Hopefully for right-leaning homos

[nanana]

Greetings all:

given the way our more left-leaning brothers bring great passion,  argumentation, and volume to their commentary, I wonder If they’d let us have a left-free thread to explore what it means to be a non-leftist homo. They’d be very welcome to be voyeurs and even to start a separate passionate vociferous thread about how awful and misguided our perspectives are. I would certainly enjoy reading such a thread and agree not to inflame their sensibilities if they would also be gentlemen about this one. So, I pose the question: if you identify as a non-leftist homo, what issues are most important to you and why? What should be done? 

[topblkmale]

 

The answer to your 'they' question is NO.

But I have to ask - why are you using the term homo and right-leaning?

 

[viking8x6]

27 minutes ago, topblkmale said:

The answer to your 'they' question is NO.

Perhaps you'd do 'them' the courtesy of allowing 'them' to demonstrate their willingness to listen and to support this exploration, rather than prejudicially answering the question before 'they' have any chance to do so. @nanana asked very nicely. Give 'them' a chance.

[nanana]

Thanks topblkmale for the questions and viking8x6 for encouragement for the inquiry. 
 

Topblkmale, I use The term homo because I enjoy It, and also because it’s a word that dropped out of the woke-influenced vocabulary. I think I use It partly because the left’s drive to censor everything offensive as having VERY BAD if unintended consequences. I forget where I read it but really like the insight that the caveman who put down his rocks and arrows and started swearing invented civilization. I think if we are going to live nonviolently on multi-tribal earth, we’re going to have to man up and let the swearing fly. Right-leaning is less clear to me, would not have thought of myself as on the right until very recently. That’s partly why I’m posing the question. To me, being on the right means not feeling guilty about standing up for my interests and trusting that others will do the same and we’ll figure it out RATHER than trying to imagine how offensive everything must be other people and hijacking their voices. It also means not being afraid to be a solitary hero.  But I’m just shit-talking until I can Get a crowd of men to talk back.  
 

What did I miss?

[Rillion]

I used to be right leaning and even voted Republican in my first election, but now the Republican party has shifted so far right that I am now on the left. So interested in hearing from those that still consider themselves on the conservative side. 

[NordicBtm]

I don’t live in the US but I follow media there and in Europe. I don’t really consider myself that far right leaning but I do feel the whole woke agenda has pushed the mainstream pretty far left so in that sense I’m definitely strongly against it and would be on the right in that battle.  It’s a toxic worldview IMO because it is this panacea where all your problems can be blamed on other people and you glorify the victim status. It’s also similar to communism in this sense and I know many people that grew up under communism in Eastern Europe and the woke people on the left honestly have no idea that they are useful idiots to an ideology that can only tear down things because it’s not interested in building up anything. They might change their mind about intersectionalism and how great it is when they’re standing in 3 hour lines for food at the grocery store but by then it will be too late.

As far as what to do? That’s a tough one because I always feel like people exist in their own marinated echo chambers, maybe especially so people in the US and especially so people that identify as Democrats. At some point though when you’ve been told for a long time not to believe your lying eyes and ears (example: Joe Biden is sharp as a tick) you either have to decide to stand up for yourself and make your own opinions or continue to be a sheep. If the media lied to you for years about obvious truths, what do they continue to lie about for a certain narrative and why?

[PozTalkAuthor]

I hardly label myself when talking about politics, but I'm scared. Very scared.

I am strongly in favor of "diversity equity inclusion" stuff, but my horrible sensation is that we are being USED by both parties: left side for a propaganda, right side for the other. I feel like both are pulling my feet, and causing me pain.

To explain it better, even not approving the choice, I perfectly understand why many LGBT, people with disabilities, black, and so on... prefer to address themselves toward conservatives rather than the opposite. It's the paradox of choosing someone who use hate for propaganda and then in the end might not even care about us, rather than voting for someone who uses us, says a lot of good words, then sit down and change nothing (or change things slowly, wasting time discussing).

I was just talking about this with a friend who is totally blind. We were talking about tech related topics, the eternal debate "open and closed, free or paid, AI or not AI". It's endless.

And my friend reported that they find too many "left-oriented" folks saying "let's fill AI with fake news and make it useless so people stops polluting and wasting water for that bullshit. Let's boycott blah blah blah" but I have seen it with my eyes, how AI tech and "big tech" in general, give quick help to people with disabilities.

So my friend said "how could I trust 'free-oriented' people if they then give me fewer help? I won't because I reason differently but my instinct would bring me to vote to the right where I have the illusion they do something". 

I personally don't hate DEI policies, I hate how they are adopted!

No sense in selling pride-related gadgets in June, sending social network posts, hashtags and webinars all around, if then the gay/poz/whatever person is bullied at work for some reason. Useless to create a women-friendly policy when men look at the woman's butt when she bends down to pick up a product from the vending machine.

Inclusion is not made by inventing the stories about thousands of queer characters where they have basically nothing to do with the plot, or having a black woman interpreting the role of a Caucasian character. Or worse, "just gay actors can play the role of gay characters".

I'm a writer, a damned amateur writer. I'm sighted, HIV positive, attracted by men. Someone should explain why despite being sighted I couldn't write about blind. Or being HIV poz I couldn't impersonate a neg character, or talking about a man-woman affair, despite being partnered to a man.

I never choose to enter the commercial circle because I don't want my own creativity to be ruled. Because inclusion and equity for me is a deeper battle, intersectional. And real intersectionalism can't be made by marketing and propaganda. It need empathy with no doubt, but empathy is useless without culture, awareness and education. 

Human rights are not a card to play and to bet on.

My 2 cents.

P.S. - to make what i mean a little clearer, I bring up an example based on entertainment. Netflix Spanish tv show "Breathless", based on medical plots.

There are 4 LGBT characters, two men and two women; in Spain it's 18 years they have same sex marriage and families so, we could say, "they would be treated like other families".

NO.

Spoilers...

The two gays meet in a chems related party, one is a doctor and the other is addicted to substances and has contracted all possible sti's in this world, HIV included.

The two women, one is pregnant and her partner then leaves her just before birth. And then kidnaps her newborn baby...

Many LGBT folks feel represented by this kind of stories, and I don't.

It's surreal. It seems that to satisfy a large public, they feed representation and stereotypes at the same time!

So they cause extreme reactions "better nothing than this".

And in more serious matters the risk is the same, and it's just behind the corner.

[PozBearWI]

This seems to reflect the downside of parties altogether.  "The Republicans" are diverse.  Perhaps not a diverse as "The Democrats", but nonetheless save perhaps for the MAGA faithful who have a cult following of Mr T; the members of the parties are not clones of each other.  Thus is it inaccurate to try to paint any good definition.  I think in part, this was George Washington's point in his farewell letter.  

But we have polarized now just around these two flags "The Republicans" and "the Democrats" and rhetoric is of course always flawed as a result.  

I am not a member of any party.  I have some views some would interpret as "conservative".  I have other views some would interpret as "liberal".  Stated a bit differently then, some of my views are left leaning, some are right leaning.  The big flaw in THIS QUESTION is that I believe most of us fall into the same as me.  Some "liberal" some "conservative".  Which is why it is the character of the candidate and not fretting about what they "will do" (which always, always, always will at best be 'partially met').  

[nanana]

I agree with your general point PozBearWI, so to help with that I am not trying to adjudicate who belongs in this camp or to insist that we agree, but merely to have a discussion with those  self-identifying as more on the right. Another example of a rightish concept is that people on the right seem to be less confused by how to self-generate value  whereas people on the left seem to worry less about moving resources around and taking them by force of law from others  

 

[SomewhereonNeptune]

I do appreciate @nanana's premise for the post. Often here, I feel as a pariah for having a non-left-leaning view. I think all folks should have a right to self-express without feeling trolled.

Although I self-describe as center-right leaning -- fiscal conservative, social libertarian -- a couple other folks have made the point that our more left-leaning friends here bring a great deal of passion to their points. That isn't always a bad thing. But the national dialogue has more become "them versus us" focused, a tactic designed to divide rather than unite us. Ultimately, we have more in common than differences when it comes to the desire for equality, inclusion, basic human respect, and the needs for quality healthcare and social care for those more at risk or vulnerable, affordable housing, and decent jobs that are not undermined by runaway inflation. Those aren't always values that have a D or R associated to them. 

For all sorts of reasons, we've watched as people can't afford housing, food, basic necessities, and face an increasing cost of living. Economically, and for me personally, the labor market isn't in a healthy position -- I and others have seen salaries and compensation shrink and the quality of jobs has dried like a puddle in the desert. But here we are being divided over "he vs. she" arguments and media biases that are designed to foment dissension. We're more focused on more esoteric disagreements on items like drag queen story hours. I for one am not buying it because once you get past those things, an almost permanent division in the population will still be there arguing on whether we should say "six or half-a-dozen" (or tastes great versus less filling, or what have you) when in reality as Americans we come together in times of crisis.

Meanwhile, we're all still breathing the same air, walking the same ground, and just trying to make happy lives for ourselves. So is that a point on which we can generally agree? 

[SomewhereonNeptune]

15 hours ago, NordicBtm said:

At some point though when you’ve been told for a long time not to believe your lying eyes and ears (example: Joe Biden is sharp as a tick) you either have to decide to stand up for yourself and make your own opinions or continue to be a sheep. If the media lied to you for years about obvious truths, what do they continue to lie about for a certain narrative and why?

Really astute observations. I think we now know that Mr. Biden is about as sharp as a marble, and we've watched as his mental faculties have rapidly declined. Our media has bent over backwards to make us believe the opposite. Not surprisingly, the American electorate had an even worse view of Kamala Harris, and it's shocking how people have suddenly rallied around her like the second coming of Christ after complaining that she wasn't what they selected or voted for. Not sure I'll understand that. (Disclaimer: Not a huge fan of Trump either, but I'm holding my nose since I know what we'd be getting).

15 hours ago, NordicBtm said:

I don’t live in the US but I follow media there and in Europe. I don’t really consider myself that far right leaning but I do feel the whole woke agenda has pushed the mainstream pretty far left so in that sense I’m definitely strongly against it and would be on the right in that battle.  It’s a toxic worldview IMO because it is this panacea where all your problems can be blamed on other people and you glorify the victim status. It’s also similar to communism in this sense and I know many people that grew up under communism in Eastern Europe and the woke people on the left honestly have no idea that they are useful idiots to an ideology that can only tear down things because it’s not interested in building up anything.

In this country in 2020, the media and Democratic flacks outright lied about the existence of a Hunter Biden laptop as being "fake news" or a "Russian conspiracy". About 15 months later, the story was released that it was real and so was the content found on it, including Hunter using his father's status for enrichment. After you witness that, you realize that you either disregard all media as propaganda tools a la Soviet-era Russia, or recognize that most of the major media sources are owned by a handful of people who can easily tilt the narrative as they like. 

People in China already know not to trust the media because they know it's propaganda. They haven't figured that out in the US. The Europeans I know are much more savvy as well. Every political candidate promises things they cannot deliver, including grandiose and outrageous things. In this country, the President needs a plurality of Congress of the Senate to ratify that, and that hasn't been overwhelmingly the case for quite some time. Even Constitutional amendments need to be ratified by 75% of the individual states, and those are so divided as to be unlikely.

15 hours ago, NordicBtm said:

They might change their mind about intersectionalism and how great it is when they’re standing in 3 hour lines for food at the grocery store but by then it will be too late.

No one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American people. - H.L. Mencken

[nanana]

On 10/18/2024 at 5:57 AM, NordicBtm said:

They might change their mind about intersectionalism and how great it is when they’re standing in 3 hour lines for food at the grocery store but by then it will be too late.

That's where I  am NordicBtm.  As much as I  am somewhat fag-partisan, it disappoints me how little leftist homos understand about theft-economics and the effect it has on supply.  Sure, a government can dictate price controls, but it can't motivate producers to produce, which means that the supply dwindles the more the government removes the benefits that naturally accrue to producers.  

On 10/18/2024 at 5:57 AM, NordicBtm said:

At some point though when you’ve been told for a long time not to believe your lying eyes and ears (example: Joe Biden is sharp as a tick) you either have to decide to stand up for yourself and make your own opinions or continue to be a sheep.

I  love the point about lying eyes.  Among my objections to woke (too numerous to mention) are that so much of it is about expecting people to ignore their gut and their senses and requires ONLY ONE truth, theirs.  This may be an unintended consequence of inclusion (which is not a bad value).  I  happen to have a more urban sensibility, but I    STRONGLY object to a worldview that requires EVERYONE to share this.  Also, an unintended consequence of ignoring your gut and senses is leaving a lot of space for the emperor to run around without any clothes (maybe sexy who knows). 

On 10/18/2024 at 6:29 AM, PozTalkAuthor said:

I am strongly in favor of "diversity equity inclusion" stuff, but my horrible sensation is that we are being USED by both parties: left side for a propaganda,

I like this point PozTalkAuthor.  My main reason for abandoning the left wasn't the bon paroles (nice words) they say, but observing that their actions often don't match, as well as that they don't really support freedom.  If you are in a protected class but don't pledge their club, they turn on you.  As someone quotable said, the Democratic Party in the US is not the left party but the extreme right of tribes.  They have lost a wonderful universalist value for a hateful multi-tribal value (fag-tribe included, which is partly why I can't be satisfied by politics that only look at narrow homo interests, no art of co-living displayed, reminds me of my younger days when I thought I could make the world a more tolerant place by sucking off a gang of men in a public square, maybe the world needs to be organized more like dark rooms for each tribe (muslims, evangelicals, faggots, militarists get a thunder dome) and spaces of respect and tolerance for others, maybe meaning that it requires homos to realize that putting a rainbow flag on a 12-year-old's swimsuit may piss a lot of people off.  As much as I  used to think acceptance was a great endpoint for gay rights goals, I  am now too aware that it is not my place to change people and that excess efforts in this space amount to colonialism and eliminate the ability to empathize.  My end-goal now is non-violence and the ability to escape a hostile tribe and join a more fitting tribe.  And I  have definitely noticed a difference between people who want to befriend me for a soul connection versus people who want to befriend me because I  fit into some stereotypical slot that helps them tell a surface story about how accepting and titillating their lives are.  

 

On 10/18/2024 at 9:02 AM, PozBearWI said:

I have some views some would interpret as "conservative".  I have other views some would interpret as "liberal". 

I  like your point PozBearWI.  These labels push us into fully appreciating "issue-specific" coalitions and partially appreciating people and maintaining shifting alliances to maintain balance and order.  They push us into a cartoonistic view of each other.  

On 10/18/2024 at 2:53 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

Economically, and for me personally, the labor market isn't in a healthy position -- I and others have seen salaries and compensation shrink and the quality of jobs has dried like a puddle in the desert. But here we are being divided over "he vs. she" arguments and media biases that are designed to foment dissension.

Love this point SomewhereonNeptune! For full vulnerable disclosure, I    have a weakness for dramatic language, which probably is divisive.  I  have lived long enough to see the cons of this behavior and understand why people with a left-leaning world view may see my comments as provocative.  If I  were at my best, I    would be offering the next generation economic education so they could all become producers able to self-sustain and perhaps become employers for others who may not be able to sustain themselves.  When I  look at the greater good, I  think it has to start in the economics of production and self-sustainment at a micro-, community- and macro level.  A small part of this is redistribution (the first leftist solution), but the much greater part is helping people step up into their own power to self-sustain and survive.  NONE of that has to do with pronouns.  (BUT if you save up and buy your own warehouse, you can keep me out if I don't use your preferred pronoun.) 

[nanana]

Great points all!  I will try to provoke discussion on various topics that I think would resonate with right-or-center-leaning or left-averse homos periodically, but also get out of the way for some free flow.   I'll also share my opinions but enjoy respectful diversity of thought.  

Military: What do folks think of the "peace through strength" argument?  Many people say this phrase, often on the right side.  My own view is that it requires at least another layer of nuance.  For example, peace through strong defense of borders (I    am not opposed to this at all) versus peace through strong proliferation of bases wrapped around other countries (as if China had bases in Halifax, Ottawa, Vancouver, Tijuana, Havana, and Tortola), backing and enabling bullies (Netanyahu), using idiots (Zelensky) to inflame rivals, and cucking allies (thanks to EU and NATO, Europe is US's little bitch, too pussy to defend itself [Nord Stream] and too lazy to try.).  I believe in non-aggression, which means I am against both flavors of US empire from the right (dominate other tribes and exploit natural resources) and left (make enemies of traditional culture and let the neo-cons work leftists up to start "humanitarian" wars and make fag-tribute-money for the military-pharma-industrial complex).  But, I would defend myself, my community and my nation's borders happily, with an axe if necessary.  I also am tired of government asserting a monopoly on my own self-defense.  I imagine these views would alienate both conservatives and liberals.  But I    think pieces of these views would resonate with both.  Does that make me right-leaning, left-leaning, or somewhere in the middle?  

[PozTalkAuthor]

I have controversial thoughts on politics these days, because I think the time of "right and left" is definitely over. 

I also heard a song, a satire song -not in English- saying "you know what's the right, and what's the left?" 

And verses were such as "if you dress elegant you are at right, if you dress casual you are at left"

or "the shower is at left, the tub is at right" or reverse. No matter.

And we could add "if you use condoms you are at right, if you go raw and on Prep you are at left". Or even more "provoking" if needed, such as "neg is the right, poz is the left" and I think we could go on forever. 

Keeping it more serious though, I think that we all should (politicians at first) stop splitting society in two. 

Now the situation for me is to vote "the best in the worst"; someone should change, put politicians together and make their own programs so that you vote THE PROGRAM and not people; the world has changed so much and is continuously changing, we can't continue referring to politics like we have done from the 2nd world war on. 

Talking about rainbow flags and symbols, I'm really angry to this mechanism, you know why I left social networks -commercial ones-? 

Officially it's for HIV stigma "after I got diagnosed in 2013 I silently erased Facebook and stuff" had a Twitter on, anonymous, now with Elon Musk-et- it's gone as well. 

If I left it was because I got aggressive reaction from contacts I trusted, due to the fact I didn't publish Pride-related material, I didn't wear rainbow flag on profile, I didn't "externally" show my support to the community, at least according to them. So, vulnerable as I was due to diagnosis, do you think I could stand all that rubbish? I just closed it all. 

For what concerns me, someone could walk doggy-style with rainbow flag in his ass if he feels to, but then? 

I hardly tolerate sport men who publicly stand for our cause and then go to play in countries where LGBT rights are strongly repressed. Who said Turkey, who said Saudi Arabia, even Hungary? Well, ME. 

If you stand for the community you REJECT those offers, otherwise you just look for the money. 

And now the most important thing about the right/left: I clearly don't support right-oriented politicians because they work to limit our freedom, starting from the Internet. I work in this field -cyber security- and digital education, and can't tolerate this approach - limiting porn, because of minors. 

I have to recognize this to the Right: they are trying to handle this issue. In the WRONG way, but they do. 

I am one who would like to work more on education rather than restrictions, because restrictions induce folks to go bother "preys" in "traditional" sites, not having porn any longer. 

Spoiler: I'm writing a story on this subject...

So, with less divisions and more cooperations, better ideas and solutions could be found by a SERIOUS group of politicians that's what we currently don't have.

[PozTalkAuthor]

I append to my latest text: for what concerns voting, I prefer not to be oriented at right. But when talking to "ordinary" people if someone is far-right they're clearer in what they say and want - at least this is my feeling. If they use hate speech it's honest, and they don't hide hate behind a red-hearted mask.

 

When a self-defined "leftist" or at least "activist" for something then talks violently (and accepts violence) towards people with opposite ideas, I really get disgusted like when I hear of a publicly homophobic being caught with men. 

At least if I hear someone saying bad words against us, I can keep the distance. But when they say "love is love", "respect LGBT community" then they don't accept if someone likes anonymous sex and take loads from strangers, for instance? 

"Love is love" has NOTHING to do with inclusion, IMHO. 

And now someone could downvote/unfollow me, feel free to do it as losing some numbers in reputation is no harm, unfollows won't decrease my CD4 count LOL. I'm always direct and frank, no sense in speaking for convenience only.