On 2008-05-19 02:06 +0100, dusty allegedly wrote:
> On May 19, 8:43 am, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>> On 2008-05-18 21:09 +0100, Tom Checksmix allegedly wrote:
>>> 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?
Eeh? Do they hold hands? :D
But seriously, do you imply I took part in neo-nazi youth groups? That's
unwarranted, not very kind, and untrue.
I did however get to know
modern-flower-power-spineless-wannabe-hippie-bourgeois-whiners back when
I was young. What shall I say... they're not really bad of heart, but I
kind of didn't get along with them.
>> 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.
Yeah, probably along the same lines as the political correctness you
addressed earlier. What a fearsome weapon for the rulers! Rule is all
about divide et impera, down to the individuals. Quelling unrest is all
about prohibiting horizontal communication among the oppressed. What a
great weapon for that purpose if you can restrain discussion to some
sandboxed areas... you don't haven have to prohibit the discussion
/itself/. Terrifying.
> 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.
Exactly. Yet it seems that according to SRD, homo***uality invalidates
that.
--
DF.
to reply privately, change the top-level domain
in the FROM address from "invalid" to "net"
|
