And I don’t think we can get all up in their grill about it.
Sometimes, I think the still small voice of just being out can speak the loudest. In a funny way, folks trying to reconcile the outright terrifying homophobic stereotypes with the not-at-all scary GLBT people in their lives is a lot like coming out to yourself. It's easy to hate an abstract collective noun.
This is my favourite post on the subject matter so far, because it at least expresses a modicum of empathy for “the other side”.
Sorry for sounding all Bill Clinton here, but why wouldn't I have empathy for some of "the other side"? The likes of Bob McCoskrie and Evil Namesake may be disingenuous, lying fuckbags but there are people who would be perfectly justified in getting their panic on if what they were being told had any relationship to reality. I've had a few awkward but kinda awesome conversations in my own church where I've had to explain that, not to put too fine a point on it, our leaders are lying and I never wanted to force our parish priest to gay-marry me or anyone else.
Tonight is for celebrating, with like-minded individuals.
Going to be all boring and assimilated and shit tonight. First night in for a while, so we'll probably have the radio on over a decent home cooked dinner. Am I the only person who will probably find tonight a wee bit of an anti-climax, and is totally OK with that? No disrespect to everyone who's done the hard yards on this, but it's also been refreshing that New Zealand (apart from the usual suspects) has managed to be remarkably civilized about it all.
I’m about what’s appropriate messages for little kids to be hearing, and open discussion around that, and what they are seeing.
Sure – and I’m sorry to be that guy but where the fuck are the parents in all this? I’ve had the Big Gay Uncle discussion with the younglings that there are large swathes of the DVD collection that are “don’t even bother asking” out of bounds. Boundaries and Consequences really aren’t bad things.
How about you read my posts Craig rather than ascribing all your offended feelings to things I have not said or implied?
I don't see much point to further engagement with you on this, Hebe, but it just seemed polite to note I've read your last.
I am infuriated that you are trying to pin my abhorrence of her style and her political beliefs on her being an aggressive woman. Unlike you, I lived for years under Thatcher and felt and saw the consequences of her policies on me and my closest friends.
Please do not try to pull a gender politics smokescreen over total political diasgreement.
OK, Hebe – shall we go back to what I actually said?
I’d also respectfully suggest Greenwald has the dick privilege to not see the pretty rancid and intensely gendered shit that got thrown at Thatcher. And still does at any “aggressive” ANGRY un-woman in politics – from Gillard through Hillary Clinton to Angela Merkel.
I don’t think any “gender politics smokescreen” needs to be lowered over the (ex-)Tweep who opined that Margaret Thatcher was a ‘cunt’ who should have been murdered decades ago. And, yeah, while we’re talking about infuriating things please extend me the presumption of good faith when I say I find it profoundly culturally and spiritually offensive when people blithely chunter on about desecrating anyone’s grave. My family doesn’t remember the Fourth Labour Government with an excess of affection, but I don’t recall anyone expressing a desire to go take a slash on David Lange’s grave either. At least, nobody foolish enough to do so in my earshot.
yes ,who’s a terrorist depends on who’s writing the history
And pace Morrissey and the IRA, “freedom fighters” is what you call people who aren’t strenuously trying to murder you and anyone else unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity at the time. (I wish Our Steve would put as much effort into making music that isn't akin to be fucked in the earhole with a factory farmed bratwurst as he does into troll-tastic interviews.)
I think that Washington’s revolutionary irregulars were considered terrorists by the British,
Of course they were considered terrorists (and traitors to boot) - their actions weren't called the American Revolution because it tested really well with the focus group.
Glenn Greenwald sums it up best for me: if you’re a public figure like a politician, then you’re open for criticism when you’re alive, and when you’re dead. To declare otherwise is usually an attempt to further an agenda and often rankly hypocritical. I don’t recall anyone buttoning their lips ‘out of respect’ when Hugo Chavez died, and I really doubt that they will when Castro kicks it.
I've had an awful lot of links to that in my Twitter feed over the last 24 hours, and the more I look at it the more I come to wonder if Greenwald has adroitly torched a straw Miss Manners.
And just for the record, Rich, when Chavez died I did ask a few Tweeps to tone down the "piss on his grave"-style rhetoric. I'd also respectfully suggest Greenwald has the dick privilege to not see the pretty rancid and intensely gendered shit that got thrown at Thatcher. And still does at any "aggressive" ANGRY un-woman in politics -- from Gillard through Hillary Clinton to Angela Merkel.