What should gays do to stay politically "relevant"...?

[harrysmith25]

Could you guys offer some actual helpful suggestions for how we could stay relevant?

That's what the question in the topic title was for.

If I wanted you to bleat the same dreary left-wing snoring points... I mean talking points that  you bleat every single day of your lives, I would have started a thread titled "Please pummel me with the  lame-ass left-wing talking points you spew every single day of your boring-ass lives"!

Edited January 21, 2023 by harrysmith25

[harrysmith25]

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

Again, loud and clear with the racism, message received.

Why, for some reason, do I think you had an account on here before and came in with this same Islamophobic diatribe mess? I suppose there are probably more than one of you over there, but still, this sounds so familiar.

Why, ohsay, doth thou, with some reason, believe, that, I, will, be, bowled, over, simply, because, you, can, insert, a, lot, of, dramatic, commas, into, your sen, tence, oh dreary, one?

Were, you, somehow, hoping, I, was, born, tomorrow, or, something?

I'm, so, sorry, that, you, suffer, from, this, pseudo-intellectual, delusion - I, mean, it, would, be, embarrassing, enough, if, you, were, a, college, student, who suffers, from, this delusion,, but for, someone, your, age, it's, just, down, right, pa, the, tic, eh, crippled, shack, dweller?

Edited January 21, 2023 by harrysmith25

[BootmanLA]

5 minutes ago, harrysmith25 said:

Why, ohsay, doth thou, with some reason, believe, that, I, will, be, bowled, over, simply, because, you, can, insert, a, lot, of, dramatic, commas, into, your sen, tence, oh dreary, one?

I'm sorry that my correctly punctuated sentences seem to bother you.

[SpectreAgent]

7 hours ago, drscorpio said:

There is a difference between what a person calls themselves and asks/tells their friends to call them and terms getting bandied about on the Internet. 

I have had black friends who liked me to use the N-word in race play because it was their kink. That doesn't give me license to say that word anytime and anyplace to any audience. 

It's a simple difference that we all understand. You folks are being disingenuous. 

If you felt I was being disingenuous, I apologise. That was not my intention. I was merely supporting the previous post that it can be much muddier waters to navigate than we care to imagine. I’m old enough to remember when “queer” was one of the worst insults that could be hurled my way. Now it’s been reclaimed but there are still guys who detest it. So what to do?  Not use it because a handful of older guys still find it offensive?

 

 

[PendragonSpirit]

5 hours ago, harrysmith25 said:

Mi... -lo... that guy? Yeah... seriously?

Clearly here I'm talking to someone who's got their finger firmly on the pulse... of February 2015...

To answer your first question about "why should we be relevant", i was going to say something so that *dumb people* don't forget we exist. Cause they are more important than you think and they do vote.

But then... after your mentioning "Milo"..... talking about dumb people to you seems... weird and redundant

In case you can't tell my jaw is absolutely nailed to the floor here by the pitifulness of you bringing up fucking "Milo"... Milo...

Milo.. Yiannopolis

As father jack said......."Don't tell I'm still on that feckin' island" (In this case, not craggy island but Brit-tardistan)

"Milo"? Are you implying his name isn't Milo? That seems like a weird hill to set your flag on.

And hey, you're the one who brought up us needing our own JK. You offered up no options, so I did. Sorry if my choice doesn't meet your undisclosed expectations? 

Actually, no, I'm not sorry. You're kind of a dick, aren't you?

[BergenGuy]

10 hours ago, RawPlug said:

I’m old enough to remember when “queer” was one of the worst insults that could be hurled my way. Now it’s been reclaimed but there are still guys who detest it. So what to do?  Not use it because a handful of older guys still find it offensive?

I'm one of those "older guys" who find it offensive.  And, I'd wager that there's more than a handful of us.  Personally, I don't feel connected with any organization that has "queer" in the title.  In fact, I feel excluded.  

[BootmanLA]

10 hours ago, RawPlug said:

If you felt I was being disingenuous, I apologise. That was not my intention. I was merely supporting the previous post that it can be much muddier waters to navigate than we care to imagine. I’m old enough to remember when “queer” was one of the worst insults that could be hurled my way. Now it’s been reclaimed but there are still guys who detest it. So what to do?  Not use it because a handful of older guys still find it offensive?

I think the answer is pretty simple. If you identify as "queer", then feel free to label yourself so. If you don't, then don't. Don't label anyone else "queer" unless he or she has indicated that's how he or she identifies.

17 minutes ago, BergenGuy said:

I'm one of those "older guys" who find it offensive.  And, I'd wager that there's more than a handful of us.  Personally, I don't feel connected with any organization that has "queer" in the title.  In fact, I feel excluded.  

You're right that there are plenty of people who are still offended by the term, although that number decreases on a steady basis as older generations die out (and/or, sometimes, mellow). 

The takeaway, I think, is for people who don't like the term to object (politely, but firmly) to being so labeled while not disparaging those who do so identify. As long as it's not aimed at you, or at someone else in your company who doesn't like the term, it shouldn't be a problem. 

[drscorpio]

I find "queer" easier to say/use than "LGBTIAQ+" which is why I sometimes use it. I get why people are bothered by it, but language evolves over time. There is nothing you can do to stop it. 

[hntnhole]

2 hours ago, BergenGuy said:

I'd wager that there's more than a handful of us.

and, I reckon you'd win.

 

[hntnhole]

1 hour ago, drscorpio said:

say/use than "LGBTIAQ+

I avoid using that one, more because I don't want to inadvertently leave any of the letters, qualifiers out.  For me, it's plain old "gay" or, more bluntly, queer - which moniker I don't mind being called at all.

[BergenGuy]

23 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

I avoid using that one, more because I don't want to inadvertently leave any of the letters, qualifiers out.  For me, it's plain old "gay" or, more bluntly, queer - which moniker I don't mind being called at all.

Since the "+" seems to be a catchall, it seems to me that "LGBT+" should be sufficient.

[BootmanLA]

1 hour ago, BergenGuy said:

Since the "+" seems to be a catchall, it seems to me that "LGBT+" should be sufficient.

Maybe, maybe not.

If groups of people were routinely addressed as "Ladies (plus others)" I suspect a lot of men would complain about being relegated to being lumped in as a " plus other." Of course, business letters well into the middle of the 20th century were addressed to "Gentlemen:" if the recipient's name wasn't known, and only after a lot of women in business started making noise about that did "To whom it may concern" become widespread - it had existed, but wasn't considered formal or proper.

People who are covered by that "+" symbol can reasonably object to being shuffled into a category that's not well-defined at all. From the perspective of someone who *IS* covered by one of the primary initials, it may seem like much ado about nothing, but I suspect those would be the first people to complain if the phrase were shortened to, say, "LBT+" and gay men were just assumed to be in the "catchall".

I'm old enough to remember when it was simply "G&L" when you were referring to both gay men and lesbians, or just "gay". I remember LGB becoming more widely used as bisexuals began asserting their own, different identity (not just gays in denial), and I remember loud, vociferous fights over the move to LGBT because an awful lot of LGB people insisted that transgender/transsexual/transvestite issues were separate from gay (or gay and lesbian, or gay, lesbian, and bisexual) issues.

Which is why I have come around, over the years, on "queer". Yes, it's a slur in origin. But it's also one of the few words I can imagine that covers all the people involved, without having to keep adding on letters (LGBTQIAMNOP). 

"Gay" was a slur once, too. We adapted. We (or most of us, at least) can adapt to "queer", eventually.

[SpectreAgent]

5 hours ago, BergenGuy said:

I'm one of those "older guys" who find it offensive.  And, I'd wager that there's more than a handful of us.  Personally, I don't feel connected with any organization that has "queer" in the title.  In fact, I feel excluded.  

I’m still not comfortable with it, to be honest (being an older guy myself). But when I saw a bar named Queer in Manchester’s gay village I thought that maybe it was time to stop fretting about it. Is it irony? Is it taking back an insult and aiming it straight back? Who knows? I have neither the time nor the inclination to worry about it.

[SpectreAgent]

3 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

Maybe, maybe not.

If groups of people were routinely addressed as "Ladies (plus others)" I suspect a lot of men would complain about being relegated to being lumped in as a " plus other." Of course, business letters well into the middle of the 20th century were addressed to "Gentlemen:" if the recipient's name wasn't known, and only after a lot of women in business started making noise about that did "To whom it may concern" become widespread - it had existed, but wasn't considered formal or proper.

People who are covered by that "+" symbol can reasonably object to being shuffled into a category that's not well-defined at all. From the perspective of someone who *IS* covered by one of the primary initials, it may seem like much ado about nothing, but I suspect those would be the first people to complain if the phrase were shortened to, say, "LBT+" and gay men were just assumed to be in the "catchall".

I'm old enough to remember when it was simply "G&L" when you were referring to both gay men and lesbians, or just "gay". I remember LGB becoming more widely used as bisexuals began asserting their own, different identity (not just gays in denial), and I remember loud, vociferous fights over the move to LGBT because an awful lot of LGB people insisted that transgender/transsexual/transvestite issues were separate from gay (or gay and lesbian, or gay, lesbian, and bisexual) issues.

Which is why I have come around, over the years, on "queer". Yes, it's a slur in origin. But it's also one of the few words I can imagine that covers all the people involved, without having to keep adding on letters (LGBTQIAMNOP). 

"Gay" was a slur once, too. We adapted. We (or most of us, at least) can adapt to "queer", eventually.

I think you’ve eloquently put what I (perhaps more clumsily) was trying to say: that these waters are more difficult to navigate than we sometimes think. As others have said, language is always evolving. And there are regional and geographical differences, too. What might be terribly offensive in the US, say, might be less so over here. And vice versa. 

[RawUK]

2 minutes ago, RawPlug said:

I think you’ve eloquently put what I (perhaps more clumsily) was trying to say: that these waters are more difficult to navigate than we sometimes think. As others have said, language is always evolving. And there are regional and geographical differences, too. What might be terribly offensive in the US, say, might be less so over here. And vice versa. 

'I am having a fag' has a completely different meaning in the UK to the US for example. If a UK smoker (a fag to most people here is a cigarette), said that in the wrong circles in the US,  at best he'll get a strange look, but at worse who knows!