above (including a quote from another member, which confirmed that Big Manifestos post, prior to editing, was indeed a homophobic statement), KC disputed the claim that this presented a problem:

Stating:

Originally posted by KC

Being prejudiced against a certain section of the homosexual community isn't homophobic. Unless you'd like to prove that he's against homosexuals in general and not just those that perpetuate the stereotype?

Given the context,

You get no props in hip-hop like feminine men

But half of y'all are faggots tryin to pick up a tranny

So if I catch you bluffing, faggot, you less than nothing

And your crew is full of more faggots than Greek mythology

you coffee shop revolutionary son of a *****
but you know what the fuck I think is just pathetic and gay
when niggaz speculate what the fuck 'Pac would say

why you trying to be hardcore, you fucking homo-thug
and don't be sensitive and angry at the shit that I wrote
cuz if you can take a fucking dick, you can take a joke

cuz you got jealousy in ya voice like star scream
and that's the primary reason that I hate ya faggots

Immortal Technique insinuate degenerate fags

I fail to see, using KC' words, 'being prejudiced' towards a 'section of the gay community' is practically different from just being plain-old homophobic?

Especially when this prejudice takes the above form ("So if I catch you bluffing, faggot, you less than nothing" etc), and that is what KC was defending in the original thread.

He was supporting another member (Big Manifesto) who, when i criticised their support for Immortal Technique, on the grounds that he was homophobic, said:

Originally posted by Big Manifesto
immortal technique has a few songs with slight homophobic refrences but i get the feeling it's more aimed at stereotypical homosexauls.

-----------------------

Originally posted by KC
Now, I've never said that I hate people that happen to fit the stereotype. I haven't said that anywhere because it's not true.

This quote springs to mind,

Originally posted by KC

Being prejudiced against a certain section of the homosexual community isn't homophobic. Unless you'd like to prove that he's against homosexuals in general and not just those that perpetuate the stereotype?

That 'certain section' of the gay community is made up of people is it not? Whilst you did not use the word 'hate' here, you nevertheless suggest that it is ok to be prejudiced against what you perceive to be the 'stereotypical' section of the gay community (that is the 'certain section' being referred to in the quote).

And in the context of the original discussion about what Big Manifesto had stated, this 'prejudice' expressed by Immortal Technique and passively supported by Big Manifesto, which you were defending, took a plainly homophobic form,

Originally posted by Immortal Technique

why you trying to be hardcore, you fucking homo-thug
and don't be sensitive and angry at the shit that I wrote
cuz if you can take a fucking dick, you can take a joke

etc.

This statement,

[email protected]
I don't see the problem with hating the stereotype of gay people. I hate the stereotype; I don't think that they should be perpetuated at all.

When read in the context of the original discussion is worrying because you were disputing whether what Big Manifesto had said was problematic:

Big Manifesto
immortal technique has a few songs with slight homophobic refrences but i get the feeling it's more aimed at stereotypical homosexauls.

Now, the stereotype you 'hate', also happens to be real people, and when you say, "I don't think that they should be perpetuated at all." - what does this mean in practice for people who fit this stereotype that you hate?

Is it a case of hating the sin, but loving the sinner?

Rollo

12th October 2006, 10:29

Ouch, BD made some good points against both KC and immortal technique there.

apathy maybe

12th October 2006, 10:59

Umm... I didn't actually know the original context. It does seem that it is worse then what I original thought.

It does seem to me that KC has justified his comments, though I guess I could be wrong.

The original comments by Big Manifesto are not really defensible, and KC should not have tried.

I stand by my statements that generalisations are bad, and extrapolating from a stereotype to other members of a broader group is bad. Which is what I thought KC was saying.

BurnTheOliveTree

12th October 2006, 11:46

Seems to me KC mis-spoke and seemed to attack stereotypical gay people rather than the stereotype of gay people.

-Alex

The Feral Underclass

12th October 2006, 12:13

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 12 2006, 05:12 AM

But back to the topic, that article has nothing to do with you hating "feminine, "flamboyant", "fabulous" type of gays. I mean, WTF? This is so obviously homophobic that I guess not even some of the notorious defenders of homophobes here will find an excusion for that.

My whole point was that the stereotype was homophobic. Way to completely miss the point of what I was trying to say. Although it's what I'd expect from you.
I have already addressed this point.

Your logic is completely confused. This culture existed long before capitalism co-opted it and created a "stereotype" which heterosexuals now deplore and which you accuse of being homophobic.

During the 1960's, when homosexuality was still illegal in America, there was a thriving and diverse subculture of fabulous, flamboyant and effeminate men who celebrated their sexuality, albeit underground, in environments that were relatively safe.

Take for example the Stonewall nightclub in New York. This became a bastion of gay radicalism when these effeminate, flamboyant and fabulous gay men, of which their identity you hate, fought with the police in the streets, in their "get up" when they came to close down the club!

You have come to the conclusion that it is homophobic based on some misinformed and ignorant understanding of the gay community and its history and some warped analysis of capitalism and its relationship with homosexuality.

Capitalism has exploited this culture and indeed commodified it, but regardless of that, this culture has existed long before that happened and it is something the gay community celebrate as an identity.

The gay community has many flaws and has become apathetic largely too many issues, but to denounce an entire section of the gay community and those who identify it on a [i]prejudice[/b] and misunderstanding is incredibly intolerant. You're opinion is simply wrong!

You don't know what you're talking about. You don't know anything about the gay community, you don't understand its culture and you should admit that.

It seems that the favorite past time of some members is to "root out the homophobes", which usually involves misrepresenting what someone said as to make it sound homophobic.

No one has misrepresented you. I have simply responded to what you have said and you have then refused to participate in the debate.

The Feral Underclass

12th October 2006, 12:22

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 12 2006, 01:03 AM
Also, to TAT and Ace, if you would like to know where I stand on the issue of the stereotype I suggest you read Pinkface: The Modern Minstrel Show (http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?58/#03) from issue 6 of Workers Republic.
There is nothing in that article which justifies the opinions you have made in this thread. That article highlights an important concern to the gay community, but quite frankly, what is to be expected from the mainstream media.

You are not attacking the media for its one-dimensional portrayal of gay men and women or the gay community, you are attacking a stereotype you perceive has been created for the gay community and which the gay community, like dummies, have picked up and accepted.

Again, this femininity, flamboyance and fabulousness has existed long before programmes like 'Will and Grace' and actually, the producers of that show have simply taken one particular characteristic and exaggerated it.

It isn't a fair representation of the gay community, but it isn't a fair representation of the "stereotype" either. In fact, it's an entirely invented "personality" and should be ignored, even on the basis that it's the mainstream media if not for anything else.

Perhaps then you will finally understand the difference between hating and fighting against the stereotype and hating those that fit it.

As of yet, you have failed to clarify how exactly there is any difference. Myself, Ace and BD have presented arguments contrary to that assertion and you have refused to respond.

How can you not hate the person of a "stereotype" when that "stereotype" manifests itself in people?

12th October 2006, 13:56

Eh, i think a distinction has to be made between talking about supposedly "sterotypical" gay men (i.e. flamboyently and apparently gay with interests and presentation style fitting the sterotype) and talking about the media caricature imposed on them.

Personally, i think that the sort of presentation, attitude, behavior, interests etc that will make a guy come off as obviously gay (which is to say they fit the expectation or 'sterotype' sufficently), is actually quite an appealing, fun presentation. As sterotypes go, its actually a pretty good one, mostly because it involves being less neurotic, self-concious, inhibited and withdrawn than sterotypically straight men are, and not doing most of the annoying things that straight men sterotypically do. Of course there are a lot of gay men who don't fit the "sterotype" at all, who you wouldn't assume to be gay immediately (i'd even guess most gay men don't) which is just to show that it is a *sterotype* rather than a defining quality.

But where i think you might get a valid critique is in the media caricature of the sterotype, which is at times really quite obnoxious and ungenerous. Obviously this isn't the case in all media depictions of gay people (queer as folk, brokeback mountain, six feet under, etc) but it certaintly is in some of them (will and grace, queer eye for the straight guy).

Look at Jack from Will and Grace as a character. He doesn't actually fit a sterotypically flamboyent gay presentation at all, i know some very flamboyent guys but none of them are such a joke onto themselves like that. He is portrayed as unjustifiably vain, totally delusional, narcassistic, unbelievably childish, and, were he a real person in real life would seem like a very pathetic individual. Of course Will and Grace doesn't come off as homophobic because it has other, unfuckedup gay characters like Will, but still it portrays visibly gay men as funny for being jokes themselves rather than making them.

Surely you can imagine how some people, but especially stereotypically effeminate gay men (who are not, despite Will and Grace's portrayel, walking parodies), could find such a representation offensive. If this is this is what Khayembii Communique was thinking, than i can't imagine whats remotely homophobic about it.

Vanguard1917

12th October 2006, 14:21

Whether it is a stereotype or not, this feminity and flamboyance is an integrated and diverse aspect of gay culture. It's not the same as being a "ghetto thug" which is largely attributed to class politics and it's certainly not something one should hate or have prejudice towards.

This gay "stereotype" is specifically how many gay people identify with their sexuality and it is a way to celebrate that identity. This section of the gay community encourage acceptance, safty and diversity. That's a good thing.

The gay people i know also hate the Will and Grace, Queer Eye for a Straight Guy or whichever 'fabulous' representation of gay men in contemporary culture. Intelligent gay men don't feel the need to prance around like a second-rate caricature of Graham Norton. And it has nothing to do with them supressing their gay identity.

In fact, contemporary Western society encourages the celebration of 'gay identity' - a particular kind of gay identity. It encourages gay men to form an entire cultural as well as political identity around their sexuality. It encourages them to celebrate their differences, their 'diversity'. In other words, it encourages gay men to emphasise just how different they are from the rest of us. This can only reinforce prejudice against gays.

The 'celebration of diversity' is postmodernist bullshit.

12th October 2006, 15:13

I stand by my statements that generalisations are bad, and extrapolating from a stereotype to other members of a broader group is bad. Which is what I thought KC was saying.

I don't see why it matters what the quote "sounds like" when I just sufficiently explained my position on the subject, which also explains what I meant by that quote. It's like punishing someone for "sounding homophobic" (if this thread results in administrative action) when the poster clearly didn't intend for the quote to be read in that way, and even after the poster clarifies their position.

The Feral Underclass

12th October 2006, 15:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:22 PM
The gay people i know also hate the Will and Grace, Queer Eye for a Straight Guy or whichever 'fabulous' representation of gay men in contemporary culture.
They hate it?

I don't like it, nor do I associate with it, but I don't hate it!

Intelligent gay men don't feel the need to prance around like a second-rate caricature of Graham Norton. And it has nothing to do with them supressing their gay identity.

There are caricatures in every sexuality, and I agree, it is very distasteful but there are distasteful stereotypes in every culture. (That isn't a reason to hate).

Regardless of that, this particular caricature isn't actually a representation of the gay community, especially the effeminate, fabulous and flamboyant part which is a specific cultural identity, which many people in this thread fail to grasp.

In fact, contemporary Western society encourages the celebration of 'gay identity'

Which is a ridiculous thing to do.

It encourages gay men to form an entire cultural as well as political identity around their sexuality

This cultural identity has been around long before "contemporary Western society." Capitalism simply exploits a part of it to generate a profit.

It encourages them to celebrate their differences, their 'diversity'. In other words, it encourages gay men to emphasise just how different they are from the rest of us.

Gay men and women have been "celebrating their difference and diversity" for decades. 'Will and Grace' is an entirely separate reality to the gay community and is simply a gimmick.

This celebration of difference existed as a direct attack on oppression. Granted this has largely been lost, but the cultural identity that has grown out of this "development" is very specific to homosexuals and I don't see anything wrong with that.

This can only reinforce prejudice against gays.

Only because heterosexuals allow that to happen.

The 'celebration of diversity' is postmodernist bullshit.

Flamboyance, femininity and fabulousness is not simply a statement against oppression but an actual real cultural identity.

I think that integration is a fundamental part of destroying oppression, but that integration must be as gay people, not as what straight people want us to be.

This means you are just going to have to tolerate that some gay people may want to walk down the street dressed as fabulous, flamboyant femme fatale's without necessarily wanting to make a statement about their sexuality.

In this process of integration, you are going to have to accept that. One way or the other!

The Feral Underclass

12th October 2006, 15:22

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 12 2006, 01:14 PM
It's like punishing someone for "sounding homophobic" (if this thread results in administrative action) when the poster clearly didn't intend for the quote to be read in that way, and even after the poster clarifies their position.
You are still failing to respond to my points. Why?

Are you going to admit that you were wrong or defend your position by responding to the issues raised by my points?

The Feral Underclass

12th October 2006, 15:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 06:03 AM
If a section of the gay community supports kerry, I have all the right to attack them on that basis, or other similar things, straight people aren't immune from such attacks, either should people who aren't straight
You've completely lost it!

What on earth are you talking about you strange strange person...!?

12th October 2006, 15:50

You are still failing to respond to my points. Why?

Are you going to admit that you were wrong or defend your position by responding to the issues raised by my points?

I haven't responded to any points in this debate, and I won't. I will defend myself against people misrepresenting what I'm saying and that's it. I've had it with "debating" with you and your ilk, because whenever someone does this is what happens.

rioters bloc

12th October 2006, 15:50

there's a huge difference between attacking a gay man because he supports reactionary ideas/people and attacking a gay man by using his sexuality as weapon.

i know queer people who support free market economies. their sexuality doesn't make them "out of bounds" for criticism; however at the same time i'm not going to say something like "yeah, why don't you go and suck on a cock you pro-capitalist homo faggot *****" which is pretty much what immortal tech does, what big manifesto defends, and what KC is now defending too.

and i'm so confused with all this stereotype talk, what does IT say that makes people think that he's only targeting his homophobic language towards so-called "steroeotypical" gay men?

12th October 2006, 15:59

i know queer people who support free market economies. their sexuality doesn't make them "out of bounds" for criticism; however at the same time i'm not going to say something like "yeah, why don't you go and suck on a cock you pro-capitalist homo faggot *****" which is pretty much what immortal tech does, what big manifesto defends, and what KC is now defending too.

and i'm so confused with all this stereotype talk, what does IT say that makes people think that he's only targeting his homophobic language towards so-called "steroeotypical" gay men?

HINT: Nobody is talking about Immortal Technique. Could you please just use your brain when you post on here?

Maybe you could show me where I was "defending Immortal Technique? Or maybe you could just realize that what you said has absolutely no fucking relevence to the thread, because what my point was that Big Manifesto's views aren't homophobic. I wasn't even defending his views; I was saying that they're not homophobic. That's all I was saying. I don't "agree with Big Manifesto" and I don't "support Immortal Technique". So you really need to fucking read up, and learn what you're posting about before you actually post.

and i'm so confused with all this stereotype talk, what does IT say that makes people think that he's only targeting his homophobic language towards so-called "steroeotypical" gay men?

I don't know, maybe you should ask Big Manifesto because that's what he believes.

The Feral Underclass

12th October 2006, 16:00

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 12 2006, 01:51 PM

You are still failing to respond to my points. Why?

Are you going to admit that you were wrong or defend your position by responding to the issues raised by my points?

I haven't responded to any points in this debate, and I won't. I will defend myself against people misrepresenting what I'm saying and that's it. I've had it with "debating" with you and your ilk, because whenever someone does this is what happens.
So you have no interest in changing your opinion, even though I have refuted your assertions?

Clearly you just can't admit that you are wrong and are now creating this fatuous stituation about "me and my ilk" so to avoid having to face up to your own bullshit.

The Feral Underclass

12th October 2006, 16:01

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 12 2006, 02:00 PM
Could you please just use your brain when you post on here?
I don't think you have any right to preach to anyone about using their brain when you willingly refuse to do so yourself.

12th October 2006, 16:02

So you have no interest in changing your opinion, even though I have refuted your assertions?

Clearly you just can't admit that you are wrong and are now creating this fatuous stituation about "me and my ilk" so to avoid having to face up to your own bullshit.

"You don't wanna debate because you know I'm right and you're wrong, I win!"

<_<

Right now I could give two shits about whether you're "right or wrong" because I'm busy dealing with idiots like rioters bloc who continually misunderstand and misrepresent my position on this matter.

rioters bloc

12th October 2006, 16:05

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 12 2006, 11:00 PM

i know queer people who support free market economies. their sexuality doesn't make them "out of bounds" for criticism; however at the same time i'm not going to say something like "yeah, why don't you go and suck on a cock you pro-capitalist homo faggot *****" which is pretty much what immortal tech does, what big manifesto defends, and what KC is now defending too.

and i'm so confused with all this stereotype talk, what does IT say that makes people think that he's only targeting his homophobic language towards so-called "steroeotypical" gay men?

HINT: Nobody is talking about Immortal Technique. Could you please just use your brain when you post on here?

Maybe you could show me where I was "defending Immortal Technique? Or maybe you could just realize that what you said has absolutely no fucking relevence to the thread, because what my point was that Big Manifesto's views aren't homophobic. I wasn't even defending his views; I was saying that they're not homophobic. That's all I was saying. I don't "agree with Big Manifesto" and I don't "support Immortal Technique". So you really need to fucking read up, and learn what you're posting about before you actually post.

and i'm so confused with all this stereotype talk, what does IT say that makes people think that he's only targeting his homophobic language towards so-called "steroeotypical" gay men?

I don't know, maybe you should ask Big Manifesto because that's what he believes.
dude.

do you seriously even know what you're saying anymore?

this is the most ridiculously inane mobias strip of a side of an argument i've ever seen you take, and that's saying a lot :lol:

"i'm not defending his views against the charge that they're homophobic, i'm just saying that his views aren't homophobic!"

and, i am technically asking Big Manifesto too as my post is in a public forum which he can view and reply to if he so wishes. so defensive! :rolleyes:

The Feral Underclass

12th October 2006, 16:06

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 12 2006, 02:03 PM

So you have no interest in changing your opinion, even though I have refuted your assertions?

Clearly you just can't admit that you are wrong and are now creating this fatuous stituation about "me and my ilk" so to avoid having to face up to your own bullshit.

"You don't wanna debate because you know I'm right and you're wrong, I win!"

<_<
Essentially, yes. That's exactly what is going on here.

Right now I could give two shits about whether you're "right or wrong" because I'm busy dealing with idiots like rioters bloc who continually misunderstand and misrepresent my position on this matter.

Thus far, you are admitting to homophobia. Now either you need to justify yourself by responding to my points and engaging in debate or you have to specifically say that you are wrong.

You know how this is going to go otherwise...

Wanted Man

12th October 2006, 17:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 05:02 AM
Evil leninists have feelings too.
Feel free to call stalinists evil tho, Mathijis is a self proclaimed evil stalinist.
It's Stalin Kiddy these days, thank you very much.

Marx Lenin Stalin

12th October 2006, 17:49

I just want to say for the record that I suppport KC both as a comrade and as a mod. I don't think he meant to say anything homophobic. I think he's a good mod and I would support him to continue to be a mod.

The Feral Underclass

12th October 2006, 17:57

Originally posted by Marx Lenin [email protected] 12 2006, 03:50 PM
I don't think he meant to say anything homophobic. I think he's a good mod and I would support him to continue to be a mod.
Yes, but he did and now he is refusing to respond to my points or admit that he was wrong.

In the context of this board, that's quite serious.

Marx Lenin Stalin

12th October 2006, 18:11

But the thing is, he's a mod so not much can be done as I understand it. According to the site thing, he was awarded the position by a vote from the revleft community here.

The Feral Underclass

12th October 2006, 18:12

Originally posted by Marx Lenin [email protected] 12 2006, 04:12 PM
But the thing is, he's a mod so not much can be done as I understand it. According to the site thing, he was awarded the position by a vote from the revleft community here.
Actually, there is allot that can be done. Including his recall as a moderator and his eviction from CC. Just because he's a moderator does not make him immune.

SPK

12th October 2006, 18:33

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Oct 12 2006, 02:06 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Oct 12 2006, 02:06 AM)
[email protected] 12 2006, 01:48 AM
The League’s position is chauvinistic and does not respect the autonomy and independence of the queer communities, i.e. their right to self-determination in terms of personal expression and cultural forms. According to the torturous logic of the people on this thread who are trying to excuse KC’s position, that position is not homophobic. Well, it is a position which accepts only those elements of the queer communities which have the politically-approved forms of gender expression, and not the other elements. That is very clear from the CL essays.
Given that both of the articles you cite: a) were written in collaboration with working-class gay and lesbian League members, b) were given to other working-class gay comrades for comment (including some who are not members of the League), c) received positive comments from those comrades, and d) apart from you and the other petty-bourgeois elements on RevLeft, have received supportive and positive replies from gay and lesbian readers of WR,...

Your charge of chauvinism is full of shit.

Miles[/b]
Oh? Is my assessment as a whole full of shit, or just my correct accusation of chauvinism? :angry:

Martin Blank

12th October 2006, 19:47

Originally posted by SPK+Oct 12 2006, 10:34 AM--> (SPK @ Oct 12 2006, 10:34 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 02:06 AM

[email protected] 12 2006, 01:48 AM
The League’s position is chauvinistic and does not respect the autonomy and independence of the queer communities, i.e. their right to self-determination in terms of personal expression and cultural forms. According to the torturous logic of the people on this thread who are trying to excuse KC’s position, that position is not homophobic. Well, it is a position which accepts only those elements of the queer communities which have the politically-approved forms of gender expression, and not the other elements. That is very clear from the CL essays.
Given that both of the articles you cite: a) were written in collaboration with working-class gay and lesbian League members, b) were given to other working-class gay comrades for comment (including some who are not members of the League), c) received positive comments from those comrades, and d) apart from you and the other petty-bourgeois elements on RevLeft, have received supportive and positive replies from gay and lesbian readers of WR,...

Your charge of chauvinism is full of shit.

Miles
Oh? Is my assessment as a whole full of shit, or just my correct accusation of chauvinism? :angry: [/b]
The charges and specifications are garbage, as is the "method of analysis" they are based on.

In the end, the differences on this are class-based: working-class gays and lesbians versus petty-bourgeois gays and lesbians.

Miles

Black Dagger

12th October 2006, 19:59

Originally posted by CL
In the end, the differences on this are class-based: working-class gays and lesbians versus petty-bourgeois gays and lesbians.

:lol: This has become something of a trend with you miles, when things aren't going your way (or the way of one of your CL members), it's because of some 'petit-bourgeois' anti-WC bias, you tried the same defence for LoneRed's mind-boggling sexism, you failed then and you've failed now.

Let's see,

People who disagree with KC,

RB (bi)
me (bi)
TAT (gay)
SPK (gay)
Rollo (?) (gay)

People who agree with KC:

Marx Lenin Stalin (hetero stalin kiddy)
KC (???)
Vanguard1917 (hetero)
LoneRed (hetero)
CPA (hetero)

In the end the differences are based on KC's (and his supporters) ignorance of homophobia, and fuck all to do with class (which in this instance you're using purely as a tool to deflect criticism).

Though if we must,

RB - WC
me - WC
TAT - WC
SPK - dunno
Rollo (?) - WC

:rolleyes:

12th October 2006, 20:10

"i'm not defending his views against the charge that they're homophobic, i'm just saying that his views aren't homophobic!"

That's not what I was saying at all. You again completely misunderstand and misrepresent something I've said. You have a brain. Use it.

What I was saying was that I'm not defending his statements as correct or that I agree with him, because I think that his view on the matter is fucked up. However, I don't see it as homophobic. His views are wrong, but not homophobic.

Thus far, you are admitting to homophobia. Now either you need to justify yourself by responding to my points and engaging in debate or you have to specifically say that you are wrong.

You know how this is going to go otherwise...

No, I don't. I've already clarified my position on the matter to the point where it's painfully obvious that what I said isn't homophobic in any way. Now, me debating with you on whether or not what Big Manifesto said is homophobic is a completely different issue and one that I'm not going to get into.

Plus, where did I say anything homophobic? That I hate stereotypes? That's not homophobic. That I presented what the stereotype for a homosexual person is? That is not homophobic either. So far nobody has provided anything showing that I'm homophobic, and the charge is quite ridiculous.

Marx Lenin Stalin (hetero stalin kiddy)
KC (hetero)
Vanguard1917 (hetero)
LoneRed (hetero)
CPA (hetero)

How the fuck do you know what my sexual orientation is? Would you like to show me where you got this information from, or did you pull it out of your fucking ass like Mujer did? Perhaps it's because I haven't "openly admitted" that I'm gay or bi, or that I don't use it to gain ground in a debate? Is that what you're basing your opinion of my sexuality on? You're a fucking piece of shit for making such judgements and your argument is complete bullshit.

Black Dagger

12th October 2006, 20:15

Originally posted by KC
How the fuck do you know what my sexual orientation is? Would you like to show me where you got this information from, or did you pull it out of your fucking ass like Mujer did? Perhaps it's because I haven't "openly admitted" that I'm gay or bi, or that I don't use it to gain ground in a debate? Is that what you're basing your opinion of my sexuality on? You're a fucking piece of shit for making such judgements and your argument is complete bullshit.

So are you hetero or not?

12th October 2006, 20:24

No I'm not, and I'm disgusted that this shit had to come this far. The fact that so many of you try to use your sexuality to "get the upper hand" in debate is a fucking pitiful cop out and people that do that do so because they are completely unable to handle an intelligent debate. The reason that I have never discussed my own sexuality on this site is because first it's none of your fucking business and second it's completely irrelevent.

Instead of having an intelligent debate on the subject, everyone jumped to the conclusion that I'm a "homophobe" and backed up their points by providing quotes of what I've said and changing their meaning to fit that argument. It's a fucking witch hunt, and a reason that I've stayed out of the Discrimination forum for so long.

Also, it's people like you, that assume someone is heterosexual if they don't openly and proudly show off their sexuality, that make life difficult for people like me, who doesn't feel the need to be "proud" of who I am and show everyone that I'm "different and proud".

Black Dagger

12th October 2006, 20:37

Originally posted by KC+--> (KC)No I'm not, and I'm disgusted that this shit had to come this far.[/b]

I apologise.

Originally posted by KC+--> (KC)the fact that so many of you try to use your sexuality to "get the upper hand" in debate is a fucking pitiful cop out and people that do that do so because they are completely unable to handle an intelligent debate. [/b]

Yeah, who would have thought it! People bring up sexuality in a debate about homophobia :o

It's like... i dunno, women trying to 'get the upper hand' over men in a debate about sexism, or a Black person pretending they know more than white people about racism, please.

Originally posted by KC

Also, it's people like you, that assume someone is heterosexual if they don't openly and proudly show off their sexuality,

I assumed you were hetero because of your ignorance of the history of the gay community (see: TAT's posts), your belief that homophobia will magically disappear once capitalism has been abolished, your abortive defence of Big Manifesto (who in turn was defending homophoba on the basis that it targeted 'stereotypical homosexuals'), and of course, your rather silly posts which have been quoted in this thread:

[email protected]
Being prejudiced against a certain section of the homosexual community isn't homophobic.

Given that for the entire length of your membership on this board you've never once presented anything that would counter this assumption, and given the stuff i just cited above, its not an assumption without base, but i apologise.

KC

that make life difficult for people like me, who doesn't feel the need to be "proud" of who I am and show everyone that I'm "different and proud".

Yeah, we're making it hard for people who are still living in the closet by being too 'out'?

We should alll jump back in with you i suppose? Honestly.

12th October 2006, 20:48

More black-and-white bullshit from Black (and White) Dagger.

Yeah, we're making it hard for people who are still living in the closet by being too 'out'?

We should alll jump back in with you i suppose? Honestly.

Me saying that I'm not "proud" doesn't mean that I'm "in the closet". In fact, it means that I'm comfortable with who I am and don't feel the need to comfort myself by telling everyone about my sexuality and that I'm "proud of it".

Martin Blank

12th October 2006, 20:59

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 12 2006, 12:00 PM
:lol: This has become something of a trend with you miles, when things aren't going your way (or the way of one of your CL members), it's because of some 'petit-bourgeois' anti-WC bias, you tried the same defence for LoneRed's mind-boggling sexism, you failed then and you've failed now.
You make me sick, BD. Do you enjoy witchhunting and "outing" people against their own wishes? You forcible outing of KC is one of the more disgusting acts I've seen on this board. We have tried to keep it political, to keep it to questions of class and analysis (that was the point of my comments in response to SPK).

But you and the others who operate from a petty-bourgeois perspective think it's best to peek under the covers to see who's screwing who, as if it has any real bearing on the discussion. You're really no better than the rightwingers who want to do the same damn thing. More to the point, you're like those juvenile homophobes whose response to someone who defends the rights of gays and lesbians is to pointedly ask, "Are you gay?"

When I said that this is a class issue, it was to point out that gays and lesbians from working-class backgrounds who are not indoctrinated in or who reject the petty-bourgeois method of "identity politics" see this question differently than those who are indoctrinated in and accept this method. Is that an anti-working-class bias? Possibly. But that wasn't my point.

Miles

Martin Blank

12th October 2006, 21:00

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 12 2006, 12:49 PM
Me saying that I'm not "proud" doesn't mean that I'm "in the closet". In fact, it means that I'm comfortable with who I am and don't feel the need to comfort myself by telling everyone about my sexuality and that I'm "proud of it".
KC, I seriously suggest that neither of us dignify this "outing" witchhunt any longer. Fuck these enablers of heterosexism.

Miles

Black Dagger

12th October 2006, 21:01

Originally posted by KC+--> (KC)More black-and-white bullshit from Black (and White) Dagger.[/b]

More thorough argument from KC!

Originally posted by [email protected]
Me saying that I'm not "proud" doesn't mean that I'm "in the closet".

Of course, but berating people who are out for being 'too out' is a POV that comes commonly from people who are in the closet, but it does not entail this conclusion.

KC

In fact, it means that I'm comfortable with who I am and don't feel the need to comfort myself by telling everyone about my sexuality and that I'm "proud of it".

Who is talkin' about how 'proud' they are?

Demogorgon

12th October 2006, 21:06

Not that I personally get on with too many stereotypically gay people, but I would be very uncomfortable for condemning people for their mannerisms. We all know that many (most?) gays don't fit the stereotype but nobody seems to bring up the fact that many heterosexual people do fit the stereotype of gay behaviour.

I hate the fact that a particular form of behaviour has become associated with gays, but I am not going to hate the people who exhibit that behaviour. For most of them it is just what comes naturally to them and I have no more right to condemnn them for it than they would for condemning me for behaving like a stereotypical heterosexual (even though I'm not :lol: ).

Black Dagger

12th October 2006, 21:20

Originally posted by Miles+--> (Miles)Do you enjoy witchhunting and "outing" people against their own wishes? [/b]

Of course i do! I operate from a petty-bourgeois perspective remember? Whatever the fuck that is meant to mean in this context :rolleyes:

Originally posted by miles+--> (miles)
You forcible outing of KC is one of the more disgusting acts I've seen on this board[/b]

Please, i did not 'forcibly out' KC, that implies that i knew he was gay (?) and wanted to expose this fact.

As i explained to KC a few posts ago:

Originally posted by me
I assumed you were hetero because of your ignorance of the history of the gay community (see: TAT's posts), your belief that homophobia will magically disappear once capitalism has been abolished, your abortive defence of Big Manifesto (who in turn was defending homophoba on the basis that it targeted 'stereotypical homosexuals'), and of course, your rather silly posts which have been quoted in this thread:

Originally posted by KC

Being prejudiced against a certain section of the homosexual community isn't homophobic.

Given that for the entire length of your membership on this board you've never once presented anything that would counter this assumption, and given the stuff i just cited above, its not an assumption without base, but i apologise.

That i assumed KC was hetero was a fair (though incorrect) assumption, he had not given even a slither of evidence in all of his time here, that i can recall, that would work against this assumption.

Originally posted by miles

We have tried to keep it political, to keep it to questions of class and analysis (that was the point of my comments in response to SPK).

Oh get over yourself! To you, 'keepin it political' consisted of accusing everyone who disagreed with of being 'petit-bourgeois'!

Originally posted by Miles

But you and the others who operate from a petty-bourgeois perspective think it's best to peek under the covers to see who's screwing who, as if it has any real bearing on the discussion.

Forgive me, but from debating with heteros in matters to do with heterosexism, never experiencing this prejudice, not being gay, bi etc. can have an negative effect (quite a considerable one) on your perspective, and understanding of the issue (or lackthereof), who do you think we are struggling against when we are fighting against heterosexist attitudes within the revolutionary movement? It's from heteros who 'dont' get it', and a lot of that has to do with the fact that they don't understand what its like to be queer, to experience heterosexism etc. etc.

Originally posted by Miles

You're really no better than the rightwingers who want to do the same damn thing. More to the point, you're like those juvenile homophobes whose response to someone who defends the rights of gays and lesbians is to pointedly ask, "Are you gay?"

:lol: Yeah, i'm just like a right-wing homophobe!

[email protected]

When I said that this is a class issue, it was to point out that gays and lesbians from working-class backgrounds who are not indoctrinated in or who reject the petty-bourgeois method of "identity politics" see this question differently than those who are indoctrinated in and accept this method.

Right, so what you're saying is that every working class queer who doesn't agree with your position is a dupe of the petit-bourgeoisie? Please.

KC

Fuck these enablers of heterosexism.

Miles you truly are the champion of the working class homosexual :rolleyes:

Black Dagger

12th October 2006, 21:33

Also.

KC, whilst i respect your wishes and again apologise to you, why is this such a big issue for you here on revleft?

Why is it such a terrible thing to 'admit' that you are gay/bi on this board?

Granted you have said stuff like this:

Originally posted by KC+--> (KC)
Me saying that I'm not "proud" doesn't mean that I'm "in the closet". In fact, it means that I'm comfortable with who I am and don't feel the need to comfort myself by telling everyone about my sexuality and that I'm "proud of it".[/b]

And that is fine, but why is revealing your sexuality something you are so relucant to do on this board? (you can do this without 'using' your sexuality in debate, or even debating matters of sexuality)

It's not as if you will face any negative backlash or prejudice here.

Although, i must say, i find miles comments a bit disturbing/baffling:

Miles
You make me sick, BD. Do you enjoy witchhunting and "outing" people against their own wishes? You forcible outing of KC is one of the more disgusting acts I've seen on this board.

It makes him 'sick' that because of something i said, you decided to admit that you are gay/bi on this board? That to do so was 'disgusting'?

His hyperbole makes it (almost?) sound as if your sexuality is something that you should be ashamed of, that 'forcing' you to 'come out' is a huge disaster, that i've brought some kind of horrible curse on to you.

Whilst of course i regret putting you in a situation where you felt that you had to reveal information you would have rather kept private (and for this i apologised instantly, and have apologised since several times), i do not view this turn of event as the 'digusting' crime miles make it out to be, being a 'known homosexual' might have been a 'problem' decades ago in the revolutionary movement, but things have certainly changed since that time.

Also, if you wish to answer my post via PM feel free to do so, or if you don't wish to reply at all, free to do that of course (just curious as to your reasoning) :)

Leo

12th October 2006, 21:42

There was a comment which I noticed and felt the urge to bring up:

Originally posted by Malte
You have digged yourself a deep hole KC...

Now, as KC actually had to state his sexual orientation, and therefore everyone had to accept that he obviously is not homophobic, one wonders who had been digging that "deep hole" for KC to fall in.

Also, a note on that pride issue; is it not heterosexual peoples pride of their gender the main cause of homophobia? This is the bulk of identity politics, on nations, races, even religion. Pride caused by identity always creates seperation, and ends up in people uniting on the basis of their identities instead of their class. In this specific topic, with homosexuals in one side and heterosexuals in the other. Is this not exactly what the homophobes want?

12th October 2006, 21:42

And that is fine, but why is revealing your sexuality something you are so relucant to do on this board?

Because people like you who seem to want to throw in their sexuality into every discussion they enter annoy the hell out of me; it's completely unnecessary and me discussing my sexuality with you or anyone else on this board is really irrelevant. It doesn't have so much to do with being "ashamed" or any of that, but it's more about the fact that it's none of your business what I do in my private life. Even regarding discussion on issues of sexuality, it's still none of your business. Why? Because heterosexuals can bring just as sufficient an argument to the table (and sometimes even better ones) than bis or homosexuals. You don't have to experience oppression to discuss the topic; you just have to understand it. And in my experiences I have found that many heterosexuals understand it.

From that POV, i'm not sure why you have reacted so strongly against this?

I've already explained this. Scroll up.

It makes him 'sick' that because of something i said, you decided to admit that you are gay/bi on this board? That to do so was 'disgusting'?

His hyperbole makes it (almost?) sound as if your sexuality is something that you should be ashamed of, that 'forcing' you to 'come out' is a huge disaster, that i've brought some kind of horrible curse on to you.

Actually, what makes Miles "sick" is the fact that you backed me into a corner and coerced me to admit something to you that I don't feel was any of your goddamned business. And don't tell me it wasn't coerced; you know as well as I do that a poll to demod and boot me from the CC was about to go up within the next few days.

Whilst of course i regret putting you in a situation where you felt that you had to reveal information you would have rather kept private (and for this i apologised instantly, and have apologised since several times), i do not view this turn of event as the 'digusting' crime miles make it out to be.

I do.

Also, if you wish to answer my post via PM feel free to do so, or if you don't wish to reply at all, free to do that of course

Doesn't really matter now, does it?

Now, as KC actually had to state his sexual orientation, and therefore everyone had to accept that he obviously is not homophobic, one wonders who had been digging that "deep hole" for KC to fall in.

Also, a note on that pride issue; is it not heterosexual peoples pride of their gender the main cause of homophobia? This is the bulk of identity politics, on nations, races, even religion. Pride caused by identity always creates seperation, and ends up in people uniting on the basis of their identities instead of their class. In this specific topic, with homosexuals in one side and heterosexuals in the other. Is this not exactly what the homophobes want?

And according to Black Dagger, if you're not "proud" of being "different" then you must be "ashamed" and "in the closet". That kind of black and white reasoning that Black Dagger is so experienced with is disgusting.

Black Dagger

12th October 2006, 22:04

Originally posted by KC+--> (KC)
it's completely unnecessary and me discussing my sexuality with you or anyone else on this board is really irrelevant. [/b]

Of course it is relevant in this case, we are discussing homophobia, and other queer members of the forum had concerns as to your stance on homophobia, if we knew that you were not heterosexual i doubt TAT would have ever started this thread or pursued it with such vigour. It would have saved two threads of debate.

Originally posted by KC+--> (KC)
It doesn't have so much to do with being "ashamed" or any of that, but it's more about the fact that it's none of your business what I do in my private life. [/b]

Ok, but if people are having concerns and saying that you are a homophobe, being open about your sexuality would have nipped the discussion in the bud, keeping it to yourself can only lead to problems like we are having right now, people assumed you were not gay/bi because you were saying that its not homophobic to be 'prejudiced' against so-called 'stereotypical homosexuals' on the basis of who they are, that is a perfectly rational assumption.

Originally posted by KC

Because heterosexuals can bring just as sufficient an argument to the table (and sometimes even better ones) than bis or homosexuals. You don't have to experience oppression to discuss the topic; you just have to understand it. And in my experiences I have found that many heterosexuals understand it.

Right, and i agree, but conversely, many do not, those who do are not the majority.

Originally posted by KC
actually, what makes Miles "sick" is the fact that you backed me into a corner and coerced me to admit something to you that I don't feel was any of your goddamned business.

Come on, this thread has been going for two pages and the thread in the CC just as long, i was not the only participant in either thread, nor did i create this thread, nor did i force you to defend Big Manifesto from the arguments levelled against him (placing you into this discussion in the first place).

Originally posted by KC

And don't tell me it wasn't coerced; you know as well as I do that a poll to demod and boot me from the CC was about to go up within the next few days.

I certainly wasn't thinking of starting one, but even so, what did you expect from engaging in this debate with TAT? You made several dodgey statements, that it's ok to be 'prejudiced' against 'stereotypical homosexuals', how did you expect people to react to that?

How were we meant to know that you were 'secretly' gay/bi and thus there would be no question as to whether or not you were supporting homophobia?

You decided to engage in debate with TAT concerning what he perceived to be homophobia and your support for it, you could have stopped him in his tracks if you wanted to, but you dragged the discussion on and on and would not respond to his charges of supporting homophobia (because you did not want to admit to being gay/bi?).

[email protected]

I do.

Fine, but you havent really explained why this so?

The main reason people stay 'in the closet' is because they are afraid that being open about their sexuality will result in a negative stigma, or in some way, negative repercussions, neither of these apply in this case.

Being open about your sexuality, ignoring your dislike your 'proud' queers, should be a non-issue on a revleft messageboard, completely uncontroversial, you don't have to politicise your sexuality if you dont want to, but being secret to the point where you are actually angry when you have to admit to being gay/bi does not make sense given you would face no stigma?

It's no one's business, fine, but it does not follow from that statement to angry if people find out, because if, as you say, you are 'comfortable' with who you are, admitting to being gay/bi on this board should be straight-forward, easy,

So for example when TAT says,

TAT
Thus far, you are admitting to homophobia. Now either you need to justify yourself by responding to my points and engaging in debate or you have to specifically say that you are wrong.

Because you're so comfortable, you'd be like,

"Uh, i'm admitting to homophobia? Yeah, i'm the most homophobic gay/bi person that i know :rolleyes: "

But you chose to avoid his post, rather than put TAT in his place.

Edelweiss

12th October 2006, 22:21

Originally posted by "CL"
apart from you and the other petty-bourgeois elements on RevLeft

Oh, c'mon Miles, you can do better than that. Everyone who disagrees with the CL on something is "petty-bourgeois". Of course. Can't you better than this propagandistic, outdated, nonsense rhetoric?

Edelweiss

12th October 2006, 23:15

I have read the whole thread now, and I would also like to apologize to KC for my harsh reaction.

However, I still find his comments about "hating stereotypical, feminine type of gays" pretty strange to say the least. And that has really nothing to do with being "petty-bourgeois", the fact that so many gays and bi-sexuals found this as well, among them working class gays BTW, is a clear sign that I'm not totally out of line this this. I guess pretty much everyone who dares to criticize the CL is petty-bourgeois since the CL has the suprioriy to define who is working class and who is not. Seems like every kid ho can be recruited on an Internet message board is working class, and everyone who dares to critisize the CL is "petty-bourgeois" since the CL only allows "working class people" to join. Admittedly a nice, but totally cheap rhetorical trick, and in the not an argument at all.

I don't think that a strong identification with your sexuality is a hindrance to class concissness at all. Where is the logic behind that? Sexual identity is not the same as total seperation from society. It's a part of yourself. What you are proposing is a total assimilation of the gay community into the gray "working mass", let's just everyone be the same, don't ever turn your inside out! Let's just all be little, working drones serving our class interests! Let's limit all our existence and our inner self to our relation to the means of production! That's true freedom! Hooray! Gay culture, gay identity, and finally gay emancipation without the guidance of the party of the poeple is counter-revolutionary and petty-bourgeois!

You know what Miles and KC, your overly theoretical, unworldly view on this issue is one of the reasons why all attempts to create a communist society so far failed miserably.

Okay, I'm getting polemic now...but can't you keepers of the holy grail of Marxism not just acknowledge that there is identification beside your class? Just like KC demands to respect that he isn't turning his sexual inner self out, he should respect that for many gays it is an important part of their sexual finding to just do that, even if it's in a stereotypical way which is propagated by the mass media.

However, and some will nail me for that now, I consider "gay pride" the same bullshit as "race pride", but also as "class pride" in a capitalist society.

LoneRed

12th October 2006, 23:51

Its not that the everyone in the league has the same views on the petty-bourgeois, it's that the people who recognize the disease the petty-bourgeois thought is, came together in the League, because its clear stance on that insidious thought

BD, why are you still here?, On all the issues you talk about, you dont even see class, or use a class analysis, your analysis, in fact is nothing but mere emotions, emotions that come out, when someone insults the idiocy of petty-bourgeois thought

LoneRed

12th October 2006, 23:53

BD, what you are supporting as it is clear from all your posts, is more of a separatism, on behalf of homosexuals, you are putting them above other people, not on the same level. you are doing more of a disservice than a service. They, as well as anyone else are NOT immune from criticism, just because someone is gay doesnt mean we cant attack them for supporting dems. I could care less if they were gay or not, but regardless if they support The system we have, or other aspects of it, I will call them out on it, and I think that all communists should. You, BD are obviously a different case

Edelweiss

13th October 2006, 00:14

"petty-bourgeois" nowadays very little more than a random, meaningless slander that the communists sects can through at each other for not sharing their analysis, i.e. their party line. It's nothing but a sectarian fighting term and should be avoided by any "21st century communist".

Janus

13th October 2006, 00:43

Yes, but he did and now he is refusing to respond to my points or admit that he was wrong.
He opposes a stereotype that is misleading and fallacious and has justified why he believes this.

This has become something of a trend with you miles, when things aren't going your way (or the way of one of your CL members), it's because of some 'petit-bourgeois' anti-WC bias

If I may interject here. I remember that some homosexual members on this board (one of whom was TAT) stating that they simply don't work with or support the petty bourgeois and bourgeois gay and lesbian movement.

It makes him 'sick' that because of something i said, you decided to admit that you are gay/bi on this board? That to do so was 'disgusting'?

His disgust seems to be more targeted at the general "witch-hunt" attitude that pervades this site these days and the extent to which people like to carry out: something that a lot of us here are tired of.

His hyperbole makes it (almost?) sound as if your sexuality is something that you should be ashamed of, that 'forcing' you to 'come out' is a huge disaster, that i've brought some kind of horrible curse on to you.
Once again, you're misinterpreting him. KC's private life is his own business and there was no reason to go about continually misrepresenting someone in order to gain whatever reaction y'all expected out of him though I'm sure KC's response was unexpected by TAT here.

Let's see,

People who disagree with KC,
I'm surprised that you remarked on Miles's trend when you yourself are prone to similar fallacious reasoning whether it's playing the sectarian card or playing on generalizations.

Ok, but if people are having concerns and saying that you are a homophobe, being open about your sexuality would have nipped the discussion in the bud, keeping it to yourself can only lead to problems like we are having right now, people assumed you were not gay/bi because you were saying that its not homophobic to be 'prejudiced' against so-called 'stereotypical homosexuals' on the basis of who they are, that is a perfectly rational assumption.
I support what KC did here. He justified his beliefs without simply pulling out his "cred" and thinking that it would seal the debate which is what you attempted to do above which he himself pointed out.

LoneRed

13th October 2006, 02:35

Petty-bourgeois is not meaningless, Why do you think it is so concentrated on?, because It is very important, I will not let the movement be taken over by some wack job "intellectuals" or petty-bourgeois ideoloy, others, don't seem to care if it is or not, so they are fine with it.

Also I see KC's point much more, It doesnt matter if anyone is Gay,straight, whatever, KC has the right to not tell people what he is, or to tell people, its his choice. He's right, in many situations where bringing up the sexual orientation isn't necessary, it does indeed get brought up, its utter foolishness, It is used to try to show that they are an "expert" on an issue just because they are homosexual. Well what about the log cabin republicans, or Even homosexuals who are democrats? Are they too an authority on such issues, as they believe their respective parties can work towards on issues that affect them. No they are not authorities, this seems to get awfully close to cultural relativism, Just because someone is a woman, or a homosexual or whatever, doesnt mean that they understand their oppression more than others do. Granted they should have a better understanding, but it is clearly not the case that they all do

The Feral Underclass

13th October 2006, 02:42

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 12 2006, 06:11 PM
I've already clarified my position on the matter to the point where it's painfully obvious that what I said isn't homophobic in any way.
Where have you done this? I have refuted your arguments. Your position is untenable, yet you keep maintaining it, even though I have shown quite adequetly why you are wrong.

Plus, where did I say anything homophobic? That I hate stereotypes? That's not homophobic.

This is precisly the point. If you hate a stereotype, how does that hatred manifest itself in reality. How do you treat people who identify with this culture of feminintiy etc?

The "stereotype" is quintessentially gay and it is a culture that a large section of the gay community relate to. Out of the context of capitalists exploitation of this "stereotype", many gay people identify with those characteristics and have done so long before 'Will and Grace'.

The "stereotype" cannot be isolated from the people who perpetuate it and thus essentially you are hating gay people for being gay. That's homophobia!

That I presented what the stereotype for a homosexual person is?

The stereotype is true and it is celebrated as a culture within the gay community. Gay men are effeminate and they are flamboyant.

Apparently you hate them for that. Would you prefer it if we all acted like straight people?

So far nobody has provided anything showing that I'm homophobic, and the charge is quite ridiculous.

Ridiculous to you perhaps, but why on earth would you think what you said is homophobic. It would shatter the illusion of radicalism that you clearly want to maintain.

You're doing a very bad job of that. Perhaps you would just like this gay man to keep his mouth shut?

How the fuck do you know what my sexual orientation is?

Well are you gay or bi?

LoneRed

13th October 2006, 02:45

WOW, TAT, I didnt know you like sterotypes, wow, thats something else

Its not that they should act like straight people, ITS that anybody should act like themselves, and not some pseudo-personality, If they like acting that way, fine by me, but when they do it just because they are homosexual, that is ridiculous, sexual orientation shouldnt rule how you live, well to some it does, many concentrate on it, and don't see past it.

The Feral Underclass

13th October 2006, 02:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 10:44 PM

Yes, but he did and now he is refusing to respond to my points or admit that he was wrong.
He opposes a stereotype that is misleading and fallacious and has justified why he believes this.
But has refused to respond to the points raised by his assertion...

In his own words: He hates effeminate, flamboyant and fabulous gay men. Well, this "stereotype" doesn't just exist in popular culture, it exists and to a larger degree within the gay community and is a celebrated and accepted identity.

Popular culture portrays middle class gay people, but that's the reality of any television programme and has nothing to do with the fact that these people are gay. The issue here is that gay men on television are usually effeminate and flamboyant and KC clearly thinks that this is an invented stereotype (unless he doesn't, I'm unsure).

The fact of the matter is, it isn't invented, it's exploited and KC's hatred of it is extremely worrying considering the fact that it has existed long before capitalists cashed in on it.

KC has failed to clarify his position even though I have directly asked him several times to do so on specific points. By hating the stereotype he is hating a large section of the gay community.

Now either he accepts this and thus a homophobia or he was simply wrong and should admit so.

Janus

13th October 2006, 02:55

If you hate a stereotype, how does that hatred manifest itself in reality
You try to make people aware of the misleading nature of it so that they will stop making generalizations.

The "stereotype" is quintessentially gay and it is a culture that a large section of the gay community relate to. Out of the context of capitalists exploitation of this "stereotype", many gay people identify with those characteristics and have done so long before 'Will and Grace'.

This is the stereotype about gay people behaving and dressing in a different way? Studies show that although this is true sometimes in that some gay people may talk a little differently,etc. it is still a misleading stereotype. It is these stereotypes that contribute to homophobia.

The "stereotype" cannot be isolated from the people who perpetuate it and thus essentially you are hating gay people for being gay. That's homophobia!
So if someone hated the stereotype about the crime-prone black or the athletic black, this means that they hate blacks?

The Feral Underclass

13th October 2006, 02:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 12:46 AM
WOW, TAT, I didnt know you like sterotypes, wow, thats something else
This doesn't make any sense. You all seem to be confused by this "stereotype". The characteristics of these gay men on television was not invented by capitalists, it was around long before they began to exploit, thus turning it into a stereotype.

Are youy telling me that gay men should stop identifying themselves because capitalism exploits that identity to create profit?

Its not that they should act like straight people, ITS that anybody should act like themselves, and not some pseudo-personality, If they like acting that way, fine by me, but when they do it just because they are homosexual, that is ridiculous,

What is ridiculous about it? People create identities around who they are. The fact that some gay men celebrate their sexualities isn't ridiculous, it's just another way that someone identifies with themself.

Straight people continously celebrate their sexuality on television, in magazines, in music and on television. Straight sexuality is pushed down our throats every single day and if some gay men react to that by doing the same then really, what is the issue?

Is it a question of taste? Do you not like to see gay men celebrating their sexuality? Would you prefer them to just put down their feather boars and big red stilettos and climb back into the closet.

sexual orientation shouldnt rule how you live, well to some it does, many concentrate on it, and don't see past it.

That exists within any sexuality, but that is clearly not what KC is discussing. He said he hates the "stereotype" of effeminate and flamboyant gay men. Well, if that's the case he is hating allot of gay men because that is precisely what they are.

The Feral Underclass

13th October 2006, 03:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 12:56 AM

If you hate a stereotype, how does that hatred manifest itself in reality
You try to make people aware of the misleading nature of it so that they will stop making generalizations.
That hasn't answered my question. If you hate this stereotype, how does that hate actually exist. How does KC treat gay men who are effeminate and flamboyant? He said: "Being prejudiced against a certain section of the homosexual community isn't homophobic". How does that prejudice manifest itself? Does he have contempt for that section of the gay community, would he not want to be seen in public with someone from that section of the gay community?

How in practical terms is he prejudice and does he hate?

Studies show that although this is true sometimes in that some gay people may talk a little differently,etc. it is still a misleading stereotype.

How on earth do you know that? What studies? Do you socialise on the gay scene? Do you know anything practical about the gay community?

It is these stereotypes that contribute to homophobia.

So bascically what you're saying is gay people being gay contributes to homophobia....?

Duh...

So if someone hated the stereotype about the crime-prone black or the athletic black, this means that they hate blacks?

Being a crimnal doesn't make black people black, unless that's what you're saying.

Being effeminate and flamboyant on the other hand makes some gay men gay.

13th October 2006, 03:22

Being effeminate and flamboyant on the other hand makes some gay men gay.

No it doesn't. There's plenty of "effeminate and flamboyant" straight people.

The Feral Underclass

13th October 2006, 03:24

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 13 2006, 01:23 AM

Being effeminate and flamboyant on the other hand makes some gay men gay.

No it doesn't.
But I'm afraid it does. It's a very specific and unique culture that gay men identify with. Femininity and flamboyance is quintessentially gay.

There's plenty of "effeminate and flamboyant" straight people.

True.

The Feral Underclass

13th October 2006, 03:26

Khayembii Communique, how can you hate femininity and flamboyance in gay men while not hating effeminate and flamboyant gay people? How can you seperate characteristics you hate, from those they characterise?

The Feral Underclass

13th October 2006, 03:45

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 12 2006, 06:25 PM
The reason that I have never discussed my own sexuality on this site is because first it's none of your fucking business and second it's completely irrelevent.

I'm glad you have raised this issue. The fact that you are gay does indeed mean nothing

Your opinions are distinctly homophobic and just because you're gay doesn't make you immune from perpetuating gay oppression.

Me saying that I'm not "proud" doesn't mean that I'm "in the closet". In fact, it means that I'm comfortable with who I am and don't feel the need to comfort myself by telling everyone about my sexuality and that I'm "proud of it".

I feel exactly the same way, the only problem here is that what you are saying is that you hate anything that doesn't do the same.

Gay men celebrating their sexuality is a reaction to homophobia and your "hate" for that merely gives legitimacy to those who want to maintain oppression because it is exactly the same opinion they have.

As a gay man you need to embrace that difference and accept it for what it is. You don't have to like it or be apart of it. I for one don't and am not; but for some it is a reaction against homophobia, for others it is a specific identity and for some it is a way of feeling acceptable and safe.

I don't see how there is anything to hate about that?

The Feral Underclass

13th October 2006, 04:06

I have just re-read some of the responses after KC's sexuality was revealed and I am confused why anyone would start apologising for their attitude towards his opinions..

The fact he is gay makes absolutely no difference to his opinions. They are no less homophobic or intolerant. Just because he is gay does not suddenly mean he gets a free ride when it comes to issues about homosexuality.

Please don't start giving him an easy ride just because "he's one of the gang". That's offensive more than anything else and KC still needs to correct his opinions.

Entrails Konfetti

13th October 2006, 05:31

Actually I kinda get what what KC is saying.
It's like if Janus were (sorry I'm using you as an example) to say " I hate how my goddamn white teachers think all Asian students are respectful and good at math ".
He wouldn't hate these Asian students personally because he knows them as real people.

I was just using that as an example, and I don't know how Janus feels towards that sterotype, nor am I trying to encourage him into discussing it. It's just that I know him more than anyone on here, and me saying " I hate how people think I don't know how to fix appliances because I come from a single-mother family" is kind of a crap analyogy.

Rollo

13th October 2006, 05:37

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 13 2006, 12:32 PM
Actually I kinda get what what KC is saying.
It's like if Janus were (sorry I'm using you as an example) to say " I hate how my goddamn white teachers think all Asian students are respectful and good at math ".
He wouldn't hate these Asian students personally because he knows them as real people.

I was just using that as an example, and I don't know how Janus feels towards that sterotype, nor am I trying to encourage him into discussing it. It's just that I know him more than anyone on here, and me saying " I hate how people think I don't know how to fix appliances because I come from a single-mother family" is kind of a crap analyogy.
Most people with an IQ above 6 know that statement not to be true ( about all asians being good at math and respectful ) but it does raise a good point. I think KC might have worded his original argument wrongly and know it's come back to bite him in the ass.

Edelweiss

13th October 2006, 05:44

It's a big fucking difference weather you say "I hate people that are stereotyping gays", or if you say, and KC has explicitly said that, and still hasn't really clarified on this statement so far, that he hates those gays who fit the stereotype, which happens to be in KC's idea of a stereotype of gays as being feminine a large part of the gay community, actually the part which is being receipted the most by the heterosexual mass, the part that makes many gays indeed different from most of the heterosexuals.

Amusing Scrotum

13th October 2006, 05:49

You know, before this thread turned into an episode of EastEnders -- that is, before the topics of sexuality, class, the Communist League and so on came up -- a perfectly reasonable question was asked. Khayembii Communique was asked, quite bluntly, how his hatred and prejudice of "feminine", "flamboyant" and "fabulous" gay men manifests itself in reality. And, after four pages, we're still no closer to getting an answer.

We've had a load of other stuff, that's for sure; but we've not had an answer to the question which, in my opinion anyway, is the most important one in this thread. Which, really, has meant that the thread itself has completely deviated from its original purpose -- namely, that question and the answer to it.

So, I think it's worth asking again. Khayembii Communique, how does your hatred and prejudice towards a certain segment of the gay community manifest itself?

I've just read over What's So Special About Brokeback Mountain? (I read the other piece when it was first linked) and if I were speculate at what your answer would be, based on those two pieces, I think it would be something like this:

You'd argue that your hatred and prejudice of, well, "Queens", is motivated by class. That is, the "feminine", "flamboyant" and "fabulous" gay man is, in fact, a distinctly petty-bourgeois phenomena. Working class gay men aren't Daffyd's, you'd say; they're more, well, "normal" -- I suppose that would be the phrase you'd use.

Now, given that line of argument, the question becomes is that line of argument valid? That is, is the "Queen" a distinctly middle class thing? Or do some working class gay men chose to express themselves in this manner as well? Personally, I don't know the answer and I doubt anyone could provide a definitive answer....though TAT could probably shed some light on the issue.

So that question should be shelved, for now anyway. And, instead, I think a better question would be: should, in a period when gay people are under particular attack from the reactionary forces in society, revolutionaries take a line which gives backhanded support to their attacks by further demonising certain groups within the gay community?

It's similar, I must add, to the situation the German Communist Party found itself in in the 30's. With the rise of anti-Semitism all around them, they faced a tactical decision -- one which concerned whether they should completely oppose it or latch onto it for their own gain. They, as it happens, chose to attack "Jewish capitalists" in their propaganda -- on occasions that is; and with an anti-fascist message worked in.

This decision, in my opinion anyway, was caused by poor tactical decisions and an opportunistic approach to politics. In the case at hand here, however, Khayembii Communique's political line is, if what he says is accurate, determined by a certain kind of hatred, possibly class based, against a certain section of the gay community.

Two different causes, but the result is roughly the same -- to demonise a social group that is already being demonised. And, given that, is this beneficial to us as revolutionaries? Well, no. Strengthening the hand of the House, will only make the House win.

So even if Khayembii Communique really does hate this section of the gay community, and I personally suspect he was just being hyperbolic, I think he should consider keeping that hatred to himself -- if only for tactical reasons. And that's all I'd ask of him here, to consider this -- I'm not looking to paint him as a homophobe, to get him un-elected as Moderator, or to have him issue a grovelling apology. Nope, none of those things are my aim here, I would just like him to consider what I've written above.

Black Dagger

13th October 2006, 06:45

Originally posted by Malte+--> (Malte)However, I still find his comments about "hating stereotypical, feminine type of gays" pretty strange to say the least. And that has really nothing to do with being "petty-bourgeois", the fact that so many gays and bi-sexuals found this as well, among them working class gays BTW, is a clear sign that I'm not totally out of line this this. I guess pretty much everyone who dares to criticize the CL is petty-bourgeois since the CL has the suprioriy to define who is working class and who is not. Seems like every kid ho can be recruited on an Internet message board is working class, and everyone who dares to critisize the CL is "petty-bourgeois" since the CL only allows "working class people" to join. Admittedly a nice, but totally cheap rhetorical trick, and in the not an argument at all.

I don't think that a strong identification with your sexuality is a hindrance to class concissness at all. Where is the logic behind that? Sexual identity is not the same as total seperation from society. It's a part of yourself. What you are proposing is a total assimilation of the gay community into the gray "working mass", let's just everyone be the same, don't ever turn your inside out! Let's just all be little, working drones serving our class interests! Let's limit all our existence and our inner self to our relation to the means of production! That's true freedom! Hooray! Gay culture, gay identity, and finally gay emancipation without the guidance of the party of the poeple is counter-revolutionary and petty-bourgeois! [/b]

Good post Malte!

Originally posted by LoneGunman+--> (LoneGunman)BD, what you are supporting as it is clear from all your posts, is more of a separatism, on behalf of homosexuals, you are putting them above other people, not on the same level. you are doing more of a disservice than a service. They, as well as anyone else are NOT immune from criticism, just because someone is gay doesnt mean we cant attack them for supporting dems. I could care less if they were gay or not, but regardless if they support The system we have, or other aspects of it, I will call them out on it, and I think that all communists should. You, BD are obviously a different case [/b]

Good god are you ever deluded!

Please point out where exactly i've said i support 'separatism'?

Or where i've said that gay people are 'immune from criticism'?

Honestly, you have to be either one of the most dishonest debaters i've ever encountered in my two plus years on this board (the amount of 'strawmen' is just silly), or alternatively, you're thick as bricks... i think it's a case of the latter... feeding into the former.

Originally posted by Janus
He opposes a stereotype that is misleading and fallacious and has justified why he believes this.

Yes, that is certainly something he has said, but he also stated that he saw no problem in being prejudiced against 'stereotypical homosexuals', that is different to disliking the stereotype, it also happens to be a opinion held by most homophobes.

Originally posted by Janus
remember that some homosexual members on this board (one of whom was TAT) stating that they simply don't work with or support the petty bourgeois and bourgeois gay and lesbian movement.

Relevance?

My comment was related to the fact that what Miles said was nothing more than empty rhetoric, he labelled any queer (including working class queers) who disagreed with his party line, dupes of the petit-bourgeois, that is plainly non-sense, and you would do well to distance yourself from such rubbish.

Originally posted by Janus
His disgust seems to be more targeted at the general "witch-hunt" attitude that pervades this site these days and the extent to which people like to carry out: something that a lot of us here are tired of.

This was not a witch hunt by any means. TAT wanted KC to address his points directly, something KC would not do. If KC had done this in the previous thread TAT would have never started this one, it was KC's evasion that prolonged this debate.

Originally posted by Janus
and there was no reason to go about continually misrepresenting someone in order to gain whatever reaction y'all expected out of him though I'm sure KC's response was unexpected by TAT here.

No one is misrepresenting him, and if 'we' were, it certainly would not be deliberate, nor to illicit some special kind 'reaction', the whole point of this thread was to get KC to either admit that he was wrong, or address TATs' points, he has still done neither.

Originally posted by Janus
I'm surprised that you remarked on Miles's trend when you yourself are prone to similar fallacious reasoning whether it's playing the sectarian card or playing on generalizations.

So do you admit that what Miles said was bullshit fallacy or not?

Originally posted by Janus
He justified his beliefs without simply pulling out his "cred" and thinking that it would seal the debate which is what you attempted to do above which he himself pointed out.

*le sigh*

This is precisely the problem, he hasn't justified his beliefs, he hasn't responded to TAT's argument, that is why this thread was created in the first place, because KC openly declared that he would not debate TAT.

And it's completely moronic to play this shit about 'cred', 'cred' has fuck all to do with this, the fact is, if a sizeable group of people think that you are defending homophobia, and even that you might be a homophobe yourself, it's fucking logical to mention the fact that you are gay/bi in order to put the debate into perspective, and put their minds at ease.

Originally posted by LoneGunman
Petty-bourgeois is not meaningless, Why do you think it is so concentrated on?

Alright then,

Answer the following in detail:

-What does petit-bourgeois mean?
-How does this relate to a discussion on homophobia? (and also, specifically, this discussion)
-How and why is ever working class queer who disagrees with the CL's line petit-bourgeois or a dupe of the petit-bourgeoisie?
-Explain how ever each and every person (individually) who disagrees with KC in this thread is being petit-bourgeois

Thanks

[email protected]
have just re-read some of the responses after KC's sexuality was revealed and I am confused why anyone would start apologising for their attitude towards his opinions..

I assume this post is directed at me?

If so, i was not apologising for my attitude towards his opinion, but rather because he thought that i had put him into a situation where he felt that he had to reveal private information about himself that he didnt want to, i still think what he said is non-sense.

TAT

The fact he is gay makes absolutely no difference to his opinions. They are no less homophobic or intolerant. Just because he is gay does not suddenly mean he gets a free ride when it comes to issues about homosexuality.

Of course.

And good post Amusing Scrotum.

13th October 2006, 07:10

Yes, that is certainly something he has said, but he also stated that he saw no problem in being prejudiced against 'stereotypical homosexuals', that is different to disliking the stereotype, it also happens to be a opinion held by most homophobes.

I never said that. I said that that is what Big Manifesto does and that while it is wrong, it isn't homophobic. You continue to misrepresent my position even after I have repeatedly clarified that I don't agree with Big Manifesto and that I just don't find his position homophobic.

No one is misrepresenting him, and if 'we' were, it certainly would not be deliberate

So you're just idiots? Either you're idiots or you purposely misrepresented my position, perhaps to further yours?

LoneRed

13th October 2006, 07:48

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 13 2006, 12:23 AM

Being effeminate and flamboyant on the other hand makes some gay men gay.

No it doesn't. There's plenty of "effeminate and flamboyant" straight people.
One of my best friends for example, He's been asked multiple times if he was gay, but he's quite straight, but really flamboyant

LoneRed

13th October 2006, 09:20

Bd if you don't see the witch hunting you and others embark on, then you are delusional, Also your jargon isnt going to save you this time, Back up what you say for it to be taken as serious

Janus

13th October 2006, 09:47

How does KC treat gay men who are effeminate and flamboyant? He said: "Being prejudiced against a certain section of the homosexual community isn't homophobic". How does that prejudice manifest itself? Does he have contempt for that section of the gay community, would he not want to be seen in public with someone from that section of the gay community?
KC's whole arguement was opposing the perpetuation of stereotypes rather than the hatred of gay people who may happen to conform to it. The point is to show that these stereotypes are fallacious even if they are true to some degree.

How on earth do you know that? What studies? Do you socialise on the gay scene? Do you know anything practical about the gay community?
There have been studies on this matter and most of it show that gay males are more feminine due to biological factors.

So bascically what you're saying is gay people being gay contributes to homophobia....?
:blink: No, I said that the stereotyping of gay people leads to homophobia as these misleading generalizations lead to verbal and sometimes physical abuse towards gay people.

Being a crimnal doesn't make black people black, unless that's what you're saying.
The stereotype is the other way around. The point of the analogy was that hating it does not mean you hate black people! It means that you believe it to be false, misleading, and potentially discriminative and seek to confront these stereotypes and generalizations that some members of the general public feel. Same goes for the athletic stereotype of blacks.

Being effeminate and flamboyant on the other hand makes some gay men gay.
Key word: some. I'm not saying that such behavior should be forbidden but that the stereotyping of gay people as flamboyant or as lisp talkers is misleading and harmful.

Janus

13th October 2006, 10:03

And it's completely moronic to play this shit about 'cred', 'cred' has fuck all to do with this, the fact is, if a sizeable group of people think that you are defending homophobia, and even that you might be a homophobe yourself, it's fucking logical to mention the fact that you are gay/bi in order to put the debate into perspective, and put their minds at ease.
There's a difference between putting things into perspective and thinking that the "cred" card will seal the debate for you.

Relevance?
That there is a divide between working class or leftist gay movements and petty bourgeois and bourgeois gay movements.

No one is misrepresenting him, and if 'we' were, it certainly would not be deliberate, nor to illicit some special kind 'reaction', the whole point of this thread was to get KC to either admit that he was wrong, or address TATs' points, he has still done neither.
It seems to me that KC has responded to the allegations about him hating a certain sector of gay people at the very beginning!

I dislike the stereotype that all homosexual people are that way for numerous reasons. First, it's untrue. Second, it coerces people into fitting that stereotype. Third, it commodifies homosexuality.

Now, I've never said that I hate people that happen to fit the stereotype. I haven't said that anywhere because it's not true. I have friends that could probably fit the stereotype. And I've never said that this perception of homosexuality was invented by the bourgeoisie. I recognize the fact that some homosexual guys are just naturally more "feminine" (for lack of a better word, even though gender roles are bullshit), but I also realize that this stereotype coerces more people into fitting that stereotype.

I am against the perpetuation of homosexual people as this stereotype, and therefore am against the stereotype itself, and not the people that are in line with it.

I never said that. I said that that is what Big Manifesto does and that while it is wrong, it isn't homophobic. You continue to misrepresent my position even after I have repeatedly clarified that I don't agree with Big Manifesto and that I just don't find his position homophobic.
KC hasn't been dragging this out, he has continually addressed all attacks against him throughout this thread.

Janus

13th October 2006, 10:11

You all seem to be confused by this "stereotype". The characteristics of these gay men on television was not invented by capitalists, it was around long before they began to exploit, thus turning it into a stereotype.
Yeah, that's how stereotypes are born. Media, particularly mainstream media, helps to perpetuate them.

As to how to counter these stereotypes or what "hating" them means in the real world? Well, that is what the victims of these stereotypes seek to confront out in the real world: spreading awareness on how these stereotypes are false.

Janus

13th October 2006, 10:52

He wouldn't hate these Asian students personally because he knows them as real people.
The problem is not that certain members of a group exhibit such traits (there's nothing wrong with it at all) but that others generalize and stereotype all members of the group because of it. These are the stereotypes that lead to racism, xenophobia, and homophobia. This is what KC is talking about here.

Edelweiss

13th October 2006, 11:24

I'm surprised yo can't see the blatant homophobia and racism which is clearly involved in such a statement. Your naiveness is shocking!

Homophobia is coming from homophobes, it's them who to blame for it, but never some gay serving a stereotype. Think about it, buddy!

The Feral Underclass

13th October 2006, 12:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 07:48 AM

How does KC treat gay men who are effeminate and flamboyant? He said: "Being prejudiced against a certain section of the homosexual community isn't homophobic". How does that prejudice manifest itself? Does he have contempt for that section of the gay community, would he not want to be seen in public with someone from that section of the gay community?
KC's whole arguement was opposing the perpetuation of stereotypes rather than the hatred of gay people who may happen to conform to it. The point is to show that these stereotypes are fallacious even if they are true to some degree.
:angry:

Then explain to me how you can hate femininity and flamboyance in gay men while not hating effeminate and flamboyant gay people? How can you seperate characteristics you hate, from those they characterise?

The point is to show that these stereotypes are fallacious even if they are true to some degree.

But they aren't fallacious, except to homophobes and members of the Communist League.

How on earth do you know that? What studies? Do you socialise on the gay scene? Do you know anything practical about the gay community?
There have been studies on this matter and most of it show that gay males are more feminine due to biological factors.

Then hating it seems pretty unfair, don't you think?

So bascically what you're saying is gay people being gay contributes to homophobia....?
:blink: No, I said that the stereotyping of gay people leads to homophobia as these misleading generalizations lead to verbal and sometimes physical abuse towards gay people.

<_<

But the stereotype is gay. It represents gay people. I don't see how I can explain this any simpler for you?

The "stereotype" is an aspect of gay culture that capitalism has exploited for profit, but it does not negate the fact that gay people are actually effeminate and flamboyant and that this is specifically a cultural identity that serves many positive purposes.

You hate a stereotype, that in reality a large proportion of gay men identify with.

Janus

13th October 2006, 12:21

Homophobia is coming from homophobes, it's them who to blame for it,
That's what I said. I also stated that we need to confront it.

but never some gay serving a stereotype. Think about it, buddy!
I never said that it was their fault.

Originally posted by me
The problem is not that certain members of a group exhibit such traits (there's nothing wrong with it at all) but that others generalize and stereotype all members of the group because of it which leads to ridicule and abuse sometimes.

What the hell is with everyone misrepresenting others' views.

Janus

13th October 2006, 12:32

Then explain to me how you can hate femininity and flamboyance in gay men while not hating effeminate and flamboyant gay people?
I don't hate gay people's behavior and neither does KC. We've already covered this.

But they aren't fallacious, except to homophobes and members of the Communist League.
No, homophobes believe that these stereotypes are true which is why they ridicule or abuse those who express characteristics similar to these generalizations.

You have yet to provide evidence that this stereotype is totally true; that all gay people dress flamboyantly and talk differently,etc. All you're doing right now is making a strawman attack.

Then hating it seems pretty unfair, don't you think?
I never said I hated it and neither did KC. There's nothing wrong with exhibiting such behavior whether you're gay or hetero.

You hate a stereotype, that in reality a large proportion of gay men identify with.
A large proportion but not all. That's what a stereotype is.

This is the last time, I'm reiterating my position.

I don't hate gay people who exhibit characteristics of the stereotype because there's nothing wrong with it at all. Rather I dislike or hate how this stereotype pervades and misguides non-gay people and homophobes' perceptions of gay people. Using this stereotype, homophobes believe that all gay people act this way and that anyone who acts this way is gay.

Please stop misrepresenting my and KC's views here.

The Feral Underclass

13th October 2006, 12:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 10:22 AM
The problem is not that certain members of a group exhibit such traits (there's nothing wrong with it at all) but that others generalize and stereotype all members of the group because of it which leads to ridicule and abuse sometimes.
This is not the issue.

What has been said is that Khayembii Communique hates the stereotype and believes prejudice against those people who exhibit those characteristics is not homophobic.

The whole point about all] gay men being tarnished with the same brush has never been the issue here. Khayembii Communique hates the stereotype and has never clarified what that means even when asked several times.

Stop talking for Khayembii Communique, you do not represent his opinion. If KC wants to clarify his position or admit he was wrong he should do that.

Janus

13th October 2006, 12:37

This is not the issue.
You made it into an issue when you started attacking me and that is obviously what KC is talking about here when he stated that he hated the stereotype.

What has been said is that Khayembii Communique hates the stereotype
He has already stated that he doesn't hate people who fit the stereotype.

Originally posted by KC
I dislike the stereotype that all homosexual people are that way for numerous reasons. First, it's untrue. Second, it coerces people into fitting that stereotype. Third, it commodifies homosexuality.

Now, I've never said that I hate people that happen to fit the stereotype. I haven't said that anywhere because it's not true. I have friends that could probably fit the stereotype. And I've never said that this perception of homosexuality was invented by the bourgeoisie. I recognize the fact that some homosexual guys are just naturally more "feminine" (for lack of a better word, even though gender roles are bullshit), but I also realize that this stereotype coerces more people into fitting that stereotype.

and believes prejudice against those people who exhibit those characteristics is not homophobic.
Where was this said?

Khayembii Communique hates the stereotype and has never clarified what that means even when asked several times.
He has clarified several times now.

Stop talking for Khayembii Communique, you do not represent his opinion
No, I do not but I can post his arguements in which he reiterated his position several times.

The Feral Underclass

13th October 2006, 12:50

Originally posted by Janus+Oct 13 2006, 10:33 AM--> (Janus @ Oct 13 2006, 10:33 AM)
Then explain to me how you can hate femininity and flamboyance in gay men while not hating effeminate and flamboyant gay people?
I don't hate gay people's behavior and neither does KC. We've already covered this. [/b]
Stop talking for Khayembii Communique. I have asked him several times to clarify his position and he has done nothing. You do not know what Khayembii Communique opinion is because he hasn't displayed any and what you do know you are changing.

We've already covered this.

You may have but Khayembii Communique has not.

No, homophobes believe that these stereotypes are true which is why they ridicule or abuse those who express characteristics similar to these generalizations.

But the "stereotype" is true to a large section of the gay community. A section that KC admits exists.

You have yet to provide evidence that this stereotype is totally true; that all gay people dress flamboyantly and talk differently,etc. All you're doing right now is making a strawman attack.

I've never made that assertion.

Then hating it seems pretty unfair, don't you think?
I never said I hated it and neither did KC.

Khayembii Communique @ Oct 7 2006 @ 09:51 PM
I don't see the problem with hating the stereotype of gay people. I hate the stereotype

Now I keep asking this question and nobody has answered it. I've just asked you and you have ignored it.

Explain to me how you can hate femininity and flamboyance in gay men while not hating effeminate and flamboyant gay people? How can you separate characteristics you hate, from those they characterise?

A large proportion but not all. That's what a stereotype is.

But in reality who cares whether homophobes think all gay people are raging queens? Because it's not true? Well, so what! I'm not going to start agreeing with homophobes that "I hate the stereotype because it's not me" for what ever reason someone would do that.

I have solidarity with all gay people in their struggle against homophobia and if homophobes want to tarnish me with the same brush as them then I really have no problem with that. Why would I?

The answer to liberation is integration and we should just live our lives in society however we feel comfortable. This is how you challenge homophobia. You don't fight it by distancing yourself from a perceived stereotype that is largely true.

I don't hate the stereotype

I should fucking think not! But this thread isn't about you, it's about KC and he has admitted clearly that he does.

Rather I dislike or hate how this stereotype pervades and misguides non-gay people and homophobes' perceptions of gay people.

I agree, it’s shit. But only when we challenge and destroy homophobia will it not be an issue.

Please stop misrepresenting my and KC's views here.

It appears that it's you who are misrepresenting KC's view for the purpose of defending him.

Perhaps you should re-read the thread and become more acquainted with this point of view before you start trying to explain his positions.

The Feral Underclass

13th October 2006, 12:55

Originally posted by Janus+Oct 13 2006, 10:38 AM--> (Janus @ Oct 13 2006, 10:38 AM)
This is not the issue.
You made it into an issue when you started attacking me and that is obviously what KC is talking about here when he stated that he hated the stereotype. [/b]
Oh grow up! I'm not attacking you for fuck sake!

He has already stated that he doesn't hate people who fit the stereotype.

That's not the end of the issue. I am asserting to you and to KC, that you cannot separate the stereotype from those who perpetuate it. You cannot say you hate a set of characteristics without hating those they characterise.

If you don't agree then present an argument. Many people claim they don't hate gay people etc etc blah blah blah, but just saying so does not make it true.

KC
I've never said that I hate people that happen to fit the stereotype. I haven't said that anywhere because it's not true. I have friends that could probably fit the stereotype.

That's not a justifiction for his opinions. Having friends that "probably fit the stereotype" does not mean that he does not have contempt towards gay men who are effeminate and flamboyant.

Janus

13th October 2006, 13:10

I'm not attacking you for fuck sake!
You continually twist KC's words and then gang up on him and you don't think this is immature?

I have asked him several times to clarify his position and he has done nothing.
I just posted one of his posts.

You do not know what Khayembii Communique opinion is because he hasn't displayed any and what you do know you are changing.
It's pretty clear that KC meant that he hated how the stereotype caused people to tarnish all gays with the same brush.

I'm not changing anything. His posts are there in clear sight.

You may have but Khayembii Communique has not.
Then what is this?

Originally posted by KC
I dislike the stereotype that all homosexual people are that way for numerous reasons. First, it's untrue. Second, it coerces people into fitting that stereotype. Third, it commodifies homosexuality.

Now, I've never said that I hate people that happen to fit the stereotype. I haven't said that anywhere because it's not true. I have friends that could probably fit the stereotype. And I've never said that this perception of homosexuality was invented by the bourgeoisie. I recognize the fact that some homosexual guys are just naturally more "feminine" (for lack of a better word, even though gender roles are bullshit), but I also realize that this stereotype coerces more people into fitting that stereotype.

I've just asked you and you have ignored it.

Explain to me how you can hate femininity and flamboyance in gay men while not hating effeminate and flamboyant gay people? How can you separate characteristics you hate, from those they characterise?
The answer is obvious, you can't, I can't believe you expected me to answer a self-evident question.

But once again, that is not what KC meant and he stated so in the above post. No one here has stated that they hate the behavior of gay people or metrosexuals period!

But in reality who cares whether homophobes think all gay people are raging queens?
Those who are abused by such homophobes, maybe?

I should fucking think not! But this thread isn't about you, it's about KC and he has admitted clearly that he does.
I edited that. The fact of the matter is that stereotypes are misleading because they are exaggerated, generalized and simplified way too much.

Therefore, "hating" such a stereotype does not mean that you hate the targets of it but that you oppose the perpetuation of it due to the fact that they are fallacious and lead to people justifying discriminatory practices,etc. When KC and I talk about the stereotype, we are talking about the mindsets of those who use it to their advantage rather than those who actually exhibit the behavior.

It appears that it's you who are misrepresenting KC's view for the purpose of defending him.
I haven't misrepresented anything. I simply posted and restated what he said. You're the one who is twisting what he is saying here.

Perhaps you should re-read the thread and become more acquainted with this point of view before you start trying to explain his positions.
I understand what you're trying to claim: that KC hates gay people who have helped to bring about and perpetuate stereotypes that nongay people and homophobes use to justify their actions.

However, he has repeatedly stated that this is not what he meant. Why won't you read what he said?

13th October 2006, 13:26

Stop bullying KC by repeating the same crap thats been established as inconsistent with his point of view.

Originally posted by TAT+--> (TAT)Explain to me how you can hate femininity and flamboyance in gay men while not hating effeminate and flamboyant gay people? How can you separate characteristics you hate, from those they characterise?[/b]

KC

I dislike the stereotype that all homosexual people are that way for numerous reasons. First, it's untrue. Second, it coerces people into fitting that stereotype. Third, it commodifies homosexuality.

FOR THE LAST TIME HE DOES NOT "HATE FEMINITY IN GAY MEN", he HATES THE ASSUMPTION THAT ALL GAY MEN ARE THAT WAY AND THE PRESSURE TO CONFORM TO IT.

The "sterotype" doesn't refer to behavior in actual gay men it refers to a sterotypical representation of gay men.

Now i'm sure you've understood this a long time ago TAT and you're just keeping up a crusade out of petty, bullying, immaturity, especially as you declined to reply to my earlier post. However it bares repeating so that the audience you think you're speaking to (which clearly isn't KC or Janus who you aren't seriously debating) isn't taken with your propagandistic 'big lie' style repetition.

Janus

13th October 2006, 13:37

I am asserting to you and to KC, that you cannot separate the stereotype from those who perpetuate it. You cannot say you hate a set of characteristics without hating those they characterise.
So you're saying that those who dislike flamboyancy and expensive clothing in general are natually homophobic? I wasn't aware that gay people had a monopoly over flamboyant clothing. I mean, it's one thing to hate gay people just because they dress or act in a certain way and another to dislike that particular "fashion mode" in general.

But once again, no one has said anything about hating the behavior of gay people in this thread period!!!

Wanted Man

13th October 2006, 16:04

This debate is pointless. All gay men should act like George Takei.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=riDxVrdKjHE

The Feral Underclass

13th October 2006, 16:04

I've just written a long post and lost it. I cant be bothered to write it again right now. But I will do.

There is clearly a misunderstanding here that needs to be clarified.

The Feral Underclass

13th October 2006, 16:06

I just found my post...phew!

Janus, I can see that you are having difficulty grasping my point of view. I fully accept what KC has said in this thread. I know what he has said and what hasn't said (clearly you don't believe that, but that's your problem) and I understand what he says is his opinion.

Originally posted by KC+--> (KC)I dislike the stereotype that all homosexual people are that way for numerous reasons.[/b]

I know that KC has said this and I have agreed with him. You need to, however, understand something.

A stereotype and a generalisation are two different things. A stereotype refers to a collection of characteristics that defines something typically.

A generalisation is when people assume something is true about an entire group of people without considering the facts.

Now, the above statement is completely different to: "I don't see the problem with hating the stereotype of gay people. I hate the stereotype; I don't think that they should be perpetuated at all"

Now, to reiterate, the gay community is specifically and culturally effeminate, flamboyant and fabulous. Typically you could say. This is a stereotype that KC said he hated and a stereotype that he said he did not want to see perpetuated...?

If he wants to see an end to the generalisation that is one thing. But If he doesn't want to see the stereotype perpetuated, what does he want these gay men to do? Stop being who they are?

My belief is, KC has nothing to do with the gay community, and just like me, sits outside of it as an individual looking in. What he and you and TC fail to understand however, that this stereotype - this set of characteristics is in fact quintessentially gay.

Me and KC are the exception to that rule, not the other way around. It is unfair and untrue that all gay men are effeminate etc, but it is true that the gay community at large is.

If KC made a mistake in the words he used, then why did he not say that? Instead he began to mask his original opinion in a completely different opinion, seemingly not realising the implications of that.

Originally posted by KC+--> (KC)First, it's untrue.[/b]

Yes, it's untrue that all gay men are effeminate etc

Originally posted by KC
Second, it coerces people into fitting that stereotype.

I don't think that's true and why would it? People cannot be forced into adopting a lifestyle they do not want. They can and do become isolated and alienated from the community however and that is a concern.

Originally posted by KC
Third, it commodifies homosexuality.

It is true that capitalism has exploited the stereotype of gay men and commodified it. I have already accepted that.

Originally posted by KC
Now, I've never said that I hate people that happen to fit the stereotype.

Firstly, I am aware that he never said that. What he said was he hate's the stereotype. My point to him however, is that the gay community at large embrace that stereotype as a cultural identity.

The question then follows: How can you separate a cultural identity embraced by a community from those in the community who embrace the cultural identity.

Hating a generalisation is not the same has hating a stereotype and if KC used the wrong language then he should admit so.

If he is saying that he hates both the stereotype and the generalisation then he should justify that opinion.

Originally posted by KC
I have friends that could probably fit the stereotype.

This is not a satisfactory defence when asked whether or not you hate the characteristics of the gay community or specifically the generalisation made, or indeed both?

Originally posted by KC
I recognize the fact that some homosexual guys are just naturally more "feminine" (for lack of a better word, even though gender roles are bullshit), but I also realize that this stereotype coerces more people into fitting that stereotype.

Firstly, "recognising" something is not the same as embracing it. Secondly, the assertion that the gay community coerce gay people into the stereotype is untenable and I find it hard to believe that he would be able to prove that.

I am however, as I have always been throughout this thread, willing to listen to his clarification.

[email protected]
I am against the perpetuation of homosexual people as this stereotype

Then he is against the gay community who self-identify with it.

KC
therefore am against the stereotype itself, and not the people that are in line with it.

Again, you cannot hate a characteristic without hating those it characterises. He has to embrace this stereotype because this is how the gay community identifies.

I am not saying that he has to identify with it, but unless he wishes to embark on a crusade to change the gay communities identity or stand outside and attack it there is not much else he can do about it (there are alternative gay scenes).

As gay men, we have to support the gay community in their identity and their ultimate struggle for liberation. The gay community has allot of misgivings, but the culture that thrives is a large one, a diverse one - a community that helps perpetuate tolerance, safety and acceptance.

To quote AS and I think this is an important issue: "Should, in a period when gay people are under particular attack from the reactionary forces in society, revolutionaries take a line which gives backhanded support to their attacks by further demonising certain groups within the gay community?"

This stereotype maybe generalised by heterosexuals and thus perpetuates homophobia, but the stereotype itself is typically the identity of the gay community and should be embraced; even, at the very least, as an attack on the prejudice and hatred of homophobes.

The Feral Underclass

13th October 2006, 16:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 11:38 AM
So you're saying that those who dislike flamboyancy and expensive clothing in general are natually homophobic? I wasn't aware that gay people had a monopoly over flamboyant clothing. I mean, it's one thing to hate gay people just because they dress or act in a certain way and another to dislike that particular "fashion mode" in general.
When I refer to femininity and flamboyance in the gay community, I am not taliking about this.

LoneRed

13th October 2006, 23:41

what are you referring to?

Hiero

14th October 2006, 06:48

Shows like Queer Eye for the Straight guy portray middle to upper class gay man. If homosexuality is natural, then how can most of the gay community embrace such lifestyle since most would be working to poor class? Surely a large portion of the gay community could care less about flamboyancy.

rioters bloc

14th October 2006, 08:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 01:49 PM
Shows like Queer Eye for the Straight guy portray middle to upper class gay man. If homosexuality is natural, then how can most of the gay community embrace such lifestyle since most would be working to poor class? Surely a large portion of the gay community could care less about flamboyancy.
what's that meant to mean :huh:

Hiero

14th October 2006, 08:37

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Oct 14 2006, 04:07 PM--> (rioters bloc @ Oct 14 2006, 04:07 PM)
[email protected] 14 2006, 01:49 PM
Shows like Queer Eye for the Straight guy portray middle to upper class gay man. If homosexuality is natural, then how can most of the gay community embrace such lifestyle since most would be working to poor class? Surely a large portion of the gay community could care less about flamboyancy.
what's that meant to mean :huh: [/b]
Well there are more poor and working class people then upper class people right? So there is more poor and working class gays then rich gays.

LoneRed

14th October 2006, 09:05

the answer to that is touche

rioters bloc

14th October 2006, 09:17

Originally posted by Hiero+Oct 14 2006, 03:38 PM--> (Hiero @ Oct 14 2006, 03:38 PM)
Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 14 2006, 04:07 PM

[email protected] 14 2006, 01:49 PM
Shows like Queer Eye for the Straight guy portray middle to upper class gay man. If homosexuality is natural, then how can most of the gay community embrace such lifestyle since most would be working to poor class? Surely a large portion of the gay community could care less about flamboyancy.
what's that meant to mean :huh:
Well there are more poor and working class people then upper class people right? So there is more poor and working class gays then rich gays. [/b]
sorry, the sentence i bolded can be quite easily misread, especially the part which says "if homosexuality is natural, then how can..." <_<

anyways, "flamboyance" and "femininity" in gay men existed far far before shows like queer eye, before gay people were even depicted in media at all. and they didn't exist only in rich gay men, in fact the gay men i know who tend to be more flamboyant are also dirt poor - you don't need money to be flamboyant or 'feminine'. so while those shows may perpetuate that image it didn't create them and some gay men would still be 'camp' even if they don't dress a certain way (although of course it can help).

and yes, i think that a large portion of queer people could care less about flamboyancy, but can you see how saying that you hate gay people who do fit that "stereotype", especially when that image is one which transcends class divides, is problematic?

Martin Blank

14th October 2006, 09:34

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 12 2006, 01:21 PM
Miles you truly are the champion of the working class homosexual :rolleyes:
More than you know, Torquemada.

Miles

Martin Blank

14th October 2006, 09:39

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 12 2006, 02:05 PM
The main reason people stay 'in the closet' is because they are afraid that being open about their sexuality will result in a negative stigma, or in some way, negative repercussions, neither of these apply in this case.
Being "in the closet" and not advertising are two different things. Some comrades see no reason to be walking billboards.

Miles

Martin Blank

14th October 2006, 09:45

Originally posted by Malte+Oct 12 2006, 02:22 PM--> (Malte @ Oct 12 2006, 02:22 PM)Oh, c'mon Miles, you can do better than that. Everyone who disagrees with the CL on something is "petty-bourgeois". Of course.[/b]

Not everyone. But it does seem to happen a lot on here.

[email protected] 12 2006, 02:22 PM
Can't you better than this propagandistic, outdated, nonsense rhetoric?

It's the class war, stupid. If you don't get it, I feel sorry for you.

Miles

Martin Blank

14th October 2006, 10:02

Originally posted by Malte+Oct 12 2006, 03:16 PM--> (Malte @ Oct 12 2006, 03:16 PM)Okay, I'm getting polemic now...but can't you keepers of the holy grail of Marxism not just acknowledge that there is identification beside your class?[/b]

Apparently, you political illiterates cannot read (or refuse to read).

Basic Principles of the Communist League
The division of labor into definite classes is the primary antagonism of society. However, there are groups of people that suffer from privations and prejudices that cross these class lines, and create dynamics and antagonisms that communists must address. These added divisions, which center on differences of gender, race, nationality, age, ability and sexuality, are barriers that were established in the birth pangs of class society, and serve to clarify the composition of both the exploiting and exploited classes. Communists see the elimination of these forms of superexploitation and superoppression as a necessary task — and predicated on the abolition of class society, which perpetuates the institutional and societal divisions — and will work alongside those who share this goal.

I'm rather proud that this is a key element in our "holy grail". And I will keep and defend it from all those who would enable the class enemy through their naiveté and stupidity.

Miles

Martin Blank

14th October 2006, 10:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 04:15 PM
"petty-bourgeois" nowadays very little more than a random, meaningless slander that the communists sects can through at each other for not sharing their analysis, i.e. their party line. It's nothing but a sectarian fighting term and should be avoided by any "21st century communist".
Only someone with their head stuck firmly up ... the past ... would think such things.

It's the class war. Get used to it.

And while you're at it, you might want to remove that Luxemburg quote from your sig. Too much class for your tastes, I would think.

Miles

Martin Blank

14th October 2006, 10:06

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2006, 06:43 PM
Well are you gay or bi?
I think that KC already answered that: It's none of your goddamned business!

Miles

Martin Blank

14th October 2006, 10:16

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 12 2006, 09:50 PM
So that question should be shelved, for now anyway. And, instead, I think a better question would be: should, in a period when gay people are under particular attack from the reactionary forces in society, revolutionaries take a line which gives backhanded support to their attacks by further demonising certain groups within the gay community?
That's just it: None of us are "demonizing" anyone. Just because some people don't approve of how others express themselves doesn't mean that the former are "demonizing" the latter.

In fact, the only "demonizing" going on here is the demonizing (and witchhunting and coercive "outing") of League members for not falling into lockstep with the petty-bourgeois identity politics expressed by certain people on this discussion board. As far as I am concerned, those who are demonizing League members are little more than "lavender" house slaves for heterosexism.

For the most part, those screaming the loudest on this issue are also the ones who see no value in defending the democratic rights of gays and lesbians when and where they are REALLY under attack, such as on the question of same-sex marriage (which is really a question about equal protection under the law and equal access to state services).

We do not accept their "Through the Looking Glass" conception of society or political struggle. And we never will.

Miles

Martin Blank

14th October 2006, 10:19

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2006, 04:04 AM
But wearing blackface is being black. It represents black people. I don't see how I can explain this any simpler for you?

The "stereotype" is an aspect of black culture that capitalism has exploited for profit, but it does not negate the fact that black people are actually black and that this is specifically a cultural identity that serves many positive purposes.

You hate a stereotype, that in reality a large proportion of blacks identify with.
Corrected for historical context.

Miles

Martin Blank

14th October 2006, 10:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 12:38 AM
Well there are more poor and working class people then upper class people right? So there is more poor and working class gays then rich gays.
For these elements, class doesn't matter. It's "outdated".

Miles

LSD

14th October 2006, 10:30

Miles, you do realize that you respond to multiple quotes in one post ...right?

Martin Blank

14th October 2006, 10:31

Originally posted by Ace [email protected] 14 2006, 02:31 AM
Miles, you do realize that you respond to multiple quotes in one post ...right?
I know you can do that. But I didn't think it was required.

Miles

LSD

14th October 2006, 10:35

It's not. But 9 posts in a row? Come on...

Martin Blank

14th October 2006, 10:51

Originally posted by Ace [email protected] 14 2006, 02:36 AM
It's not. But 9 posts in a row? Come on...
Fair enough, Ace. I'll try to remember that.

Miles

Amusing Scrotum

14th October 2006, 13:53

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Oct 14 2006, 07:17 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Oct 14 2006, 07:17 AM)
Amusing [email protected] 12 2006, 09:50 PM
So that question should be shelved, for now anyway. And, instead, I think a better question would be: should, in a period when gay people are under particular attack from the reactionary forces in society, revolutionaries take a line which gives backhanded support to their attacks by further demonising certain groups within the gay community?
That's just it: None of us are "demonizing" anyone. Just because some people don't approve of how others express themselves doesn't mean that the former are "demonizing" the latter.[/b]

Indeed it doesn't, but you're missing the point here. Khayembii Communique didn't just say he didn't approve of that form of expression, he said he hated it -- that he had a definite prejudice against it. That, as I'm sure you'll agree, is a whole different kettle of fish.

That is, hatred and prejudice usually have a material manifestation. And, if Khayembii Communique really does hate "Queens", then I presume it leads to, on some level, a certain demonisation of them. But that's pure speculation based on what he's said....and until he answers the question regarding the real world manifestation of his hatred and prejudice, speculating is all we can do.

But, certainly, until he clarifies his position, something he could have chosen to do in one of his posts in this thread, then I don't think it's to unreasonable to work on the assumption that his, to quote Khayembii Communique, "hatred" and "prejudice" of that section of the gay community leads to, on some level, a certain demonisation of said group. Unless, of course, Khayembii Communique "hates" differently....

Martin Blank

14th October 2006, 17:58

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 14 2006, 05:54 AM
That is, hatred and prejudice usually have a material manifestation. And, if Khayembii Communique really does hate "Queens", then I presume it leads to, on some level, a certain demonisation of them. But that's pure speculation based on what he's said....and until he answers the question regarding the real world manifestation of his hatred and prejudice, speculating is all we can do.
I think that you and others ascribe too much to the word "hate". Look, I hate it when a restaurant screws up my order, but I'm not going to go into the place and start beating the shit out of the staff. I'll complain about it (mostly to myself or those with me), but that is the limit of the "real world manifestation".

"Speculating is all we can do" ... and you and the others are damn good at it. Face it, you screwed the pooch on this one. You personally might be more diplomatic in your approach than someone like TAT or BD, but you blew it big on this one.

You wanted LoneRed Round Two, and you ended up with coercing a gay comrade into "outing" himself. Now you're backpedaling faster than Lance Armstrong on a 30-degree downslope. But there is no backpedaling that can be done, so I suggest you enjoy the ride to the bottom of the hill.

Personally, I think both TAT and BD should be bounced from here for forcing KC "out". It was a disgusting act that, regardless of their intentions, was not too different from what reactionary homophobes do. The apologies from those who sought to demonize KC after the fact mean nothing; they are nothing more than an attempt to cover their collective asses.

Their "leftwing" heterosexism is, in my view, no better than rightwing heterosexism. In fact, in some ways, it's worse. With rightwing heterosexists, you know where they stand and you know they are the enemy. These "leftwing" heterosexists approach like an ally but then act like an enemy.

Miles

LoneRed

14th October 2006, 22:19

The very thing petty-bourgeois thought does to communists and revolutionaries alike

Wanted Man

14th October 2006, 22:33

RevLeft has a very, umm... "interesting" culture. Instead of working together to run the forum, certain mods and admins elect to concentrate on hunting their fellow mods down in campaigns to demod them, force them out of "the closet" and "get rid" of them, as Malte himself put it. It's truly amazing.

Janus

14th October 2006, 22:42

A stereotype and a generalisation are two different things. A stereotype refers to a collection of characteristics that defines something typically.

A generalisation is when people assume something is true about an entire group of people without considering the facts.
So you're saying that the difference between stereotype and generalization is that stereotypes are facts?

A sterotype is based on a generalization.
generalization:

a proposition asserting something to be true either of all members of a certain class or of an indefinite part of that class.

stereotype:

a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group

This is a stereotype that KC said he hated and a stereotype that he said he did not want to see perpetuated...?

If he wants to see an end to the generalisation that is one thing. But If he doesn't want to see the stereotype perpetuated, what does he want these gay men to do? Stop being who they are?
Where has he stated this? He has already stated that Big Manifesto’s support for this is wrong. You can’t hate someone for being that way but there is a difference for hating them for exhibiting those characteristics and hating that behavior in general.

Now, a lot of gay people may like to dress flamboyantly, etc. but it is not something that is totally unique only to them. Not all gay people dress flamboyantly just like not all blacks are athletic.

Hating a generalisation is not the same has hating a stereotype and if KC used the wrong language then he should admit so.
So this is a semantical debate then? Generalizations are what stereotypes are based on.

Then he is against the gay community who self-identify with it.
No, it seems to me that he is talking about individuals who use this stereotype to generalize gays.

Again, you cannot hate a characteristic without hating those it characterises. He has to embrace this stereotype because this is how the gay community identifies.
But again, this stereotype does not characterize all gay people. There are non gay people who like to dress flamboyantly.

It would be like saying that hating athletics means hating blacks.

14th October 2006, 23:40

I know that KC has said this and I have agreed with him. You need to, however, understand something.

A stereotype and a generalisation are two different things. A stereotype refers to a collection of characteristics that defines something typically.

A generalisation is when people assume something is true about an entire group of people without considering the facts.

Now, the above statement is completely different to: "I don't see the problem with hating the stereotype of gay people. I hate the stereotype; I don't think that they should be perpetuated at all"

Now, to reiterate, the gay community is specifically and culturally effeminate, flamboyant and fabulous. Typically you could say. This is a stereotype that KC said he hated and a stereotype that he said he did not want to see perpetuated...?

If he wants to see an end to the generalisation that is one thing. But If he doesn't want to see the stereotype perpetuated, what does he want these gay men to do? Stop being who they are?

My belief is, KC has nothing to do with the gay community, and just like me, sits outside of it as an individual looking in. What he and you and TC fail to understand however, that this stereotype - this set of characteristics is in fact quintessentially gay.

Me and KC are the exception to that rule, not the other way around. It is unfair and untrue that all gay men are effeminate etc, but it is true that the gay community at large is.

If KC made a mistake in the words he used, then why did he not say that? Instead he began to mask his original opinion in a completely different opinion, seemingly not realising the implications of that.

Ah, so this is about fucking semantics. According to your definitions, then I guess I mean "generalization", although I completely disagree with your definitions. Should've expected something like this to come from an anarchist.

Edelweiss

15th October 2006, 01:13

Originally posted by "Miles"+--> ("Miles")Only someone with their head stuck firmly up ... the past ... would think such things.

It's the class war. Get used to it.

And while you're at it, you might want to remove that Luxemburg quote from your sig. Too much class for your tastes, I would think.
[/b]

"Miles"
For these elements, class doesn't matter. It's "outdated".

No, it's not class war, it's blatant sectarianism. Although I appreciate the inclusive approach of the CL, you have the nasty habit to randomly accuse everyone who isn't in line with your or the leagues analysis to be "petty-bourgeois", or of "petty-bourgeois thought (crime)", without ever backing up how it is "petty-bourgeois" in the true Marxist sense. In your case it is little more than just a random slander without any meaning. There is hardly a reply in a discussion of you where you don't accuse your discussion opponent at some point of being "petty-bourgeois", no matter if you are discussing with a working class comrade, or a college kid. The way you are throwing around with it, your excessive usage of the term as a propagandistic buzz-word, as a rhetorical means, is outdated. That's what I'm criticizing, not the concept itself.

Besides, what about really taking part in this discussion, and reply to the accusations that has been brought up against KC, instead of once again accusing us of "leftist heterosexism" or whatever else you pulled out of your ass to protect your member? You are focusing on KC's outing here, although this has very little to do with the initial, IMO totally justified, irritations about his statements. I'm wondering how far you would go with your protective bullshit for your members...

LoneRed

15th October 2006, 02:24

It's funny that whenever a revleft member is talked about, it turns into the CL vs. the rest, it's fine by me though, no one said going against the norm would be easy

1. This has nothing to do with the league, thats a side effect. The people who agree with KC happen to be in the league, there are times when i disagree with what other league members say, and league sympathizers. Also there have been times when league members have disagreed with me.

2. Now you broaden your talk about the petty-bourgeois to include a baseless attack. First you said it (as a whole) was an outdated concept, which is it?

In reference to that second Miles quote you posted, look at the actual post, he was referring to the ones who ignore class in such topics.

YSR

15th October 2006, 02:59

Originally posted by LoneRed+--> (LoneRed)It's funny that whenever a revleft member is talked about, it turns into the CL vs. the rest, it's fine by me though, no one said going against the norm would be easy[/b]

Ooh, you're so brave, fighting the terribly authoritarianism of an internet message board.

Miles
Their "leftwing" heterosexism is, in my view, no better than rightwing heterosexism.

What? BD and TAT are "heterosexists"? Maybe you should learn what a word means before you throw it around, mate. I know Uncle Karl didn't write about it, but that doesn't mean it isn't important to know what it means.

LoneRed

15th October 2006, 03:03

I never said i was brave did i, nor did i even hint that it was Me against the world.

I said that i do not not care for their witch hunting, and am not going to back down just because they are relentless

Amusing Scrotum

15th October 2006, 04:48

Originally posted by Miles
You wanted LoneRed Round Two, and you ended up with coercing a gay comrade into "outing" himself.

You know the good thing about message boards like this, Miles? They work sort of like a public record. That is, through the wonders of technology every post we make is stored and available to all....and, because of that, statements about patterns of behaviour can be judged, with quite a high level of accuracy, to be either true or false.

In this instance, you've accused me of "coercing a gay comrade into 'outing' himself". Implying, of course, that I played some part, however small, in the, well, "uncovering" of Khayembii Communique's sexuality. A pretty clear and damning statement about my behaviour in this thread, to say the least -- and a statement which, given the nature of boards like this, should be pretty easy to back up.

However, if you look over this thread, you'll see that my first post cam well after Khayembii Communique's sexuality was brought up....and at no point did I even mention his sexuality, never mind doing anything like ""coercing a gay comrade into 'outing' himself".

Go ahead and look if you don't believe me. It's all logged and stored -- like, as I said, a public record. But you already knew that, didn't you Miles? You knew full well that the allegations you've just cast weren't accurate; so why did you still choose to cast them? I have a high opinion of you Miles, precisely because you don't normally act in such a deceitful manner -- so I do wonder what makes this case the exception to the general rule.

Maybe you've come to the conclusion that, albeit through a "diplomatic approach", I'm trying in some way to undermine the Communist League? Maybe based on what happened to LoneRed. Which is a strange conclusion to come to, I must add.

Not least because I stated on a few separate occasions, in the thread in question, that I opposed any Administrative action against him -- no matter what I thought of his views. My only real request, as it were, was that either LoneRed clarify and defend his views, or just admit his analysis was faulty -- and go about correcting it.

And what I asked Khayembii Communique to do was not to dissimilar. I think we both know that he's a bright enough lad to understand the implications of the language he choose....and, therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable, or a mark of some greater sinister motive, to ask him to expand upon what he said. Or, at the very least, think about the repercussions of his stated position.

That's not a lot to ask, for sure. And on a message board that primarily focuses on political debate, one would expect such a thing to be accepted as perfectly normal by the boards membership. And, certainly, it's not as if Khayembii Communique is the type of individual who usually hides away from political debate -- so I've not asked him to act of character.

But, I suppose you could be right. I suppose everything I've written and done could big façade -- a part of some plot by me to bring about a "LoneRed Round Two", as you put it. It's just I don't think what I've written and done backs up that allegation....and if I'd "wanted" a "LoneRed Round Two", then I could have very easily stirred up a fuss about LoneRed's comments on "Afro-centrism".

But I didn't stir up a fuss, in fact I left them be. Not because I have any love for LoneRed, because I don't; but rather, in the hope that the political education he'd receive in the organisation you represent would be far more beneficial than the strong arm of Rev-Left's bureaucratic wing.

I don't think that hope was misplaced, to be perfectly honest. But when, as you have done here, you choose to look out at the world instead of in at the mirror, I do have my doubts. But, with any luck, they'll remain just that -- doubts.

LoneRed

15th October 2006, 05:26

I did defend and clarify my views, there wasnt much room left for speculation, some on this board are either fools with nothing better to do, or really dont give a damn what i or any other non-anarchist has to say on some things

not you in particular btw, just ranting

Also, it would be sickening to see "comrades" accept and support afro-centrism, as well as the other reactionary ideologies

Martin Blank

15th October 2006, 11:58

Originally posted by Amusing Scrotum+Oct 14 2006, 08:49 PM--> (Amusing Scrotum @ Oct 14 2006, 08:49 PM)If you look over this thread, you'll see that my first post cam well after Khayembii Communique's sexuality was brought up....and at no point did I even mention his sexuality, never mind doing anything like ""coercing a gay comrade into 'outing' himself".

Go ahead and look if you don't believe me. It's all logged and stored -- like, as I said, a public record.[/b]

Yes, these threads are a public record of sorts. For example, you wrote in your last posting to me:

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 14 2006, 5:54 AM
But, certainly, until he clarifies his position, something he could have chosen to do in one of his posts in this thread, then I don't think it's to unreasonable to work on the assumption that his, to quote Khayembii Communique, "hatred" and "prejudice" of that section of the gay community leads to, on some level, a certain demonisation of said group. Unless, of course, Khayembii Communique "hates" differently....

It is clear that you have "joined the chorus" led by TAT and BD. You rest on the assumptions they laid, and act according to them. That act demonstrates a level of taking responsibility for their actions.

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 14 2006, 08:49 PM
Maybe you've come to the conclusion that, albeit through a "diplomatic approach", I'm trying in some way to undermine the Communist League?

I don't think you could do that even if you wanted to, and I don't think you're trying to do that now. I think you're siding with TAT and BD based on method of analysis, not because of any inherent opposition to the League.

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 14 2006, 08:49 PM
And what I asked Khayembii Communique to do was not to dissimilar. I think we both know that he's a bright enough lad to understand the implications of the language he choose....and, therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable, or a mark of some greater sinister motive, to ask him to expand upon what he said. Or, at the very least, think about the repercussions of his stated position.

But you did more than merely "ask him to expand upon what he said". Again, as you said yourself, in that same previous message, "I don't think it's to unreasonable to work on the assumption that his, to quote Khayembii Communique, "hatred" and "prejudice" of that section of the gay community leads to, on some level, a certain demonisation of said group". In other words, rather than wait for the answer, you have already drawn conclusions -- just as TAT and BD have done.

Amusing [email protected] 14 2006, 08:49 PM
I don't think that hope was misplaced, to be perfectly honest. But when, as you have done here, you choose to look out at the world instead of in at the mirror, I do have my doubts. But, with any luck, they'll remain just that -- doubts.

To be blunt, I have doubts you only have doubts. You've already demonstrated a willingness to jump to conclusions without facts in hand, so I expect nothing less on this point as well.

Miles

Martin Blank

15th October 2006, 12:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 09:27 PM
Also, it would be sickening to see "comrades" accept and support afro-centrism, as well as the other reactionary ideologies
I think you confuse Afrocentrism with cultural nationalism. Afrocentrism, in its common usage, means to learn about the history of African society and its impact on the world. Given that African societies were the first to develop philosophy, culture, science, etc., learning about this is not only acceptable, it is necessary.

John Henrik Clarke once referred to African history as the "missing pages of world history". In that context, Afrocentrism is not reactionary at all. On the contrary, it is a vital counter to the very real Eurocentrism that rests at the core of education in North America and Europe.

Afrocentrism is not the same as "cultural nationalism", which seeks to use cultural distinctions between African Americans and European Americans as a means to divide people by race and nationality. That is a thoroughly reactionary ideology and does need to be fought.

Miles

The Feral Underclass

15th October 2006, 13:51

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 14 2006, 09:41 PM
Ah, so this is about fucking semantics. According to your definitions, then I guess I mean "generalization"
This is about you saying something that you didn't mean and then trying to defend it. This is about you getting a more indepth grasp on oppression and the gay community.

According to your definitions, then I guess I mean "generalization", although I completely disagree with your definitions.

They're not my definitions they're the defintions. Language isn't relative, is it? You can't just decide what words mean because you feel like it.

Should've expected something like this to come from an anarchist.

What a bizarre thing to say. I suppose when you've got nothing else, you can start slinging around the sectarian insults.

Typical really.

The Feral Underclass

15th October 2006, 13:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 12:25 AM
1. This has nothing to do with the league
It's very difficult for it not to have anything to do with thre Communist League when it's members collectively defend a homophobic position and Communist League literature is quoted as sources.

Amusing Scrotum

15th October 2006, 18:38

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
In other words, rather than wait for the answer, you have already drawn conclusions -- just as TAT and BD have done.

If I've "already drawn conclusions", it's because after 6 pages of debate, Khayembii Communique still hasn't that question -- despite posting on numerous occasions. So how long must we wait for an answer Miles, before we can discuss the implications of said statement?

And this is working on the assumption, of course, that I've "already drawn conclusions". When, in reality, I've not drawn any solid conclusions -- I've just pointed out the logical implications of the position Khayembii Communique has said he holds.

I mean, he's stated that he "hates" this section of the gay community, so before he's clarified how this hatred manifests itself, it's perfectly reasonable to "presume [that] it leads to, on some level, a certain demonisation of them" -- from the post you quoted.

That's not jumping the proverbial gun Miles; jumping the proverbial gun would involve assuming a specific scenario and then proposing action based on that assumption. But I've not done that, I've simply worked with what Khayembii Communique has already stated. And that's the way political debate works.

But this is all on big drift -- a drift away from the topic at hand. You mentioned my "method of analysis", Miles; but what does this thread say about yours? You've made a load of spurious allegations against me, which lack evidential support, and this has led to the topic being derailed because I've chosen to defend myself against your allegations.

And, despite me showing that your allegations are groundless, you've not chosen to retract them or apologised for making them. No, you've done nothing like that. Which is hardly the mark of a "method of analysis" which revolves around fundamental political honesty, is it?

I mean, if you can charge me with "a willingness to jump to conclusions without facts in hand"; then what do we say about someone who already has "facts in hand" but chooses to misuse those facts in order to cloud the issue? I await your answer.

15th October 2006, 19:54

Hey asshole, learn to fucking read. Maybe take some time out of your typing to actually read what you're writing about.

I mean, he's stated that he "hates" this section of the gay community,

I don't hate "this section of the gay community". This has been clarified at least FIVE FUCKING TIMES throughout this thread. You clearly either suck at reading, are a complete idiot, or actually didn't read the thread. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; my bet's on the second one.

Originally posted by Me+--> (Me)
My whole point was that the stereotype was homophobic. Way to completely miss the point of what I was trying to say. Although it's what I'd expect from you.
[/b]

Originally posted by Me+--> (Me)I dislike the stereotype that all homosexual people are that way for numerous reasons. First, it's untrue. Second, it coerces people into fitting that stereotype. Third, it commodifies homosexuality.

Now, I've never said that I hate people that happen to fit the stereotype. I haven't said that anywhere because it's not true.[/b]

Originally posted by Me

I am against the perpetuation of homosexual people as this stereotype, and therefore am against the stereotype itself, and not the people that are in line with it.

[email protected]
I don't see the problem with hating the stereotype of gay people. I hate the stereotype; I don't think that they should be perpetuated at all.

TC
Eh, i think a distinction has to be made between talking about supposedly "sterotypical" gay men (i.e. flamboyently and apparently gay with interests and presentation style fitting the sterotype) and talking about the media caricature imposed on them.

That's from the first two pages. Did you just miss all these posts or something?

Amusing Scrotum

15th October 2006, 20:54

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+--> (Khayembii Communique)That's from the first two pages. Did you just miss all these posts or something?[/b]

No, I didn't "miss all these posts". But you certainly seem to have missed TAT's lengthy explanations of how your statements are contradictory and that, by "hating" the characteristics of "stereotypical Queens", you are in fact hating a large section of the gay community that displays these characteristics. To wit:

Selected Works of The Anarchist Tension
Every group of people express themselves in certain ways, and as someone who has studied gay history to some extent, I can tell you that this femininity and flamboyance was around long before capitalism began to exploit it and that it is a specifically homosexual culture.

People identify this culture specifically with their sexuality, so to hate the way they express their sexuality is essentially a hatred for who they are: Gay

[....]

Either you treat certain gay people with contempt and hatred because of their expression of their sexuality [an expression you "hate"], thus making you a homophobe or you're an idiot? Which is it?

[....]

This stereotype that you wish to see eradicated is a historical identification. Gay people only "perpetuate the stereotype" insofar as you're prejudice, ignorant and intolerant attitudes towards it is maintained.

[....]

It only "aids further oppression" because homophobes like you attack it. This "stereotype" is, regardless of whether you like it or not, a very specific section of the gay community.

The fact that capitalism has co-opted it for profit and the fact that heterosexuals deplore it is not the fault of the gay community; it is a reactionary response against a reviled section of society that reactionaries wish to see, at the very least, kept "hush hush".

We can't have gay people celebrating their sexuality, that's just not cricket! :rolleyes:

[....]

This "stereotype" manifests itself in people. How else does this stereotype exist if it isn't in people?

You hate a stereotype, fine, but my question to you is how that hatred realises itself? If you hate it, how do you hate it? How is this hate directed if not towards the people who embrace it?

[....]

This "stereotype" is specifically a gay culture and identity. It's specifically how many gay people connect and identify with their sexuality. It is quintessentially gay.

You seem to think that you can remove the stereotype from the people, that's neither wanted nor even possible and even if it were what justification is there to do it?

Do you want gay people to act more like straight people? I've got news for you: Gay people aren't straight. There is a distinct culture in the gay community and just because heterosexuals are prejudiced and capitalism is exploitative does not mean that gay people should be forced to adopt what is, essentially, a heterosexual lifestyle.

[....]

He is simply saying he hates the stereotype, but my question, which he refuses to answer, is how does that hatred manifest itself if not towards the people who embrace that stereotype.

[....]

Your logic is completely confused. This culture existed long before capitalism co-opted it and created a "stereotype" which heterosexuals now deplore and which you accuse of being homophobic.

During the 1960's, when homosexuality was still illegal in America, there was a thriving and diverse subculture of fabulous, flamboyant and effeminate men who celebrated their sexuality, albeit underground, in environments that were relatively safe.

Take for example the Stonewall nightclub in New York. This became a bastion of gay radicalism when these effeminate, flamboyant and fabulous gay men, of which their identity you hate, fought with the police in the streets, in their "get up" when they came to close down the club!

You have come to the conclusion that it is homophobic based on some misinformed and ignorant understanding of the gay community and its history and some warped analysis of capitalism and its relationship with homosexuality.

Capitalism has exploited this culture and indeed commodified it, but regardless of that, this culture has existed long before that happened and it is something the gay community celebrate as an identity.

The gay community has many flaws and has become apathetic largely too many issues, but to denounce an entire section of the gay community and those who identify it on a prejudice and misunderstanding is incredibly intolerant. You're opinion is simply wrong!

You don't know what you're talking about. You don't know anything about the gay community, you don't understand its culture and you should admit that.

[....]

You are not attacking the media for its one-dimensional portrayal of gay men and women or the gay community, you are attacking a stereotype you perceive has been created for the gay community and which the gay community, like dummies, have picked up and accepted.

Again, this femininity, flamboyance and fabulousness has existed long before programmes like 'Will and Grace' and actually, the producers of that show have simply taken one particular characteristic and exaggerated it.

[....]

How can you not hate the person of a "stereotype" when that "stereotype" manifests itself in people?

[....]

Flamboyance, femininity and fabulousness is not simply a statement against oppression but an actual real cultural identity.

I think that integration is a fundamental part of destroying oppression, but that integration must be as gay people, not as what straight people want us to be.

This means you are just going to have to tolerate that some gay people may want to walk down the street dressed as fabulous, flamboyant femme fatale's without necessarily wanting to make a statement about their sexuality.

In this process of integration, you are going to have to accept that. One way or the other!

[....]

If you hate a stereotype, how does that hatred manifest itself in reality. How do you treat people who identify with this culture of feminintiy etc?

The "stereotype" is quintessentially gay and it is a culture that a large section of the gay community relate to. Out of the context of capitalists exploitation of this "stereotype", many gay people identify with those characteristics and have done so long before 'Will and Grace'.

The "stereotype" cannot be isolated from the people who perpetuate it and thus essentially you are hating gay people for being gay. That's homophobia!

[....]

The stereotype is true and it is celebrated as a culture within the gay community. Gay men are effeminate and they are flamboyant.

Apparently you hate them for that. Would you prefer it if we all acted like straight people?

[....]

But has refused to respond to the points raised by his assertion...

In his own words: He hates effeminate, flamboyant and fabulous gay men. Well, this "stereotype" doesn't just exist in popular culture, it exists and to a larger degree within the gay community and is a celebrated and accepted identity.

Popular culture portrays middle class gay people, but that's the reality of any television programme and has nothing to do with the fact that these people are gay. The issue here is that gay men on television are usually effeminate and flamboyant and KC clearly thinks that this is an invented stereotype (unless he doesn't, I'm unsure).

The fact of the matter is, it isn't invented, it's exploited and KC's hatred of it is extremely worrying considering the fact that it has existed long before capitalists cashed in on it.

KC has failed to clarify his position even though I have directly asked him several times to do so on specific points. By hating the stereotype he is hating a large section of the gay community.

Now either he accepts this and thus a homophobia or he was simply wrong and should admit so.

[....]

He said he hates the "stereotype" of effeminate and flamboyant gay men. Well, if that's the case he is hating allot of gay men because that is precisely what they are.

[....]

That hasn't answered my question. If you hate this stereotype, how does that hate actually exist. How does KC treat gay men who are effeminate and flamboyant? He said: "Being prejudiced against a certain section of the homosexual community isn't homophobic". How does that prejudice manifest itself? Does he have contempt for that section of the gay community, would he not want to be seen in public with someone from that section of the gay community?

How in practical terms is he prejudice and does he hate?

[....]

Khayembii Communique, how can you hate femininity and flamboyance in gay men while not hating effeminate and flamboyant gay people? How can you seperate characteristics you hate, from those they characterise?

[....]

I feel exactly the same way, the only problem here is that what you are saying is that you hate anything that doesn't do the same.

Gay men celebrating their sexuality is a reaction to homophobia and your "hate" for that merely gives legitimacy to those who want to maintain oppression because it is exactly the same opinion they have.

As a gay man you need to embrace that difference and accept it for what it is. You don't have to like it or be apart of it. I for one don't and am not; but for some it is a reaction against homophobia, for others it is a specific identity and for some it is a way of feeling acceptable and safe.

I don't see how there is anything to hate about that?

[....]

Then explain to me how you can hate femininity and flamboyance in gay men while not hating effeminate and flamboyant gay people? How can you seperate characteristics you hate, from those they characterise?

[....]

But they aren't fallacious, except to homophobes and members of the Communist League.

[....]

But the stereotype is gay. It represents gay people. I don't see how I can explain this any simpler for you?

The "stereotype" is an aspect of gay culture that capitalism has exploited for profit, but it does not negate the fact that gay people are actually effeminate and flamboyant and that this is specifically a cultural identity that serves many positive purposes.

You hate a stereotype, that in reality a large proportion of gay men identify with.

[....]

What has been said is that Khayembii Communique hates the stereotype and believes prejudice against those people who exhibit those characteristics is not homophobic.

The whole point about all] gay men being tarnished with the same brush has never been the issue here. Khayembii Communique hates the stereotype and has never clarified what that means even when asked several times.

Stop talking for Khayembii Communique, you do not represent his opinion. If KC wants to clarify his position or admit he was wrong he should do that.

[....]

Explain to me how you can hate femininity and flamboyance in gay men while not hating effeminate and flamboyant gay people? How can you separate characteristics you hate, from those they characterise?

[....]

But in reality who cares whether homophobes think all gay people are raging queens? Because it's not true? Well, so what! I'm not going to start agreeing with homophobes that "I hate the stereotype because it's not me" for what ever reason someone would do that.

I have solidarity with all gay people in their struggle against homophobia and if homophobes want to tarnish me with the same brush as them then I really have no problem with that. Why would I?

The answer to liberation is integration and we should just live our lives in society however we feel comfortable. This is how you challenge homophobia. You don't fight it by distancing yourself from a perceived stereotype that is largely true.

[....]

He has already stated that he doesn't hate people who fit the stereotype.

That's not the end of the issue. I am asserting to you and to KC, that you cannot separate the stereotype from those who perpetuate it. You cannot say you hate a set of characteristics without hating those they characterise.

If you don't agree then present an argument. Many people claim they don't hate gay people etc etc blah blah blah, but just saying so does not make it true.

[....]

Now, to reiterate, the gay community is specifically and culturally effeminate, flamboyant and fabulous. Typically you could say. This is a stereotype that KC said he hated and a stereotype that he said he did not want to see perpetuated...?

If he wants to see an end to the generalisation that is one thing. But If he doesn't want to see the stereotype perpetuated, what does he want these gay men to do? Stop being who they are?

My belief is, KC has nothing to do with the gay community, and just like me, sits outside of it as an individual looking in. What he and you and TC fail to understand however, that this stereotype - this set of characteristics is in fact quintessentially gay.

Me and KC are the exception to that rule, not the other way around. It is unfair and untrue that all gay men are effeminate etc, but it is true that the gay community at large is.

If KC made a mistake in the words he used, then why did he not say that? Instead he began to mask his original opinion in a completely different opinion, seemingly not realising the implications of that.

[....]

What he said was he hate's the stereotype. My point to him however, is that the gay community at large embrace that stereotype as a cultural identity.

The question then follows: How can you separate a cultural identity embraced by a community from those in the community who embrace the cultural identity.

Hating a generalisation is not the same has hating a stereotype and if KC used the wrong language then he should admit so.

If he is saying that he hates both the stereotype and the generalisation then he should justify that opinion.

[....]

Secondly, the assertion that the gay community coerce gay people into the stereotype is untenable and I find it hard to believe that he would be able to prove that.

I am however, as I have always been throughout this thread, willing to listen to his clarification.

[....]

Again, you cannot hate a characteristic without hating those it characterises. He has to embrace this stereotype because this is how the gay community identifies.

I am not saying that he has to identify with it, but unless he wishes to embark on a crusade to change the gay communities identity or stand outside and attack it there is not much else he can do about it (there are alternative gay scenes).

As gay men, we have to support the gay community in their identity and their ultimate struggle for liberation. The gay community has allot of misgivings, but the culture that thrives is a large one, a diverse one - a community that helps perpetuate tolerance, safety and acceptance.

To quote AS and I think this is an important issue: "Should, in a period when gay people are under particular attack from the reactionary forces in society, revolutionaries take a line which gives backhanded support to their attacks by further demonising certain groups within the gay community?"

This stereotype maybe generalised by heterosexuals and thus perpetuates homophobia, but the stereotype itself is typically the identity of the gay community and should be embraced; even, at the very least, as an attack on the prejudice and hatred of homophobes.

You see, just because you make a few short assertions about your positions doesn't mean that they are not logically contradictory and inaccurate. And, it's certainly no substitute for you actually engaging in the debate and either defending or clarifying your position.

If you are simply unable to grasp this simple fact, then it's you who really is the "second one" -- beneath, of course, that faux veneer of intelligence that you try to show through sub-par mockery.

And that, as they say, is that....

Janus

15th October 2006, 21:06

But you certainly seem to have missed TAT's lengthy explanations of how your statements are contradictory and that, by "hating" the characteristics of "stereotypical Queens", you are in fact hating a large section of the gay community that displays these characteristics
TAT's lengthy explanation was based on the incorrect assumption that KC hated these characteristics when exhibited in gays.

They're not my definitions they're the defintions. Language isn't relative, is it?
Stereotypes are based on generalizations. They are intertwined. And yes, language can be relative as people sometimes have different definitions of different words.

No, I didn't "miss all these posts". But you certainly seem to have missed TAT's lengthy explanations of how your statements are contradictory and that, by "hating" the characteristics of "stereotypical Queens", you are in fact hating a large section of the gay community that displays these characteristics.
It seems that there was some mix-up over stereotype and generalization. What KC was saying, was that he hated the perpetuation of the gay stereotype among non-gay and homophobic people as an excuse to tarnish them with the same brush.

LoneRed

15th October 2006, 21:16

Show us?

Also

I see that afrocentrism tries to put up an opposition to eurocentrism, and i recognize this, but also afrocentrism is africa based, as it is the "cradle of humanity", a superior culture if you will.

Afrocentricity essentially makes the claim that early dynastic Egypt was an indigenous African civilization,

Therefore, Afrocentrism aims to shift the focus from a European-centered history to an Africa-centered history.

Afrocentrism really does go hand in hand with "black nationalism", many at my school subscribe to this, believing that all good things can be traced back to africa, a deep sense of nationalism

I just see it as another petty-bourgeois ideology, most of it anyways,

Entrails Konfetti

15th October 2006, 22:16

Its rather annoying how TAT is the most prominent speaker of Anarchism and Homosexism-- like he totally represents those communities as a delegate.

And he stated that the gay community in whole embraces the stereotype of Feminine, Fabulous, and Flamboyant. Yet does he back any of this up, any startling numbers, anything?

Maybe KC is right about the whole coercion thing. perhaps the only gay/bi ppl in an area are FFF's, and a guy wants some man-tail and friends-- he probably may feel pressured to be FFF to identify with the group.

That senerio may have happened to my cousin, before he was "open" about it he rode motorcycles, wore leather jacketts, listened to Metallica, then a few years later when I saw him he was a boyfriend and they looked inFasion, and acted katty. He drove no more motorcycles, wore leather or listened to metal-- it was Ricky Martin this time.
Who knows, I haven't asked him, but maybe he was trying to appear hetero and conceal his gender, or maybe he felt coerced into joining that group. There is a section of that community that has leather, metal and motorcycles-- though maybe not in his town. Well, whatever he does I hope he's happy.

Another thing, TAT where is your evidence that suggests KC would attack FFF's?

JC1

16th October 2006, 00:05

Is it not that FFF stereotype witch keep's homosexuals in the closet anyways?

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2006, 00:13

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 15 2006, 08:17 PM
Another thing, TAT where is your evidence that suggests KC would attack FFF's?
Where have I made that assertion?

Entrails Konfetti

16th October 2006, 00:29

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Oct 15 2006, 09:14 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Oct 15 2006, 09:14 PM)
EL [email protected] 15 2006, 08:17 PM
Another thing, TAT where is your evidence that suggests KC would attack FFF's?
Where have I made that assertion? [/b]
I took it more as an implication.

If I do recall it was your assertion that KC hated people who are of the FFF stereotype, then you asked him how does hatred of that stereotype manifest itself?

You said that homophobes and anti-gay thugs use hatred of those who are of stereotype to single out and attack supposed homosexuals and members of that community.

The problem here is that there is no connection as KC as an individual and violent heterosexualist groups. So your assertion just doesn't make sense.

He's even stated mutiple times that he doesn't hate the FFF's as individuals or groups.

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2006, 02:39

I drew my conclusions specifically from what KC posted.

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2006, 02:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:07 PM

But you certainly seem to have missed TAT's lengthy explanations of how your statements are contradictory and that, by "hating" the characteristics of "stereotypical Queens", you are in fact hating a large section of the gay community that displays these characteristics
TAT's lengthy explanation was based on the incorrect assumption that KC hated these characteristics when exhibited in gays.
It wasn't an assumption.

KC specifically said that he hated the stereotype of gay men and then went on to make a different assertion, believing it to be the same.

They're not my definitions they're the defintions. Language isn't relative, is it?
Stereotypes are based on generalizations.

Not necessarily.

And yes, language can be relative as people sometimes have different definitions of different words.

So you are saying that if I decide the word "green" means something that usually has three sharp points in which you eat sliced food, this is what it would mean?

Janus

16th October 2006, 10:10

KC specifically said that he hated the stereotype of gay men and then went on to make a different assertion, believing it to be the same.
KC hasn't stated that he hates the characteristics of gay people when exhibited in gays only. What diff. assumption are you talking about; this whole thread has been about KC clearing up his original statement.

Not necessarily.
Examples?

So you are saying that if I decide the word "green" means something that usually has three sharp points in which you eat sliced food, this is what it would mean?
No, green's not a very good example. What I'm saying is that what one persons calls fast may not be considered fast by another.

Martin Blank

16th October 2006, 11:02

Originally posted by Amusing Scrotum+Oct 15 2006, 10:39 AM--> (Amusing Scrotum @ Oct 15 2006, 10:39 AM)If I've "already drawn conclusions", it's because after 6 pages of debate, Khayembii Communique still hasn't that question -- despite posting on numerous occasions. So how long must we wait for an answer Miles, before we can discuss the implications of said statement?[/b]

I think KC has handled this part of the issue, as he should.

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 15 2006, 10:39 AM
And this is working on the assumption, of course, that I've "already drawn conclusions". When, in reality, I've not drawn any solid conclusions -- I've just pointed out the logical implications of the position Khayembii Communique has said he holds.

I call bullshit! Your last posting here, in response to KC, has proven that. "And that, as they say, is that...."

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 15 2006, 10:39 AM
I mean, he's stated that he "hates" this section of the gay community, so before he's clarified how this hatred manifests itself, it's perfectly reasonable to "presume [that] it leads to, on some level, a certain demonisation of them" -- from the post you quoted.

I guess KC is right -- you are incapable of reading. It's either that, or you're simply incapable of accepting that KC has answered the charge that he "hates" a section of the gay community clearly and numerous times. You, TAT and BD are the ones hunting for something that isn't there.

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 15 2006, 10:39 AM
That's not jumping the proverbial gun Miles; jumping the proverbial gun would involve assuming a specific scenario and then proposing action based on that assumption. But I've not done that, I've simply worked with what Khayembii Communique has already stated. And that's the way political debate works.

Bullshit, again. You have "simply worked" with the assumptions that TAT and BD have concocted, and have accepted them as unalloyed gold. Moreover, while you might not be "proposing action", you are playing a role in orchestrating such action. You're like the glib capitalist minister who, when the prime minister or president proposes to bomb the hell out of a country, gets in front of the cameras, shakes his head and says, "Well, no one likes war, and we tried our best, but what other choice is there?"

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 15 2006, 10:39 AM
But this is all on big drift -- a drift away from the topic at hand. You mentioned my "method of analysis", Miles; but what does this thread say about yours? You've made a load of spurious allegations against me, which lack evidential support, and this has led to the topic being derailed because I've chosen to defend myself against your allegations.

There's nothing spurious about my allegations. You've proven that. "And that, as they say, is that...."

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 15 2006, 10:39 AM
And, despite me showing that your allegations are groundless, you've not chosen to retract them or apologised for making them. No, you've done nothing like that. Which is hardly the mark of a "method of analysis" which revolves around fundamental political honesty, is it?

At this point, getting a lecture from you about honesty is like asking Bush for tips on peaceful resolution of disputes. "And that, as they say, is that...."

Amusing [email protected] 15 2006, 10:39 AM
I mean, if you can charge me with "a willingness to jump to conclusions without facts in hand"; then what do we say about someone who already has "facts in hand" but chooses to misuse those facts in order to cloud the issue? I await your answer.

Your charge that I am "misusing facts" is more bullshit, as shown above. You have shown yourself to be a rather adept waterboy for TAT and BD in their latest witchhunt, but not much else.

KC has made clear his position. It is neither chauvinistic nor homophobic. But we are truly through the looking glass on this one: "Outing" a gay man who disagrees with the A-Team is acceptable (even applauded ... privately), while despising bourgeois stereotypes is considered unacceptable.

Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as "leftwing" heterosexism. It is rooted in a patronizing approach that "embraces" the stereotype and attacks those who want to break from it. It revels in the perception that gays and lesbians are "other", and reinforces the divisions imposed by the bourgeoisie by legitimizing them.

TAT and BD are like that retrograde trend of Black Nationalists that were willing to accept the "science" of Social Darwinism and the "policy" of segregation, and asked people to "embrace" their own oppression as the way it should be. The only difference is that they give it a thin veneer of leftwing radicalism in order to sucker otherwise decent people into supporting them.

You might be willing to peddle TAT and BD's pyrite, but I have no use for it.

"And that, as they say, is that...."

Miles

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2006, 12:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 08:11 AM

KC specifically said that he hated the stereotype of gay men and then went on to make a different assertion, believing it to be the same.
KC hasn't stated that he hates the characteristics of gay people when exhibited in gays only. What diff. assumption are you talking about; this whole thread has been about KC clearing up his original statement.
No, he said he hated the stereotype of gay people, which, as I have proven, amounts to the same thing.

Not necessarily.
Examples?

Cowboys and Indians is an American Stereotype, but it's not a generalisation.

So you are saying that if I decide the word "green" means something that usually has three sharp points in which you eat sliced food, this is what it would mean?
No, green's not a very good example. What I'm saying is that what one persons calls fast may not be considered fast by another.

But fast still means something with great speed, regardles of anything.

16th October 2006, 15:50

TAT, read my last post to you and then shut up.

Entrails Konfetti

16th October 2006, 17:45

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15 2006, 11:40 PM
I drew my conclusions specifically from what KC posted.
Uh-huh. :rolleyes:

Run TAT for KC may beat you up!

Entrails Konfetti

16th October 2006, 17:55

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Oct 16 2006, 08:03 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Oct 16 2006, 08:03 AM)
Amusing [email protected] 15 2006, 10:39 AM
If I've "already drawn conclusions", it's because after 6 pages of debate, Khayembii Communique still hasn't that question -- despite posting on numerous occasions. So how long must we wait for an answer Miles, before we can discuss the implications of said statement?

I think KC has handled this part of the issue, as he should. [/b]
Wow Miles, you actually took the time to read and respond to AS' novel?!
Dude, he's just going to reply back with a post twice as long, then if you reply to that one, he will reply to you and it will be twice as long as the previous post of his-- it never ends.

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2006, 19:23

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 16 2006, 01:51 PM
TAT, read my last post to you and then shut up.
Look KC, stop repeating this line of argument that no one is paying attention to you. It isn't working anymore.

I have read your posts and I responded to them. You are not a victim here, you are not being misrepresented you are just being unclear.

However, I feel that, although you refuse to respond to debate, obviously believing that you are beyond the pale of being wrong, we have come to the bottom of this.

You started this debate not knowing what you are talking about. That's you're fault.

Dr. Rosenpenis

16th October 2006, 19:31

Originally posted by TAT+--> (TAT)No, he said he hated the stereotype of gay people, which, as I have proven, amounts to the same thing.[/b]

No, you haven't.
(1) This has nothing to do with hate, as has been previously stated. It has to do with political objections. (2) He objects to the stereotype that gay people are subject to. Where have you "proven" that this amounts to hating homosexuals?

TAT
Cowboys and Indians is an American Stereotype, but it's not a generalisation.

How the fuck is cowboys and indians a stereotype?

Dr. Rosenpenis

16th October 2006, 19:37

The sheer redundancy of my post will probably piss you off. Don't worry, I have read (skimmed) this thread. My problem is that TAT has failed to prove how objecting to what is essentially a stigma applied to homosexuals is equal to hating gays.

16th October 2006, 20:04

TAT, I don't think you even saw my last post, where I determined that this is a semantics issue and that I agree with you. Go back and read it and either respond to it or shut up. It's that simple, buddy.

Amusing Scrotum

16th October 2006, 20:16

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+--> (CommunistLeague)I call bullshit! Your last posting here, in response to KC, has proven that. "And that, as they say, is that...."[/b]

Honestly Miles, given that in the very same post that the above quote was found, you accused me of being "incapable of reading", I would have thought you would have read my post with a certain amount of care and attention. After all, glass houses, stones and all that.

I mean, if you're going to give my rhetorical flourish such a level of importance, then I think we should at least consider what the that that is that is, don't you? From my last post:

Originally posted by The "waterboy"+--> (The "waterboy")You see, just because you make a few short assertions about your positions doesn't mean that they are not logically contradictory and inaccurate. And, it's certainly no substitute for you actually engaging in the debate and either defending or clarifying your position.

If you are simply unable to grasp this simple fact, then it's you who really is the "second one" -- beneath, of course, that faux veneer of intelligence that you try to show through sub-par mockery.

And that, as they say, is that....[/b]

I stated, quite clearly, that Khayembii Communique's blanket assertions are no substitute for further debate and clarification of his views. And, that if he was unable to grasp that, then the criticisms he makes of me would be far better suited for him. "And that, as they say, is that...." -- or, in other words, that is all that needs to be said.

That's hardly evidence that I've "already drawn conclusions" on his political positions, is it? No, it simply shows that I've "already drawn conclusions" on his debating style -- something I've never denied doing.

So, really, to repeat a theme that you just started, "I call bullshit!" -- on your fundamentally dishonest style of debate. "And that, as they say, is that...."

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
You, TAT and BD are the ones hunting for something that isn't there.

I can't, of course, speak for TAT and BD....the fraternity simply doesn't allow that kind of practice. But what I can do, and will do, is speak for myself. And, as I've already stated, what I'm "hunting for" is a clarification that isn't simply a one line blanket response. Something which, as his other posts show, Khayembii Communique is perfectly capable of doing.

If, of course, it is now a crime to request that someone engages in political debate on a board which focuses on that, then I'm guilty. But that would be the only "blot" on my proverbial record....and it's not a "blot" I'm ashamed of having. In fact, to me anyway, asking Khayembii Communique to engage in debate and respond to the criticisms that have been raised, is a perfectly reasonable request. "And that, as they say, is that...."

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
You have "simply worked" with the assumptions that TAT and BD have concocted, and have accepted them as unalloyed gold.

To borrow a classic from your repertoire, "I call bullshit!"

I've not "'simply worked' with the assumptions that TAT and BD have concocted, and have accepted them as unalloyed gold". Indeed, if you look at my first post in this thread -- the only one that really dealt with the political issue, because your shenanigans since then have led to it being shelved -- then you'll see that my line of enquiry was rather different to TAT and BD's.

It actually could have served to broaden this whole debate beyond its narrow horizons. That is, broadened it into a debate that transcended the personality politics of this board and, instead, dealt with a larger political issue in a way that would have been far more beneficial to the Rev-Left community in general.

And that, as it happens, is a long way away from what you accuse me of doing. That is, "playing a role in orchestrating such action .... like the glib capitalist minister".

[email protected]
There's nothing spurious about my allegations.

Really? Well, what about the allegation that I "wanted LoneRed Round Two"? Or the allegation that I was "coercing a gay comrade into 'outing' himself"? Two allegations that I refuted right there....and two allegations which, after my refutation, you chose to shelve.

But, I guess you're right, they weren't spurious in the least! :lol:

EL KABLAMO
-- it never ends.

I cut this one short, just for you. :wub:

Actually, I have to go to work, but you can believe that if you want. And "novel"? My last post was three paragraphs and the one Miles responded to couldn't have been more than 500 words -- hardly lengthy, even by Rev-Left's standards.

Entrails Konfetti

16th October 2006, 20:20

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 16 2006, 04:32 PM
But seriously, for the purpose of semantics, how the fuck is cowboys and indians a stereotype?
TAT doesn't understand that people in the USA actually live like that, that it's a lifestyle. On top of that it's so nasty how he thinks that Native Americans and poor rural cowboys are myths.

I wonder if he thinks cowboys ride unicorns while herding the bulls to Tulsa.

I hope they don't meet an Ogre on the way, it'd devour all their cattle!

Entrails Konfetti

16th October 2006, 20:24

Originally posted by Amusing Scrotum+Oct 16 2006, 05:17 PM--> (Amusing Scrotum @ Oct 16 2006, 05:17 PM)
EL KABLAMO
-- it never ends.

I cut this one short, just for you. :wub:

Actually, I have to go to work, but you can believe that if you want. And "novel"? My last post was three paragraphs and the one Miles responded to couldn't have been more than 500 words -- hardly lengthy, even by Rev-Left's standards. [/b]
Whenever we get to these 7 page arguments, you always say exactly everything TAT, LSD, BD, or HR say. Usually you like write 2,000 words or something... you could just summarize your points. Save all the fillers for school, thats what I do.

Or you could write for a newspaper or something.

Dr. Rosenpenis

16th October 2006, 20:31

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Oct 16 2006, 02:21 PM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Oct 16 2006, 02:21 PM)
Dr. [email protected] 16 2006, 04:32 PM
But seriously, for the purpose of semantics, how the fuck is cowboys and indians a stereotype?
TAT doesn't understand that people in the USA actually live like that, that it's a lifestyle. On top of that it's so nasty how he thinks that Native Americans and poor rural cowboys are myths.

I wonder if he thinks cowboys ride unicorns while herding the bulls to Tulsa.

I hope they don't meet an Ogre on the way, it'd devour all their cattle! [/b]
If there exists a stereotype that in the American west there are conflicts between indians and cowboys, that is also a generalization. How is it not?

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2006, 22:59

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 16 2006, 06:05 PM
TAT, I don't think you even saw my last post

No dear KC, you didn't read mine.

Go back and read it and either respond to it or shut up. It's that simple, buddy.
I responded to you here. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57301&view=findpost&p=1292189527)

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2006, 23:06

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+Oct 16 2006, 05:32 PM--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ Oct 16 2006, 05:32 PM)
TAT
No, he said he hated the stereotype of gay people, which, as I have proven, amounts to the same thing.

No, you haven't. [/b]
Don't be stupid. I have spent the last god knows how many pages doing precisely this. Perhaps you should read the entire thread rather than selected posts.

(1) This has nothing to do with hate, as has been previously stated.

I only responded to KC and he used the word 'hate' several times.

(2) He objects to the stereotype that gay people are subject to.

No he doesn't, he 'hates' the generalisation that all gay men fit that stereotype.

Where have you "proven" that this amounts to hating homosexuals?

In this thread.

How the fuck is cowboys and indians a stereotype?

There exists, or at least there has existed a stereotype of Southern American bucaneers, riding horses and dressed in stetson's conquering the wild west.

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2006, 23:13

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 16 2006, 06:21 PM
TAT doesn't understand that people in the USA actually live like that, that it's a lifestyle. On top of that it's so nasty how he thinks that Native Americans and poor rural cowboys are myths.
I am aware that there still remains a lifestyle stereotypical to the [capitalist] media perception of cowboys; just as there is a lifestyle stereotypical to the [capitalist] media perception of the gay community.

Stereotypes are very usually true.

On top of that it's so nasty how he thinks that Native Americans and poor rural cowboys are myths.

You have a very bizarre debating trait of interpreting what I say however you like. I have never said that.

I wonder if he thinks cowboys ride unicorns while herding the bulls to Tulsa.

Not particularly.

Martin Blank

16th October 2006, 23:17

Originally posted by Amusing Scrotum+Oct 16 2006, 12:17 PM--> (Amusing Scrotum @ Oct 16 2006, 12:17 PM)Honestly Miles, given that in the very same post that the above quote was found, you accused me of being "incapable of reading", I would have thought you would have read my post with a certain amount of care and attention. After all, glass houses, stones and all that....[/b]

Oh, I did read your comments -- all of them. And I find it rather ... amusing ... that you would try to turn this back on me. For example:

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 15 2006, 12:55 PM
No, I didn't "miss all these posts". But you certainly seem to have missed TAT's lengthy explanations of how your statements are contradictory and that, by "hating" the characteristics of "stereotypical Queens", you are in fact hating a large section of the gay community that displays these characteristics.

Just commenting on "debating style"? I think not. In this passage, you are clearly taking a side with TAT on the substance of the debate. The difference between referring to TAT's "Selected Works" as an argument and as an explanation is how you see it -- i.e., whether or not you agree with the substance of what he writes. I see what TAT wrote as his argument, because I do not necessarily agree with the political method used to generate the content. If, on the other hand, I did agree with the method, I would see it as an explanation of where the problem lies.

This might seem to be semantic at first, but it is not. Clarity matters, especially in a debate like this. If you accept what TAT wrote as an explanation, that is tantamount to agreeing with and taking responsibility for what was written. That is taking a side, whether or not you are willing to be honest and forthright about it.

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 16 2006, 12:17 PM
I've not "'simply worked' with the assumptions that TAT and BD have concocted, and have accepted them as unalloyed gold". Indeed, if you look at my first post in this thread -- the only one that really dealt with the political issue, because your shenanigans since then have led to it being shelved -- then you'll see that my line of enquiry was rather different to TAT and BD's.

Actually, you raised two points, the first of which you said should be shelved, "for now anyway". The second point, as you formulated it, was answered by me. In fact, my entire posting was on that second point, and is what led to where we are now. I wrote:

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 02:17 AM
That's just it: None of us are "demonizing" anyone. Just because some people don't approve of how others express themselves doesn't mean that the former are "demonizing" the latter.

In fact, the only "demonizing" going on here is the demonizing (and witchhunting and coercive "outing") of League members for not falling into lockstep with the petty-bourgeois identity politics expressed by certain people on this discussion board. As far as I am concerned, those who are demonizing League members are little more than "lavender" house slaves for heterosexism.

For the most part, those screaming the loudest on this issue are also the ones who see no value in defending the democratic rights of gays and lesbians when and where they are REALLY under attack, such as on the question of same-sex marriage (which is really a question about equal protection under the law and equal access to state services).

We do not accept their "Through the Looking Glass" conception of society or political struggle. And we never will.

So, since I answered it head-on, I have to actually wonder whose "shenanigans" we're talking about here. Looking at the successive posts, one thing jumps out at me: I let you control the direction of the discussion, but I would not let you get away with glib turns of phrase that betrayed your phony "diplomacy". What you call "shenanigans" I call stripping away the lies and dishonesty of your own arguments (viz: "Speculating is all we can do"). That's what set you off and led to where we are now.

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 16 2006, 12:17 PM
It actually could have served to broaden this whole debate beyond its narrow horizons. That is, broadened it into a debate that transcended the personality politics of this board and, instead, dealt with a larger political issue in a way that would have been far more beneficial to the Rev-Left community in general.

Nice try. I mean, really. But we all know this could not develop into an honest debate or discussion. It was never meant to. That was clear from the first posts by TAT. The most this could become is a Stalinist-style "self-criticism session", where the guilty-before-proven-innocent confess to their crimes before the self-appointed tribunal. I remember where this thread originated and what the goal was.

Ignoring the history of this discussion in order to feign innocence and plead for "transcend the personality politics of this board" might make for great propaganda among those unfamiliar with the backstory, but that's all it is.

"[i]And that, as it happens, is a long way away from what you accuse me of doing. That is, 'playing a role in orchestrating such action .... like the glib capitalist minister'."

Amusing [email protected] 16 2006, 12:17 PM
Really? Well, what about the allegation that I "wanted LoneRed Round Two"? Or the allegation that I was "coercing a gay comrade into 'outing' himself"? Two allegations that I refuted right there....and two allegations which, after my refutation, you chose to shelve.

You are the one who decided to take responsibility for TAT's arguments, labeling them as an "explanation" and holding them up as the correct viewpoint. If you're going to accept responsibility for that, you should also be held responsible for the rest -- including the coercion of KC. I'm willing to accept that you did not want "LoneRed Round Two", but it's clear that TAT and BD did. And in that context, you do take on some responsibility for that as well.

Miles

17th October 2006, 00:05

No dear KC, you didn't read mine.

You are correct; I completely missed your post.

This is about you saying something that you didn't mean and then trying to defend it.

No; this is about me saying something that I did mean and something that I still believe and you focusing on certain words in my assertion and interpreting them the way you do and claiming that I said something that I didn't. This issue is entirely semantical and really nothing else.

They're not my definitions they're the defintions. Language isn't relative, is it? You can't just decide what words mean because you feel like it.

Of course it's relative! You probably don't even know what a bubbler is. Of course, this example is of different words having the same definition and not the same word having different defintions, but the analogy still holds perfectly well with the latter.

There's no such thing as truth in language, as language is interpreted differently by different people, different cultures, and different societies. As a result of this, it is constantly changing and evolving.

You have misrepresented my position based on a misinterpretation of words I have chosen to use in my assertion and, even after I have explained myself, you have continued to say "But look! He used this word! He can't possibly mean something else by it, even if he said that's what he meant!"

C_Rasmussen

17th October 2006, 00:07

8 pages and people haven't bothered to look at TAT's member title? Seriously, take a moment and direct your attention to the words "Gay Supremacist" and you can probably see where KC doesn't seem to get a fair deal in this. Its like TAT is just looking for reasons to call KC a homophobe. From what I can tell (and its been stated a number of times before) is KC isn't homophobic. Reasons for this? He doesn't hate the gay lifestyle but just the fact that the media perpetuates the stereotypes. I also agree that its wrong to start stereotypes.

Dr. Rosenpenis

17th October 2006, 00:26

The Anarchist Tension:

You just repeated a hundred times that many homosexuals truly identify with this aforementioned behavior. This doesn't do anything at all to refute KC's convictions.

He expressely wrote that he objects to the stereotype of gay men behaving in this given fashion because it's detrimental to the gay cause. Stereotypes generate falsehoods and promote ignorance and discrimination. Fact.

This is a point that CL and KC have made, and you just seem to refuse to understand.

The way that KC was using "stereotype" is such a way that is widely used by many people, including myself. And probably you as well before you tried to save your argument in this thread and look up dictionary definitions. I'm just guessing.

The stereotypical behavior of gay men is a certain pattern of behavior which is socially stigmatised to gay men, and which is applied unequivocally and unjustly to all gay men, despite it being a mere generalization. This is how most people view the word "stereotype". At least in my personal exerience.

By your definition of "stereotype", TAT, it would be either a tremendous mistake or an offense to say that effeminate behavior is a gay stereotype, since it isn't held in common by the members of that group. Unless you choose to generalize the behavior of all gay men.

Which is what KC is against.
I think that regardless of whether he uses "stereotype" or "generalization", his point was clear, and most importantly true.

C_Rasmussen

17th October 2006, 00:36

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 16 2006, 03:27 PM
You just repeated a hundred times that many homosexuals truly identify with this aforementioned behavior. This doesn't do anything at all to refute KC's convictions.

He expressely wrote that he objects to the stereotype of gay men behaving in this given fashion because it's detrimental to the gay cause. Stereotypes generate falsehoods and promote ignorance and discrimination. Fact.

This is a point that CL and KC have made, and you just seem to refuse to understand.

A stereotype of Americans being involved in conflicts between indians and cowboys is a generalization of Americans.
True but obviously after 8 pages no one (on the side of TAT, BD, etc...) seem to realize it so I tried to clear it up....perhaps to no avail but it was still a try. Yeah and that stereotype about Americans is what I dont like either because well obviously not all of us fight with Native Americans.

Mujer Libre

17th October 2006, 03:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 09:08 PM
8 pages and people haven't bothered to look at TAT's member title? Seriously, take a moment and direct your attention to the words "Gay Supremacist" and you can probably see where KC doesn't seem to get a fair deal in this. Its like TAT is just looking for reasons to call KC a homophobe. From what I can tell (and its been stated a number of times before) is KC isn't homophobic. Reasons for this? He doesn't hate the gay lifestyle but just the fact that the media perpetuates the stereotypes. I also agree that its wrong to start stereotypes.
If you take TAT's title literally you need to go back to chitchat. ;)

LoneRed

17th October 2006, 04:05

Stereotypes are very usually true.

Wow Tat Wow! :huh:

AlwaysAnarchy

17th October 2006, 04:09

wow so like how serious is this??? i dont think messing around with saying you hate gay people is cool at all dudes. even if you just hate the streotype that gay people are effiminate or whatever. its still not right. but i dont want to see anyone lose their membership so how about we just ask KC to apologize and thats that? We forgive and forget and all let it go??

17th October 2006, 04:25

Would you just leave already?

AlwaysAnarchy

17th October 2006, 04:29

Huh? Why? I'm trying to give you a way out here - just apologize and say my bad and all will be forgiven. Otherwise a lot of angry gay people in here and their supporters are gonna be you a tough time. But hey dude, do want you want, its your call.

Peace.

LoneRed

17th October 2006, 05:43

Anyone else think this has turned into a comedy? well with the last comments, HA!

whats there to apologize for? KC did nothing wrong

They are just witch hunting again, nothing unusual nowadays

If anyone is to apologize it should be TAT for saying

"Stereotypes are very usually true"

So Tat, Question for ya, so you think that black people love menthol cigarettes eat fried chicken and watermelon? That is easy to deduce from what you said? maybe rephrasing it, or trying to justify it, might help, oh wait.. i dont think it will

Dr. Rosenpenis

17th October 2006, 06:26

He was using "stereotype" in a different way.

LoneRed

17th October 2006, 06:49

Ok... Let him explain?

Dr. Rosenpenis

17th October 2006, 07:24

he has

LoneRed

17th October 2006, 07:40

"I am aware that there still remains a lifestyle stereotypical to the [capitalist] media perception of cowboys; just as there is a lifestyle stereotypical to the [capitalist] media perception of the gay community.

Stereotypes are very usually true."

That's what he said, Its pretty straight forward

RebelDog

17th October 2006, 08:22

I agree with Janus' take on this. I don't think KC is homophobic at all. It has basically been a debate on semantics.

apathy maybe

17th October 2006, 08:58

I have to say that I am amazed this managed to get to eight pages (by my count at least).

I thought that KC had adequately explained himself on the first page. I did not know the context of the original quotes, but it seems that KC was not defending Big Manifesto as such.

It seems to me that the argument now is a semantic one, and really I think it is pretty pointless.

(And I also find it interesting that KC is the only one to respond to my posts.)

SPK

17th October 2006, 09:14

The problem being posed is not with just any generalization or stereotype of queer people. KC nor the Communist League in its articles do not speak about the longstanding stereotypes of lesbians as butch women, recent television shows like The L Word notwithstanding. Nor do they speak about the different stereotypes which are applied to gay men – including more recent images of bear guys (big, hairy, flannel shirts, etc.), which came out of the S/M scenes historically and are more consistent with traditional displays of masculine gender. There are a fairly limited set of generalizations of queer people that we see in the mass media, but only one in particular has become a flashpoint for KC and the League, in the articles I noted above: the image of gay men as feminine, flamboyant, and fabulous (FFF, to use El Kablamo’s term). The justifications for KC’s perspective that have been posted by, for example, Janus therefore miss the point completely -- KC wasn’t making the wholly banal point that generalizations or stereotypes are a bad thing, because they don’t accurately represent or reflect the diverse reality of a people or community, etcetera. KC was targeting the FFF segment of gay men, and not any other stereotypes, because:
1. He has a major personal, individual problem with FFF’s. Otherwise he wouldn’t be addressing this question so persistently.
2. He believes that the existence of FFF’s, and their representation in the mass media, should for some reason discourage him from coming out of the closet. In fact, he states that those who “openly and proudly show off their sexuality… make life difficult for people like me.” It is psychological characteristic of the most extreme right-wing, authoritarian ideologies that other people’s identities are viewed as a threat to one’s own self-understanding and self-consciousness, i.e. one’s own identity. KC clearly views FFF’s as such a threat, even though, obviously, those folks are not concretely or materially inhibiting KC from doing anything he wishes.
3. The Communist League, of which KC is a member and which he has referenced, has a problem specifically and particulary with the FFF “style” and not with other stereotypes or generalizations.

Queers are under attack by the ruling elites and other forces of reaction. Progressive, certainly revolutionary, tendencies should emphasize and uphold queer people’s right to come out of the closet and live their lives openly, because that is the key, central political question today – a question which impacts most acutely those whose gender characteristics violate social norms and those who perform and represent their gender or sexuality in an open, public way. An analysis of the oppression of queers which does not recognize this element or make it central – and indeed valorizes the most traditional, conservative masculinities and silence around queer sexualities – therefore fails to address this central political question and is backwards to boot. A correct politics would not attempt to suppress the question of queer sexualities, as Miles does in his spurious “criticisms” of BD for “’outing’ people against their own wishes”, but would, instead, challenge the homophobic bias that prevents queers from coming out in the first place. The problem is not among LGBTIQ people, but among homophobes: it would be good if the League and their sundry allies on this thread could figure that out.

On that note: Miles vigorously condemns “petty bourgeois” identity politics in his responses. However, the League simply practices a version of identity politics which is only nominally different from that of the mainstream queer movements. As I noted in an earlier post, left-wing elements of those movements have, in the past, valorized as intrinsically political or revolutionary certain non-normative gender characteristics which are common among queers, like FFF’s. The League simply inverts this schema and, instead, valorizes those gender characteristics among gay men which are consistent with masculine norms (from this standpoint, such issues are not a part of “private life”, no matter what KC may wish). It does so, because it believes that FFF is essentially petty bourgeois, has no following among the working class, and will alienate the majority of people. The League, in the articles I discussed and in terms of its positions as articulated by Miles, cynically views different formations of gender and sexuality from basically an instrumentalist or utilitarian standpoint: they are merely tools for class struggle. Those formations which signify, in the League’s worldview, “working-class” are lauded (nice, butch homos like KC :lol: ), and those which signify in that worldview “petty bourgeois” are condemned (FFF’s). This position is reactionary and blatantly violates the basic principles of self-determination within queer communities and among queer people, as well as among non-queers who do not conform to gender norms.

BTW, BD suggested that I was working class in one of his posts. I am not – I am middle-class. That should simplify the job of responding to this post, at least for the League members on this thread. :lol:

(As a side note, this thread has apparently attempted to get KC to clarify his earlier comments on FFF’s. I have been a member of Marxist-Leninist organizations in the past, and worked with many others, and here is at least one good thing I will say about them: if anybody like KC had made the kind of deliberately ambiguous or inflammatory public comments that he did, on this issue or others (white supremacy, male supremacy, etc.), they would either have been sharply and publicly rebuked and struggled with in private over their incorrect line, or they would have gotten their sorry ass kicked out of the party altogether. There would have been no endless interpretation and parsing of their statements, and no bullshit apologetics over what they “really” meant. Sometimes I forget the merits of Leninism. :lol: )

17th October 2006, 13:09

To borrow a phrase from Vinny, "More crapola from the kids."

KC nor the Communist League in its articles do not speak about the longstanding stereotypes of lesbians as butch women, recent television shows like The L Word notwithstanding. Nor do they speak about the different stereotypes which are applied to gay men – including more recent images of bear guys (big, hairy, flannel shirts, etc.), which came out of the S/M scenes historically and are more consistent with traditional displays of masculine gender. There are a fairly limited set of generalizations of queer people that we see in the mass media, but only one in particular has become a flashpoint for KC and the League, in the articles I noted above: the image of gay men as feminine, flamboyant, and fabulous (FFF, to use El Kablamo’s term).

The article focused on the portrayal of gay people in the media. Moreover, just because we write an article about the portrayals of gay people in the media, that means we have to write an article on all minorities and how they are portrayed in the media? That's idiotic.

The justifications for KC’s perspective that have been posted by, for example, Janus therefore miss the point completely -- KC wasn’t making the wholly banal point that generalizations or stereotypes are a bad thing, because they don’t accurately represent or reflect the diverse reality of a people or community, etcetera. KC was targeting the FFF segment of gay men, and not any other stereotypes

Actually, I was making that point, and the reason I was "focusing" on the FFF stereotype (not the "segment") is because that's what the discussion was about. Since you don't know where this originally came from since you're not a CC member, you should really just shut up about this point.

1. He has a major personal, individual problem with FFF’s. Otherwise he wouldn’t be addressing this question so persistently.

No, I don't. I have plenty of friends who act like this.

2. He believes that the existence of FFF’s, and their representation in the mass media, should for some reason discourage him from coming out of the closet.

:blink:

Where the fuck did you get this from? I'm betting your ass.

In fact, he states that those who “openly and proudly show off their sexuality… make life difficult for people like me.” It is psychological characteristic of the most extreme right-wing, authoritarian ideologies that other people’s identities are viewed as a threat to one’s own self-understanding and self-consciousness, i.e. one’s own identity.

I wasn't talking about my "self-understanding" or my "self-consciousness", or even my "identity" at all. I was talking about my social life.

KC clearly views FFF’s as such a threat, even though, obviously, those folks are not concretely or materially inhibiting KC from doing anything he wishes.

Yeah, they're so threatening. Where the fuck did you even get this from?

3. The Communist League, of which KC is a member and which he has referenced, has a problem specifically and particulary with the FFF “style” and not with other stereotypes or generalizations.

No, you meathead, we have a problem with how gay people are portrayed in the media. If you took 5 minutes to read the article you'd understand that.

The rest I'm not even going to bother with. Your entire post was a big waste of time as it was all dealt with earlier in this thread. Next time read the thread with your brain on.

The Feral Underclass

17th October 2006, 13:22

I'm happy with KC's clarification. It's a shame that he couldn't say what he meant to begin with, but I can forgive him for that.

I think our positions are both clear enough, and really, what's the point in me repeating it. Tautological conversations aren't at all productive and very rarely interesting.

SPK

17th October 2006, 15:42

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 17 2006, 07:09 AM
(T)hat's what the discussion was about. Since you don't know where this originally came from since you're not a CC member, you should really just shut up about this point.

This thread was apparently moved from the CC forums to the regular forums, which means everyone can freely comment on it. That I have done. I am not a member of the CC and do not concern myself with its bureaucratic attempts to throw people off the board and whatever else exactly the CC does. I took the opportunity to speak to the bullshit politics of you and the League on this question.

BurnTheOliveTree

17th October 2006, 16:16

TAT - Anytime, anytime. :) Seriously though, this whole discussion is just... Words fail me. Surely there are better things to debate semantics on?

-Alex

chimx

17th October 2006, 16:46

this thread is simply FABULOUS! that is the real reason KC hates it.

Dr. Rosenpenis

17th October 2006, 18:16

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 17 2006, 09:22 AM
I'm happy with KC's clarification. It's a shame that he couldn't say what he meant to begin with, but I can forgive him for that.

I think our positions are both clear enough, and really, what's the point in me repeating it. Tautological conversations aren't at all productive and very rarely interesting.
Could you please address my post. Or at least point out what the fuck it is that I missed.

The Feral Underclass

17th October 2006, 18:25

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+Oct 17 2006, 06:16 PM--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ Oct 17 2006, 06:16 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 17 2006, 09:22 AM
I'm happy with KC's clarification. It's a shame that he couldn't say what he meant to begin with, but I can forgive him for that.

I think our positions are both clear enough, and really, what's the point in me repeating it. Tautological conversations aren't at all productive and very rarely interesting.
Could you please address my post. Or at least point out what the fuck it is that I missed. [/b]
I'm not doing the work for you, what do you think I am? If you want to understand my position and my argument of why "hating the gay stereotype" equates to "hating gay characteristics", read the fucking thread!

Amusing Scrotum

17th October 2006, 18:26

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+--> (CommunistLeague)Just commenting on "debating style"? I think not. In this passage, you are clearly taking a side with TAT on the substance of the debate.[/b]

Again, if you just cherry pick sentences and look at them in isolation, as you did with the "And that, as they say, is that...." line, and as you're doing here, then you are going to miss the point I was making. Context, as they say, is everything.

In this case, the context of that comment shows that I felt Khayembii Communique's blanket assertions regarding his position -- his "debating style" -- was simply not enough. People, TAT in particular who I quoted at length, had responded to these assertions and raised certain points about the the logical failings of these positions. Therefore, Khayembii Communique, if he wanted to see an end to this thread, should simply respond to these points and further clarify what he had stated.

That is, until he modified his "debating style" and actually engaged in political debate, the criticisms of his comments would remain, generally speaking, valid. Would they be as valid if he responded to the points raised and added a certain amount of clarity to his position? Probably not.

But, until he did that, his positions would remain on shaky ground -- and that was the point I was making in that particular post. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+--> (CommunistLeague)This might seem to be semantic at first, but it is not.[/b]

Uh, yes it is. You seem to place great importance on the fact that I chose the word "explanations", but I could just have easily used a handful of other words -- for instance: arguments, comments, elaborations, descriptions, illustrations, reasoning, presentation....

That I chose one over the other, is not indicative of anything. Indeed, I wouldn't have given my word choice a second thought had you not brought it up....and I certainly didn't attach to it the kind of importance you suggest. And, to be honest, I think only you have seen so much in so little; everyone else, rightly, just takes it for what it is.

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
So, since I answered it head-on, I have to actually wonder whose "shenanigans" we're talking about here.

An error on my part there. It wasn't your response that started the derailment; it was your response to my response to your response that started it -- you know, the post where you decided to ignore the political debate and, instead, start throwing around allegations.

You know, the allegations that I "wanted LoneRed Round Two" and that I was "coercing a gay comrade into 'outing' himself"....and the comment that I'm "backpedaling faster than Lance Armstrong on a 30-degree downslope". That's the post where your "shenanigans" started....and that I was mistaken about the timeline, is really neither here nor there.

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
Looking at the successive posts, one thing jumps out at me: I let you control the direction of the discussion....

Oh yeah, it was my aim for the discussion to go completely off topic and to revolve around accusations about my behaviour. I mean, I just love it when people throw unfounded allegations my way -- it really makes my day.

Honestly Miles, I really think most people realise that you are too bright to fall for my "cunning plots". So, I don't think this line of argument helps you, to say the least.

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
....but I would not let you get away with glib turns of phrase that betrayed your phony "diplomacy".

My "diplomacy", if that's what you want to call it, was not "phony" or "glib".

Just because you surround yourself with people who have incredibly short fuses and an inability to act civilly, does not mean that such behaviour is normal. And, nor does it mean that those who don't display those characteristics are being "phony". We just don't like to conduct ourselves in such a manner -- in the main, anyway.

So, please, don't project the characteristics of your acquaintances onto me. It's like putting a circular peg into a square hole, it just won't fit -- no matter how hard you try.

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
But we all know this could not develop into an honest debate or discussion.

I certainly didn't "know" that. But it's certainly interesting to know that you never came to the table with the aims of developing this "into an honest debate or discussion". Indeed, one does wonder what your aim here was....

[email protected]
If you're going to accept responsibility for that, you should also be held responsible for the rest -- including the coercion of KC.

Even if it was the case that I "accepted responsibility for that", which I didn't, then the "responsibility" would be limited purely to what I quoted. That is, the comments you think I endorsed. And nowhere in those comments can the subject of Khayembii Communique's sexuality.

Actually, TAT did say "As a gay man...." in one of those extracts -- before you make that into a big issue by pointlessly quibbling. But Khayembii Communique's sexuality certainly didn't come up in the way you are suggesting. Meaning I have no "responsibility" for any of that.

CommunistLeague
And in that context, you do take on some responsibility for that as well.

No, I don't.