On 2008-05-18 21:09 +0100, Tom Checksmix allegedly wrote:
> "Daniele Futtorovic" <da.futt.news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:g0ptf9$kal$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On 2008-05-18 19:46 +0100, stephen allegedly wrote:
>>> On May 17, 3:21 pm, dusty <trackdu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Clinical eh?
>>>>
>>>> What would you recommend Doc? Pre-frontal lobotomy, shock therapy or
>>>> just large dodes of the latest chemotherapeutant?
>>> What do YOU recommend for homo***uals, since I think you approximately
>>> share my views on that category? Even under modern bourgeois
>>> democracies, the presence of even overt psychosis does not justify
>>> imposing treatment. The issue here is to protect socialism from
>>> adaptation to those who purposes are necessarily sectarian in the
>>> extreme, as Engels recognized with respect to homo***uality.
>>>
>>> srd
>> O_O
>>
>> Socialism needs to be protected from... homo***uals. SRD's on a crusade
to
>> preserve the hetero***uality of socialism.
>>
>> This is getting better and better... NOT!
>>
>> --
>> DF.
>> to reply privately, change the top-level domain
>> in the FROM address from "invalid" to "net"
>
> From the apst archives - who and what the comrades are:
>
> [snip VERY long post]
Well, you surely had that ready.
It certainly was jolly interesting and for parts of it a good laugh.
Some of the stuff I assume was quoted from SRD actually made rather good
sense to me. But nevermind.
So SRD spoke of "butt****ers". So ****ing what. I too used the term
"faggots", essentially because I despise political correctness and
consider that a greater threat than hypothetical anti-homo***ual
witch-hunts. Certainly wouldn't have *****sed the situation thusly fifty
years ago.
But anyway. So, SRD doesn't like "butt****ers". Again: so what. He may
have good or bad reasons for that attitude, possibly traumatic
experiences or whatever. And while this may influence the healthiness of
personal relation****ps any of us might have with him, the point is that
the purpose of APST isn't to make friends. It's not a place to hold
hands and sing songs around the camp-fire. His personal views, while
there's no reason to ban them from utterance, don't amount to political
arguments. If someone can't tell the difference between the two, then he
should rather blame himself than SRD.
Since I started the current dispute, I feel I ought to try my best to
rectify the course it seems to have taken. I do disagree with SRD's take
on homo***uals, and I have exposed my position elsewhere in this thread.
But that wasn't what I objected to in my comment above.
What I objected to was his take that homo***uals represented a _threat_
to socialism itself, something it ought to be "protected from" (even
that phrasing "protect from" felt rather awkward). My first reaction
was that that's preposterous. Having read some of what "Tom Checksmix"
posted (I must admit I lost interest around half of it), I still think
it's preposterous, but I suppose I understand better what he meant --
viz. that homo***ual "interest groups" used the socialist movement for
their own agenda, or something like that.
I still think it's preposterous, because even if his allegations were
true, it still would be wrong to focus this on homo***uals. ***uality
ought to be free and unrestricted, whether it be for men, women,
homo***uals, hetero***uals or, most crucial of all, children. But
there's no justification to distinguish further than that. Once it is
free, it has to be private, meaning that people can live their ***uality
however they want. There is no reason to promote the ***ual rights of
homo***uals separately from those of women, for instance. Freedom for
all, indiscriminately, period.
If any group presses for action that goes against that basic goal, then,
surely, it must be opposed. But it is nonsense (and admittedly sounds
very much like pure bigotry) to aim to "cleanse" socialism from
homo***uality, just because the actions of some homo***uals or
homo***ual "interest groups" were detrimental to the socialist cause.
This would imply that all homo***uals, to the very last of them, were
incapable of any other behaviour. And that's precisely what's
preposterous about SRD's position. It's like moving to ban all Jews from
the Bolshevik party just because there happens to be one Jewish Bund.
Lastly, how much this is related to the subject I do not know, but let
it be noted that "affirmative action" is something each and every
socialist ought to fight against.
--
DF.
to reply privately, change the top-level domain
in the FROM address from "invalid" to "net"
|
