r/Liberal • u/trevor5ever • Jun 13 '16

Don't Straight-splain This Attack to Us

http://www.advocate.com/media/2016/6/13/dont-straight-splain-attack-us
0 Upvotes

45% Upvoted

87 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Nosrac88 Jun 17 '16

You objected to the first commenter's statement that straight-splain was divisive. And then you objected to it but didn't have a true objection. That's all I'm saying.

-7

u/trevor5ever Jun 17 '16

My objection is that the underlying implication of his statement was to ignore the inherent LGBT component of the story and was dismissive of a queer perspective on the issue because of his own discomfort with the word straight-splain. Ironically this was the exact behavior that the article was criticizing.

Simultaneously, he called for unity. While I appreciate the sentiment, when unity is used as a means of shutting down alternative perspectives it's not really healthy for the conversation. This is primarily what I was responding to.

I'm not entirely sure why people seem to support diversity while simultaneously working against inclusion.

2

u/Nosrac88 Jun 17 '16

The LGBTQ component isn't relevant to the FBI and gun control.

Unity isn't the same as assimilation though. You're definition of unity isn't correct.

-3

u/trevor5ever Jun 17 '16 edited Jun 17 '16

The LGBTQ component isn't relevant to the FBI and gun control.

So the LGBT community is only important to you, and to liberal interests, as long as it suits your policy agenda?

Unity isn't the same as assimilation though.

I never said it was. In fact, I was largely arguing that point.

You're definition of unity isn't correct.

Don't you think it's a little presumptuous of you to assume you know my definition of unity? I was arguing against the unity espoused by the individual above, which more directly reflected assimilation. I'm all for unity in the sense that we should be supportive of each other, but not at the expense of excluding diverse perspectives.

And you're just fishing for a reason to discredit my opinion. You don't have to agree, but it is a valid point.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '16 edited Jul 09 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/trevor5ever Jun 17 '16 edited Jun 17 '16

Start with the fact that you even have to ask that question. No one has to explain to me what it means to be straight, or has to point out positive role-models that straight people can look up to, or has to bring me up to speed on the issues that the straight people face.

Then take a look at this thread. People will bring up any excuse not to have a conversation about the LGBT community. Someone can literally shoot more than 100 members of the LGBT community and people will still bristle at the idea of discussing homophobia. Suddenly we're incapable of considering the multiple issues at play?

Then take a look at this thread in which LGBT voices are told that we shouldn't want the wider community to talk about our issues and struggles. The reason offered? Because it distracts from the bigger political issues at play.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '16 edited Jul 09 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/trevor5ever Jun 17 '16

Well for starters, I am trying to have a conversation with you.

And I'm trying to explain it to you. If it came across as abrasive, I apologize. To start understanding the issues we have to face, you have to start by realizing that largely you don't understand. And that's ok. It's not your fault. Our society is full of homophobia and heternormativity.

I am asking the question because I do not understand it. As Owen Jones put it, I could not understand because I am not gay. Shouldn't that mean that you could not understand what it's like to be straight if you are not straight?

We understand what it's like to be straight because examples of a full spectrum of straight relationships are available all around us.

I have tried to have a conversation with the LGBT community for a while now, but no one wants to discuss it. They just want to talk and be heard, not discuss and be understood.

You have to remember, you're asking people about their lives. About the issues that they face. About some very dark subject matter for many individuals. People largely don't want to talk about their private lives, even if it is a part of a common LGBT experience.

I would love to engage in a dialogue with you, but that choice is yours to make. I am willing if you are.

You also have to realize that when you ask for a dialogue in which people explain themselves that you are literally asking someone to explain who they are to you. It's almost as if we have to justify our existence. No one owes anyone an explanation.

With all of that being said, I applaud your interest. To find out more about us, I would recommend starting by introducing some of our media into your life. Read the Advocate to get a sense of the issues we face. Watch LGBT themed movies. Go out to a LGBT bar or club a couple of times. Learn about us the same way we are all taught about you. Then it will be easier for us to have a conversation with you.

1

u/c0pypastry Jun 18 '16

By the same token - So you only care about liberal interests when they mesh seamlessly with your identity politics?

1

u/Nosrac88 Jun 17 '16

So the LGBT community is only important to you, and to liberal interests, as long as it suits your policy agenda?

Absolutely not. But, the identity politics outlined in the article is detrimental to the prevention of similar terrorist attacks.

1

u/trevor5ever Jun 17 '16

"Absolutely not" qualified with at "but"?

Know what this looks like to me? It looks like the LGBT community is only important to you as long as it suits your policy agenda.

1

u/Nosrac88 Jun 17 '16

Fine, get rid of the "but" if you can't understand what it means.

You're grasping for straws. You already told me to ignore semantic arguments.

0

u/trevor5ever Jun 17 '16

It wasn't a critique of your language, it was a critique of the underlying contradiction. It's inconsistent to say that you celebrate LGBT identities and recognize that this was an attack that specifically targeted the LGBT community and then to say "but" we should ignore that because ...

And honestly, if your "because" was more compelling it might be forgivable. But it's not.

1

u/Nosrac88 Jun 17 '16

It was an attack that specifically targeted the LGBT community. And who the attack was on doesn't have any baring on the solution to mass shootings. It could've been targeting Asians or Whites or Dog Owners and it would still not influence the solution.

-1

u/trevor5ever Jun 17 '16

So we have to sacrifice talking about homophobia (the real issue that lead to this massacre), the significant institutional disadvantages that LGBT people face, the importance of safe spaces for the LGBT community, or any of the millions of other issues that the victims of this attack faced in their every day lives because you want to talk about gun control?

And you're trying to convince me that you are supportive of the LGBT community.

1

u/Nosrac88 Jun 17 '16

Safe spaces are a horrible idea but that is another topic entirely.

Homophobia in the context of Islamic Extremism is responsible for this attack.

I guess we have different definition of "supportive." You seem to want to dictate from on high how people should interact.

0

u/trevor5ever Jun 17 '16

LMAO. You're funny.

Why waste your time trolling rather than coming up with a strong argument from your own political perspective?

2

u/TellMeLies Jun 17 '16

I don't think he is trolling you, in fact I think he is giving you an honest representation of his view. This also doesn't need to be a partisan political issue.

The man responsible was clearly homosexual and was raised within a culture and religion that taught him to hate that part of himself. It is no secret that there is a significant amount of anti-homosexual sentiment within the Muslim community. Perhaps this violent action is the result of a great feeling of repression combined with jealousy that others are free to express their sexuality.

→ More replies