Are you suggesting there’s even one gay person murdered due to their sexual orientation in 2008 for every hundred American blacks who were murdered due to their skin color in, say, 1958?
For the fortieth fucking time, saying that gay people don’t have it as bad as black people used to does not mean gay people don’t have it shitty. It just means they don’t have it as bad as black people used to.
I don’t know about brickbacon, but it seems clear that Heffalump and Roo has a real axe to grind about gay marriage…
In your previous post, you used the present tense, so that was not entirely clear. Regardless, I don’t know of anyone who is arguing that gays have been treated as badly as blacks throughout the history of this nation. I think one could make a very credible argument that gays are treated worse than blacks in the present day, but I don’t think that’s necessary. There shouldn’t be some sort of a litmus test to determine how badly a group of people can be treated by society before they have the right to seek lawful redress of their grievances. Any such attempt at redress is, by definition, a civil rights movement, whether it be for reasons racial, religious, or gender-related. As such, attempting to draw distinctions between the black civil rights movement and the gay civil rights movement is disingenous at best, and insulting at worst, in that it implies that gays are either not deserving of civil rights, or that their suffering is not significant enough to complain about.
Go for forty-one. Maybe by then, someone who disagrees with you will have shown up.
It doesn’t matter if they didn’t have the right before. Loving v. Virginia also turned on a right which was withheld, rather than “taken away”.
Of course you/they have the right to seek lawful redress. I don’t think anyone’s arguing that they don’t, are they?
Look, I’m not sticking my neck out here on behalf of the NAACP or something. I don’t give a shit if other people are insulted by the gay-rights movement appropriating the Civil Rights Era as a parallel.
I do give a shit on behalf of my gay friends, though, because I think it somewhat undermines your cause.
No, you said gays don’t have it as bad as blacks, present tense. I read your earlier posts about the first half of the 20th century, and responded to it. You haven’t said anything about gays being considered mentally ill and arrested for the crime of being gay. It’s never been a crime to be black, although it certainly sucked at times.
Speaking of redress, here’s an article about gays in Spain, who could be arrested right up until 1979.
I strongly expect that brickbacon, upon re-evaluation, would be happy to withdraw his statement about gay people. Or at least refine it. So it’s a little weird to be debating a third party skeptical of my testimony, but I’ll give this a final try.
I’m saying that if you’re going to judge for yourself either way, you’re going to have to rely on testimony. I am, of course, entitled to make my own judgments and express them based on my personal experience. It is up to you to decide whether or not you find them convincing in the absence of statistical evidence or testimony from some source you trust. But you have no grounds to attack me because, for no reason, you don’t believe me.
You’re confused.
First, what makes a factual claim factual is that it can be proven false in principle. What we’re discussing here is a claim that can be proved false in principle. We could, in theory, investigate and determine whether there are in fact lots of gay employees at these organizations. That no one has done so is just a contingent empirical truth disconnected from the fact-based nature of the claim. In other words, the fact that no one you trust has gone out and counted up gay employees at civil rights organizations, and that only people you don’t know who have personal experiences there can speak to the factual situation, makes it no less a factual claim.
Second, testimony of otherwise commonplace experience is completely normal evidence. From the way you talk about it, you might be surprised to learn that it is used in court all the time. To, you know, prove things. Even murder gasp can be proved with testimony alone! Like a jury, you either believe me, or you don’t. Those are your options. You’re making a big deal of not believing me, which is fine, but you have no reason for doing so other than some weird commitment to non-testimonial evidence for that which has not been studied.
Now I see why you’re so confused. You’re conflating two scenarios.
If I had come into a thread and asked whether you knew that lots of gay people worked on civil rights, and you guessed not or simply didn’t know either way, everything you say above would be relevant. I would have no basis for calling you ignorant because, after all, how were you to know if you’d never had the experience of working on those issues?
But this is not the case. In this case, brickbacon affirmatively stated that, by and large, gay people are absent from race struggles. His statement is not made on the basis of any facts, or personal experience in the current civil rights movement. It is based on pure ignorance.
If you mean something other than “he’s black therefore he knows whether gay people work on civil rights issues,” please make your meaning more clear.
Heffalump and Roo, perhaps this would be simpler with a hypothetical.
Suppose there is a strange smell in my house. If Bob wrote a post stating that there is no strange smell in Richard Parker’s house, would I be entitled to call him ignorant on the matter?
And would you believe me, or would you require me to post a gas spectrograph report?
Yes.
Hmm. I’ve heard of atheists who have been fired for their lack of religion. So how’s this?
Atheism is the New Gay. Catchy? 
Doesn’t matter in regards to what? It may not matter in regard to whether the right ultimately is granted.
It does matter if it’s the wrong word. It makes a difference to take away something that you had and withheld something that never existed. Those words have different connotations. If you doubt it, take away a lollipop from a child and see if there’s a difference from not giving one at all.
You’re probably right. And if you had gone back into the GD thread and asked brickbacon for a cite and he couldn’t provide one, I wouldn’t be having this discussion. Instead, you called brickbacon an ignorant bigot in this thread (which is not allowed in GD) and didn’t provide any more evidence than he did.
That’s only because you can’t provide better evidence.
I’ve already stated that it’s not that I don’t believe you in my first post to you.
Agreed, which is why I was bemused that you talked about contrasting it with a religious experience.
Whether God can be proven in principle probably depends on the definition of God, but I’ll leave that to the theologians.
But yes, this is a factual claim. . . for which you have only provided anecdotal evidence to verify.
Also agreed. Testimony of commonplace experience is used to provide evidence which can lead to the basis for a claim . . . along with other corroborating evidence. Testimony of commonplace evidence is not normally used to provide the basis of the claim without more.
How do you know what brickbacon’s experiences are in regards to this issue?
His statement may/may not be made on the basis of facts or personal experiences. At this point, I don’t know that, but neither do you.
That depends. Is Bob in your house with you? On what experience or knowledge is Bob making this claim?
If Bob is standing in your house next to you, then yes, I’d like to see more evidence of your claim before I believe you.
And for the fiftieth time, this isn’t supposed to be a game of “MY group is more oppressed than YOUR group.”
I dunno. Why don’t you count and tell us?
All I want is 100 people killed for being viewed as black in 1958. I’ll find you another person killed because someone thought he was gay after that.
It won’t be hard on my end.
http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2008/11/17/syracuse-man-murdered-for-being-gay-police-investigating-as-hate-crime/
200?
http://www.hatecrimesbill.org/2008/06/gay-man-in-detr.html
300?
400?
God damn, they were a bunch of murdering fools back in '58.
No, he didn’t.
Yea, but the sentiment behind the slogan “gay is the new black” and general comparisons of the gay/black experience of falls flat if people don’t think that the level of oppression the groups faced (d) are equal, or near equal.
Hmm. Yeah, you’re right. I retract and apologize for that part. Sorry, Richard Parker, I didn’t read that carefully enough.
I think the point is more, “Hey, you know, we share a common bond of discrimination-we need to work together”, and that the civil rights movement hasn’t ended-it simply needs to expand to include other groups, than just blacks, Jews, etc.
Am I wrong?
That one sentence reflects the heart of the ignorance that is causing the log jam in your mind. The Civil Rights Era is NOT in the past. It is not the same thing as the Black Power Movement or the Jim Crow Era. For the most part, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and early 1960s was about equal rights for African Americans. By the mid-1960s other groups had joined the Civil Rights Movement – farm workers and women included. Today the Civil Rights Era continues with efforts to establish gay rights, women’s parity, immigrant rights, and more.
I refuse to compare one group’s suffering to another group’s. We would have to bring in the history of the Jews during World War II. But why stop there? Consider the history of the Jews since Biblical times. Consider the suffering in the Arab world and the torment of the aids victims and orphans in Africa. Just because we speak of the violation of the civil rights of one group currently doesn’t mean that another group didn’t suffer then or isn’t suffering now. But suffering is always done on an individual basis – one person at a time.
The American Civil Liberties Union is still out there fighting the good fight because civil liberties are still violated. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. used non violent protest as a way to get his point across. He based his method on the techniques of Mahatma Gandhi in India. Gandhi had been influenced by the essay “Civil Disobedience” by New Englander Henry David Thoreau who wrote during the 19th Century. If techniques are successful, people are going to use them again and again. They would be stupid not to do so.
By that logic, the Civil Rights Era began with Magna Carta.
I wish somebody had said this in the other thread.
I think so, because the slogan doesn’t seem to be aimed at the black population. It seems to be more of a “hey, you don’t want to be like those folks who were on the opposite side of MLK, Rosa Parks etc., do you?” This isn’t going to work on people who aren’t at least semi-neutral on gays. It’s going to completely backfire on people who think the slogan excludes the whole black American experience except one tiny snippet of history (the late 50s and 60s) to make the comparison fit.