On May 19, 8:43=A0am, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On 2008-05-18 21:09 +0100, Tom Checksmix allegedly wrote:
> > "Daniele Futtorovic" <da.futt.n...@[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 =A0presence 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
> >> 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.
Got it in one again DF. To his eternal credit, Diamond has been the
guardian against PC on apst for a long time now - he knows that if
that pox so beloved of the "Far Left" gets hold here (anywhere)and
sets the bounds for discussion - enquiry is gone and the MOST
****INGLY BORING backslapping sets in. The price - no new knowledge -
just falsification about a very complex world that becomes nastier and
nastier each day.
> 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.
Don't like community singing eh? Too much post Hitler youth groups?
> 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.
I'll leave the science of homo***uality to the experts. One thing I do
know is that some leftist groups seriously overemphasise the
im****tance of homo***ual "rights", linking it up to each and every
question. That's disgusting - unwarranted, narcissistic (?) and
definitely a cultural barrier to communicating with working class
people - and I would suggest DESIGNED as such - and associated with a
real petty bourgeois hatred of the "racist", "homophobic" (****, what
a word) working class.
But what an individual does in bed with a consenting adult human being
is his own business - if a socialist he belongs, if he so choses, in a
socialist organisation.
> 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.
|
