WaPo: Muslims hate homos. Clearly, this is Drumpflemort's fault
(acecomments.mu.nu)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (39)
sorted by:
We could do with that kind of doublethink. Let people do what they want, no harm no foul, but stop the cultural subversion in its tracks.
That's not double think, though. That's just understanding boundaries.
Yeah but it kind of has the same result, doesn't it? The leftists/global elites are always dishonestly redefining terms to get their way, so why can't we define homosexuality as the evil cultural subversion and just turn a blind eye to the sexual acts? Actually, didn't it work that way for a long time? Homosexual acts were technically illegal but the laws just weren't enforced?
Well, forget about homosexuality for a minute because that's not the issue of tactics we're talking about. You're talking about weaponizing the re-definition of terms.
You don't want to do that because you are ceding control over reality and objectivity itself. Now, the Left always wants to abandon reality and objectivity in favor of ideological pursuit, but it's not ground anyone else should give up. Once you give up on being consistent with definitions, the entire fight becomes a complete abstraction and ideological. At that point, the Left can outflank you from any position they want, arguing one hyper-reality against another.
Only sometimes. This is a major problem when it comes to the concept of the state as a moral enforcer. Infamously, Alan Turing was chemically castrated (which eventually lead to his suicide) for a consensual relationship. While it is odd for a 39 year old and a 19 year old to be in a relationship, we'd still be tolerant of a heterosexual relationship at that age, even if it was uncouth, it wouldn't be illegal, let alone justify castration. The pressure on British homosexuals was severe enough that they invented a kind of internal language.
Moralists will refuse to address the cause of the moral violations, and will instead just keep using the police to punish violators, without ever fixing the underlying social failing. If Christian moralists hadn't been relying on the state to solve all their moral problems for the past 70 years, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. You want to have some kind of social enforcement to keep things clean, and keep things from spiraling. This is why a local community would know who a local homosexual was, but wouldn't prosecute him, because he was one of their community members who was just needed to be taken care of (like the local hobo or hermit). I get that that is closer to what you're going for, but it doesn't work either.
Keeping gay relationships as a segregated part of society was workable, but wasn't necessarily a good idea as it drove all gays underground into a level of even more severe degeneracy than what we see. It may not be a Christian ethic, but homosexual marriage has probably done more good for gay men than anything else, providing them with something close to a healthy monogamous relationship. You don't really want to just ignore it, otherwise you get what led up to Stonewall. The gay activists don't like to talk about why there was a police crackdown on Stonewall, just that there was. Truth is, since homosexuality was illegal, the mob took advantage of the demand for a homosexual social place, and created an illegal gay bar. Already, that's supporting organized crime. Worse, because the police are being bribed not to look into it, it's spreading corruption. Then on top of that, since it's effectively lawless, bad shit's starting to happen like rapes and sexual batteries that go unreported, and the felons go unrepentant. The degeneracy actually starts to go hog wild because anonymity starts to get involved: glory holes, dark rooms (orgies where no one can see each other), and so on and so forth. Then disease starts to spread. But it keeps getting worse, and gay prostitutes start leaving the Greenwich area (because they don't want to pay off the mob) and start going into neighboring communities. Eventually, the cops end up breaking up a 40 man orgy that was taking place in a meat truck in a nearby grocery store, and the cops decide they have to stop looking the other way. Thus, there is a crackdown. In the raid, they start recording the name of everyone involved, and instead of fines like normal, they're making mass arrests. Which means everyone there is going to lose their jobs, their families, and their friends; all while the place was already effectively lawless to begin with.
It's the perfect storm to get you a riot with a kick line.
Believe or not, what we are seeing now is much the same. Pride parades are effectively lawless and having spiraling degeneracy that feeds off itself. You can't ignore it and segregate it. It has to be integrated into the society and live to specific standards. That's why gay marriage as a secular institution has some value: you don't see monogamous gay men (like Dave Rubin) get caught in a police dragnet at a meat-truck orgy.
I struggle sometimes with whether it's the right move to adopt their weapons (after all, when the dust clears you want a healthy society) but I disagree that it would be ceding control. They're already redefining everything. They already have superiority in the realm of dishonest argument, because they engage in it all the time, and we try not to. But our insistent adherence to reality is one of our major strengths, and it would be risky to give that up.
However, I agree that driving a threat underground runs the risk of it proliferating unchecked. But there's a difficult balance to achieve. Some of what you describe occurring at Stonewall is indeed harmful to a wider society, but society was definitively stronger when homosexuality was segregated. It's when it become 'integrated' that the slippery slope came into full, alarming effect - admittedly at the hands of dishonest activists who wished it so. And really, has gay marriage helped homosexual men so much? Anecdotally, I don't see a great uptick in the amount of healthy, monogamous relationships. It certainly hasn't improved the moral rectitude of the gay community, which seems as degenerate and promiscuous as it ever was, and much more subversive.
Besides, I'm of the firm belief that society needs an underground scene as a sort of pressure valve for the misfits of said society, or even those who resent the growing regimentation of the west - as long as their harmful ways are kept localized to the underground scene. Which is difficult to achieve - like I said, it's a difficult balance.
As to whether we need laws against homosexuality, enforced or otherwise - I was really just playing devil's advocate, and I suppose acknowledging how much better things seemed to work in the semi-recent past, when 'unofficial tolerance' was the way. But I think removing propaganda and anti-speech cabals alone would put us in a much better position to keep the sickness in check. In truth, I legitimately do not care what gay people do to each other so long as they're not messing with kids or spreading disease to a wider society.
But thank you for the engaging and informative reply.