45th Anniversary of Stonewall: Reflections from the Democratic Socialists of America

  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 27, 2014 3:09 PM GMT
    http://www.dsausa.org/re_igniting_socialist_queer_politics

    It would be really interesting to know what take the older guys who DO remember those days have on this article.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2014 8:37 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy saidhttp://www.dsausa.org/re_igniting_socialist_queer_politics

    It would be really interesting to know what take the older guys who DO remember those days have on this article.


    Thanks for posting this reminder of what part of the heady '60s was like. As an "older guy," I well remember the lesbians and gay men who seemed to have nothing else to do with their lives other than to create and then haunt - after demanding, and too many times receiving, public funds for them - "community centers" where they presumed to dictate who the community was and what it should believe. I distanced myself from those people REAL quick and never looked back - except to watch out for knives. This cliche-ridden, sociobabbling screed could have come from a Stalinist tract of the 1930s and holds as little for me now as it did back then. But, don't take my word for it, let the document speak for itself:

    "They [GLF] formed coalitions with other groups struggling for change, the feminist movement, civil right [sic] organizations, the student movement and other left-wing political organizations. Unfortunately, ... they dissolved in 1972 due to infighting among organization leaders.

    ... While it is clear that the movement has made significant gains, the radical edge, the demand to fully restructure sexuality and gender norms as well as the economic and social foundation on which they rest, has been lost for many queer activists and allies. It should be of concern that the greatest achievements to date are acceptance into the military and acceptance into the nuclear familiar structure. While these may be important gains for many queer people, they are hardly the victories of a vibrant left-wing movement."


    See what happens when misfits who never learned to play well together and presume to speak for everyone assume leadership positions? Sound familiar? As to the belittled "important gains," they're much more important to me - and most, i.e. 50%+ - gays and lesbians than is pushing a permissive Socio-Communist-Laborite agenda, currently masquerading under the name of "social justice."

    "Today, we confront a vicious form of capitalism but one that is wholly capable of tolerating a plurality of identities. The neoliberal and libertarian Right cannot stress enough the degree to which we must be free to choose. Certainly they feel some degree of comfort that the push for marriage equality never insists on de-coupling social rights from marriage. Under our contemporary regime of accumulation we see both the ascendance of a mainstream LGBTQ movement and a reassertion of the oppressive forces early activists had fought hard against. How could this be?"

    Antwort: It can be only in the muddled minds of these latter-day Leninists. Capitalism will ever be "vicious" to them, and they asperse "accumulation" - presumably of wealth, possessions, and power - while ignoring their own lust for at least the latter, if not the two formers in actual practice.

    "Indeed, many "pride" marches, once a militant and transgressive assertion of identity meant to confront directly the dominant sexual ideology, have been “pink-washed” by major corporations and effectively marketed for suburban consumption. Nowadays, it is not difficult to find advertising with pro-LGBTQ messages or imagine corporations jockeying for sponsorship rights of this or that festival. Not long ago many of these same companies refused to hire members of LGBTQ communities, and actively backed anti-gay politicians, but seeing how profitable the "gay market" can be they have since changed their tune. Pink-washed LGBTQ campaigns also, quite intentionally, neglect to call attention to the very real poverty and violence that so many queer people face."

    Finally, a relevant and agreeable point, but one nevertheless infected with the rueful world-view that boils down to "damned if you do, damned if you don't." It's not necessary to "imagine" corporate sponsorship of gay events, not all of which are mere festivals but include gay professional and political organizations, since they've been a part of gay culture for several decades; even the once-dreaded Coors Brewing Co. has contributed to our causes and candidates for at least that long. And, can anyone say they've been to a Pride March that didn't include at least a few speeches about poverty and violence in our community? If so, then all that legalistic churning to make spousal abuse laws as bias-free as marriage ones has been for nought.

    The op-ed then repeats, if not exactly embellishes, its earlier cant, while throwing a few bombs at what we've accomplished over the past quarter-century in terms of first adoption and then marriage rights:

    "Further, the dominant liberal ideology surrounding queer politics is stuck on affirming traditionally oppressive and constricting structures (the nuclear family, fixed sexual categories etc.) in the service of queer rights. Many liberals insist on a biological root of sexuality (“born-this-way” rhetoric has traditionally been used in the service of genocide, not civil rights) which allows no room for flexibility and fluidity. Liberals are expected to believe that queerness is no different than straightness and insist that the family form (two parents, two children) should remain perfectly intact."

    And what socialist - or Labor - rant would be complete without a membership lure, or is it just sugar coating the expression that "misery loves company?"

    "... [W]e should reaffirm the articulation between socialist and queer politics. ... [S]ocialist issues are queer issues. ... This means fighting for more pluralistic work environments, better pay and unionization (and fighting for democracy within those unions) are not simply class issues that are parallel to the LGBTQ struggle -- they are integral to it. Let’s not forget that, while there have been victories for LGBTQ rights in the political sphere, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is still met with staunch opposition."

    And let's not forget that ENDA came within an inch of passing the Senate had Al Gore been obliged to break the tie vote that would have been presented him had an AR Democrat senator not feigned illness the day the vote was taken. But, why should this matter - whetever the outcome - to a group that is pledged to dismantle the "neoliberal state" and its components, except for the "social support that should be de-coupled from work and the market," presumably leaving it in the hands of a socialist government. We've seen how well that works in Scandinavia, the former USSR, DDR, PRK, ...

    And so to end with damnation by faint praise:

    "The LGBTQ movement thus far has been remarkably successful in terms of political victories and this should not be discounted. However, it would be disingenuous to suggest that we are on the cusp of queer liberation. And it is worrisome to see how quickly corporate interests have co-opted and marketed the gay movement. The radical flame of Stonewall must be reignited and socialist-queer politics along with it."

    No, thanks, I'll take my capitalism double-strength, please, with all the imagined evils that come with it.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 28, 2014 9:01 PM GMT
    I couldn't agree with you less, of course, but VERY well said! Cheers! icon_smile.gif
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jun 28, 2014 9:49 PM GMT
    lol socialists are nothing but hyper-capitalists in disguise

    bunch of fucking elitist, hypocritical power-hungry wannabe's
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 28, 2014 10:12 PM GMT
    tj85016 saidlol socialists are nothing but hyper-capitalists in disguise

    bunch of fucking elitist, hypocritical power-hungry wannabe's


    My great-grandfather once taught me: "If you essentially believe human beings are meant to compete, in order to survive, you're a capitalist; if you essentially believe human beings are meant to cooperate, in order to survive, you're a socialist."

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2014 10:18 PM GMT
    It was pretty rough back in the day. I came out at age 21 in 1991, in a little farm town in the heart of the bible belt.

    A lot of good shit was done. A lot of bad shit was done. In the end, here we are, practically freebirds compared to what it used to be (unless you still live in a farm town in the bible belt).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2014 12:13 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    WrestlerBoy saidhttp://www.dsausa.org/re_igniting_socialist_queer_politics

    It would be really interesting to know what take the older guys who DO remember those days have on this article.


    Thanks for posting this reminder of what part of the heady '60s was like. As an "older guy," I well remember the lesbians and gay men who seemed to have nothing else to do with their lives other than to create and then haunt - after demanding, and too many times receiving, public funds for them - "community centers" where they presumed to dictate who the community was and what it should believe. I distanced myself from those people REAL quick and never looked back - except to watch out for knives. This cliche-ridden, sociobabbling screed could have come from a Stalinist tract of the 1930s and holds as little for me now as it did back then. But, don't take my word for it, let the document speak for itself:

    "They [GLF] formed coalitions with other groups struggling for change, the feminist movement, civil right [sic] organizations, the student movement and other left-wing political organizations. Unfortunately, ... they dissolved in 1972 due to infighting among organization leaders.

    ... While it is clear that the movement has made significant gains, the radical edge, the demand to fully restructure sexuality and gender norms as well as the economic and social foundation on which they rest, has been lost for many queer activists and allies. It should be of concern that the greatest achievements to date are acceptance into the military and acceptance into the nuclear familiar structure. While these may be important gains for many queer people, they are hardly the victories of a vibrant left-wing movement."


    See what happens when misfits who never learned to play well together and presume to speak for everyone assume leadership positions? Sound familiar? As to the belittled "important gains," they're much more important to me - and most, i.e. 50%+ - gays and lesbians than is pushing a permissive Socio-Communist-Laborite agenda, currently masquerading under the name of "social justice."

    "Today, we confront a vicious form of capitalism but one that is wholly capable of tolerating a plurality of identities. The neoliberal and libertarian Right cannot stress enough the degree to which we must be free to choose. Certainly they feel some degree of comfort that the push for marriage equality never insists on de-coupling social rights from marriage. Under our contemporary regime of accumulation we see both the ascendance of a mainstream LGBTQ movement and a reassertion of the oppressive forces early activists had fought hard against. How could this be?"

    Antwort: It can be only in the muddled minds of these latter-day Leninists. Capitalism will ever be "vicious" to them, and they asperse "accumulation" - presumably of wealth, possessions, and power - while ignoring their own lust for at least the latter, if not the two formers in actual practice.

    "Indeed, many "pride" marches, once a militant and transgressive assertion of identity meant to confront directly the dominant sexual ideology, have been “pink-washed” by major corporations and effectively marketed for suburban consumption. Nowadays, it is not difficult to find advertising with pro-LGBTQ messages or imagine corporations jockeying for sponsorship rights of this or that festival. Not long ago many of these same companies refused to hire members of LGBTQ communities, and actively backed anti-gay politicians, but seeing how profitable the "gay market" can be they have since changed their tune. Pink-washed LGBTQ campaigns also, quite intentionally, neglect to call attention to the very real poverty and violence that so many queer people face."

    Finally, a relevant and agreeable point, but one nevertheless infected with the rueful world-view that boils down to "damned if you do, damned if you don't." It's not necessary to "imagine" corporate sponsorship of gay events, not all of which are mere festivals but include gay professional and political organizations, since they've been a part of gay culture for several decades; even the once-dreaded Coors Brewing Co. has contributed to our causes and candidates for at least that long. And, can anyone say they've been to a Pride March that didn't include at least a few speeches about poverty and violence in our community? If so, then all that legalistic churning to make spousal abuse laws as bias-free as marriage ones has been for nought.

    The op-ed then repeats, if not exactly embellishes, its earlier cant, while throwing a few bombs at what we've accomplished over the past quarter-century in terms of first adoption and then marriage rights:

    "Further, the dominant liberal ideology surrounding queer politics is stuck on affirming traditionally oppressive and constricting structures (the nuclear family, fixed sexual categories etc.) in the service of queer rights. Many liberals insist on a biological root of sexuality (“born-this-way” rhetoric has traditionally been used in the service of genocide, not civil rights) which allows no room for flexibility and fluidity. Liberals are expected to believe that queerness is no different than straightness and insist that the family form (two parents, two children) should remain perfectly intact."

    And what socialist - or Labor - rant would be complete without a membership lure, or is it just sugar coating the expression that "misery loves company?"

    "... [W]e should reaffirm the articulation between socialist and queer politics. ... [S]ocialist issues are queer issues. ... This means fighting for more pluralistic work environments, better pay and unionization (and fighting for democracy within those unions) are not simply class issues that are parallel to the LGBTQ struggle -- they are integral to it. Let’s not forget that, while there have been victories for LGBTQ rights in the political sphere, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is still met with staunch opposition."

    And let's not forget that ENDA came within an inch of passing the Senate had Al Gore been obliged to break the tie vote that would have been presented him had an AR Democrat senator not feigned illness the day the vote was taken. But, why should this matter - whetever the outcome - to a group that is pledged to dismantle the "neoliberal state" and its components, except for the "social support that should be de-coupled from work and the market," presumably leaving it in the hands of a socialist government. We've seen how well that works in Scandinavia, the former USSR, DDR, PRK, ...

    And so to end with damnation by faint praise:

    "The LGBTQ movement thus far has been remarkably successful in terms of political victories and this should not be discounted. However, it would be disingenuous to suggest that we are on the cusp of queer liberation. And it is worrisome to see how quickly corporate interests have co-opted and marketed the gay movement. The radical flame of Stonewall must be reignited and socialist-queer politics along with it."

    No, thanks, I'll take my capitalism double-strength, please, with all the imagined evils that come with it.


    Agreed. The authoritarianism of the Left is rarely ever questioned, and indeed embraced by most of the news and culture media.


    ... [W]e should reaffirm the articulation between socialist and queer politics. ... [S]ocialist issues are queer issues.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2014 12:27 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    tj85016 saidlol socialists are nothing but hyper-capitalists in disguise

    bunch of fucking elitist, hypocritical power-hungry wannabe's


    My great-grandfather once taught me: "If you essentially believe human beings are meant to compete, in order to survive, you're a capitalist; if you essentially believe human beings are meant to cooperate, in order to survive, you're a socialist."



    What your great-grandpa had wrong was in looking at it from a survival (or subsistence) aspect.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2014 12:32 PM GMT
    Jack_NNJ said
    WrestlerBoy said
    tj85016 saidlol socialists are nothing but hyper-capitalists in disguise

    bunch of fucking elitist, hypocritical power-hungry wannabe's


    My great-grandfather once taught me: "If you essentially believe human beings are meant to compete, in order to survive, you're a capitalist; if you essentially believe human beings are meant to cooperate, in order to survive, you're a socialist."



    What your great-grandpa had wrong was in looking at it from a survival (or subsistence) aspect.
    If you essentially believe human beings were meant to survive, you're incorrect. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 12:21 AM GMT
    paulflexes said
    Jack_NNJ said
    WrestlerBoy said
    tj85016 saidlol socialists are nothing but hyper-capitalists in disguise

    bunch of fucking elitist, hypocritical power-hungry wannabe's


    My great-grandfather once taught me: "If you essentially believe human beings are meant to compete, in order to survive, you're a capitalist; if you essentially believe human beings are meant to cooperate, in order to survive, you're a socialist."



    What your great-grandpa had wrong was in looking at it from a survival (or subsistence) aspect.
    If you essentially believe human beings were meant to survive, you're incorrect. icon_wink.gif


    "Meant to survive"? Meant by whom?

    In any case, I'll grant that. Yes, we were meant to survive.

    But we also want to thrive. "Socialists/collectivists" reject that ideal. For them, survival and subsistence is all we should work for. Anything beyond that is selfish and greedy.

    They can blow me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 12:24 AM GMT
    http://www.dsausa.org/re_igniting_socialist_queer_politics
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 1:05 AM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    It would be really interesting to know what take the older guys who DO remember those days have on this article.

    I was 20 years old when Stonewall happened. I was just a few blocks away from it, but not involved.

    I was shopping in Manhattan, just a week before I was scheduled to voluntarily enter the US Army.

    I was at Abercrombie & Fitch, when it was still an outdoor outfitter, like L.L. Bean or Eddie Bauer used to be. Not like it is today, all kids clothes. I already had a shotgun, a sleeping bag, tent, compass, all kinds of camping things from them. They had outfitted my Father and Uncle during WWII, and so I wanted them to outfit me, too, as I entered the Army.

    And then I went down the street (I think it was Madison Avenue) to Mark Cross (now closed), where I always got all my personal leather goods, like wallets, keycases & gloves. I wanted a shaving kit, we called it a Dopp kit back then. Mark Cross was so good, when I told them it was for the Army they embossed my initials on it in real gold leaf for free. I kept it for over 20 years.

    Well, anyway, the Stonewall riots were going on at the very same moment, just a few blocks away. I didn't know it. When I got back home it was on TV, and in the newspaper.

    Rather hostile coverage, the gays were portrayed as thugs. (A popular word with the US Right Wing today, against both Blacks and gays)

    So I didn't know what to think. A week later I was wearing a uniform, and thoughts of gay didn't return to me for another 25 years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 1:10 AM GMT
    Omitted here is the dark side of queer radical politics. The radical Left is largely responsible for the appearance of HIV, by preaching a doctrine of free love; “rimming as a revolutionary act”; proclaiming that “gay men should wear their sexually transmitted diseases like red badges of courage in a war against a sex-negative society,” etc.

    Immune systems were compromised and became ripe fields for the onslaught of AIDS and HIV, along with many other maladies which hadn’t been seen in a century.

    "Everyone who preached free love in the Sixties is responsible for AIDS. This idea that it was somehow an accident, a microbe that sort of fell from heaven — absurd. We must face what we did." -Camille Paglia
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 1:16 AM GMT
    Jack_NNJ saidOmitted here is the dark side of queer radical politics. The radical Left is largely responsible for the appearance of HIV, by preaching a doctrine of free love; “rimming as a revolutionary act”; proclaiming that “gay men should wear their sexually transmitted diseases like red badges of courage in a war against a sex-negative society,” etc.

    Immune systems were compromised and became ripe fields for the onslaught of AIDS and HIV, along with many other maladies which hadn’t been seen in a century.

    "Everyone who preached free love in the Sixties is responsible for AIDS. This idea that it was somehow an accident, a microbe that sort of fell from heaven — absurd. We must face what we did." -Camille Paglia

    If you hate gays so much, why are you on this site? Or is that the reason you ARE here?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 1:19 AM GMT
    The, um... "lighter" side of DSA's Twitter feed:

    Bq5otvBIcAA_Fau.jpg

    Thelma and Leslie, fast food workers from Charleston, SC representing at #freedom50 in MS #organizethesouth @MSNAACP #RaiseUpFor$15AnHour

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2014 1:54 AM GMT
    tj85016 saidlol socialists are nothing but hyper-capitalists in disguise

    bunch of fucking elitist, hypocritical power-hungry wannabe's


    Amen
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 30, 2014 3:39 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]Art_Deco said[/cite]
    Jack_NNJ saidOmitted here is the dark side of queer radical politics. The radical Left is largely responsible for the appearance of HIV, by preaching a doctrine of free love; “rimming as a revolutionary act”; proclaiming that “gay men should wear their sexually transmitted diseases like red badges of courage in a war against a sex-negative society,” etc.

    Immune systems were compromised and became ripe fields for the onslaught of AIDS and HIV, along with many other maladies which hadn’t been seen in a century.

    "Everyone who preached free love in the Sixties is responsible for AIDS. This idea that it was somehow an accident, a microbe that sort of fell from heaven — absurd. We must face what we did." -Camille Paglia

    If you hate gays so much, why are you on this site? Or is that the reason you ARE here?[/quote

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3860720

    Yes. That is exactly the reason he is here. See above.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 30, 2014 3:43 PM GMT
    Jack_NNJ said
    paulflexes said
    Jack_NNJ said
    WrestlerBoy said
    tj85016 saidlol socialists are nothing but hyper-capitalists in disguise

    bunch of fucking elitist, hypocritical power-hungry wannabe's


    My great-grandfather once taught me: "If you essentially believe human beings are meant to compete, in order to survive, you're a capitalist; if you essentially believe human beings are meant to cooperate, in order to survive, you're a socialist."



    What your great-grandpa had wrong was in looking at it from a survival (or subsistence) aspect.
    If you essentially believe human beings were meant to survive, you're incorrect. icon_wink.gif


    "Meant to survive"? Meant by whom?

    In any case, I'll grant that. Yes, we were meant to survive.

    But we also want to thrive. "Socialists/collectivists" reject that ideal. For them, survival and subsistence is all we should work for. Anything beyond that is selfish and greedy.

    They can blow me.


    Actually, at your age, you should get fucked, for once in your life, to loosen that anal retention.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2014 12:10 AM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said[quote][cite]Art_Deco said[/cite]
    Jack_NNJ saidOmitted here is the dark side of queer radical politics. The radical Left is largely responsible for the appearance of HIV, by preaching a doctrine of free love; “rimming as a revolutionary act”; proclaiming that “gay men should wear their sexually transmitted diseases like red badges of courage in a war against a sex-negative society,” etc.

    Immune systems were compromised and became ripe fields for the onslaught of AIDS and HIV, along with many other maladies which hadn’t been seen in a century.

    "Everyone who preached free love in the Sixties is responsible for AIDS. This idea that it was somehow an accident, a microbe that sort of fell from heaven — absurd. We must face what we did." -Camille Paglia

    If you hate gays so much, why are you on this site? Or is that the reason you ARE here?[/quote

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3860720

    Yes. That is exactly the reason he is here. See above.


    Where's evidence that I "hate gays"?

    What I hate is collectivist, authoritarian politics and ideology.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2014 12:11 AM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    Jack_NNJ said
    paulflexes said
    Jack_NNJ said
    WrestlerBoy said
    tj85016 saidlol socialists are nothing but hyper-capitalists in disguise

    bunch of fucking elitist, hypocritical power-hungry wannabe's


    My great-grandfather once taught me: "If you essentially believe human beings are meant to compete, in order to survive, you're a capitalist; if you essentially believe human beings are meant to cooperate, in order to survive, you're a socialist."



    What your great-grandpa had wrong was in looking at it from a survival (or subsistence) aspect.
    If you essentially believe human beings were meant to survive, you're incorrect. icon_wink.gif


    "Meant to survive"? Meant by whom?

    In any case, I'll grant that. Yes, we were meant to survive.

    But we also want to thrive. "Socialists/collectivists" reject that ideal. For them, survival and subsistence is all we should work for. Anything beyond that is selfish and greedy.

    They can blow me.


    Actually, at your age, you should get fucked, for once in your life, to loosen that anal retention.


    So you disagree? Offer a coherent and logical rebuttal.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 01, 2014 12:15 AM GMT
    Jack_NNJ said
    WrestlerBoy said
    Jack_NNJ said
    paulflexes said
    Jack_NNJ said
    WrestlerBoy said
    tj85016 saidlol socialists are nothing but hyper-capitalists in disguise

    bunch of fucking elitist, hypocritical power-hungry wannabe's


    My great-grandfather once taught me: "If you essentially believe human beings are meant to compete, in order to survive, you're a capitalist; if you essentially believe human beings are meant to cooperate, in order to survive, you're a socialist."



    What your great-grandpa had wrong was in looking at it from a survival (or subsistence) aspect.
    If you essentially believe human beings were meant to survive, you're incorrect. icon_wink.gif


    "Meant to survive"? Meant by whom?

    In any case, I'll grant that. Yes, we were meant to survive.

    But we also want to thrive. "Socialists/collectivists" reject that ideal. For them, survival and subsistence is all we should work for. Anything beyond that is selfish and greedy.

    They can blow me.


    Actually, at your age, you should get fucked, for once in your life, to loosen that anal retention.


    So you disagree? Offer a coherent and logical rebuttal.


    Go to my take on you in the Mexican Supreme Court ruling forum, you base, racist, insecure, self-hating, insignificant worm.

    Que te vaya muy bonito.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2014 2:45 AM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    Jack_NNJ said
    WrestlerBoy said
    Jack_NNJ said
    paulflexes said
    Jack_NNJ said
    WrestlerBoy said
    tj85016 saidlol socialists are nothing but hyper-capitalists in disguise

    bunch of fucking elitist, hypocritical power-hungry wannabe's


    My great-grandfather once taught me: "If you essentially believe human beings are meant to compete, in order to survive, you're a capitalist; if you essentially believe human beings are meant to cooperate, in order to survive, you're a socialist."



    What your great-grandpa had wrong was in looking at it from a survival (or subsistence) aspect.
    If you essentially believe human beings were meant to survive, you're incorrect. icon_wink.gif


    "Meant to survive"? Meant by whom?

    In any case, I'll grant that. Yes, we were meant to survive.

    But we also want to thrive. "Socialists/collectivists" reject that ideal. For them, survival and subsistence is all we should work for. Anything beyond that is selfish and greedy.

    They can blow me.


    Actually, at your age, you should get fucked, for once in your life, to loosen that anal retention.


    So you disagree? Offer a coherent and logical rebuttal.


    Go to my take on you in the Mexican Supreme Court ruling forum, you base, racist, insecure, self-hating, insignificant worm.

    Que te vaya muy bonito.


    I saw it. Fascism, plain and simple.

    In the very same amendment, freedom of speech is guaranteed. I don't believe it was an accident that the framers put freedom of assembly, speech, press, and religion in the same amendment.

    You would like to mute those with whom you disagree. That is fascist, authoritarian, and dictatorial.

    "Interferes with secular discourse." Sheez, what a load of shit. Like it or not, religious expression and secular expression are bound together in one big, messy, and magnificent ball of intellectual ferment and vigor. In fact, they are naturally indistinguishable. Any attempt to separate them is artificial and oppressive.

    This is one of the most repellant features of the Left. I rarely hear of a "conservative" or libertarian, or Constitutionalist arguing against speech. Those on our side of the divide usually argue the opposite, that the solution for speech we don't like is more speech.

    And when anyone on my side suggests such censorship, I hand them their head as fast as I can.

    The solution for the Left again and again is to silence people.

    Your mentor, the always repugnant Dan Savage, got a taste of this firsthand recently at U of Chicago. See "IOP," "Hex," and "tranny." Of course, he's an idiot, so it naturally escapes him that there may just be a sickness which is endemic among his ideological brethren.

    We say let people speak, and they can make asses of themselves, and then we can point it out. Freedom is awesome; it can sometimes serve as its own punishment.

    Unfortunately, white Liberals want to keep themselves insulated from criticism. When they make asses of themselves, they don't want anyone pointing it out, and will happily use the power of government to silence opponents.

    Liberal fascism.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2014 3:02 AM GMT
    Learn it. Know it. Live it.

    BrbS9K0CIAAXgbY.jpg