Where I agree is that I have concerns about social discourse, particularly as it seemingly becomes more extreme and that we, as people, feel increasingly disconnected.

Similar in particular to California's 1978 Briggs Initiative which sought to prevent gay people from being able to teach in schools. While certainly times have changed, it remains a core consideration and memory within the LGBTQ+ community and still holds psychological space and weight.

jesus fucking christ how quickly that bodycam footage came out because the shooter was white and trans


JESUS, FUCKING, CHRIST

the amount of violent things people are saying about transgender people in this moment will not be forgotten

A law that didn't pass based on an entirely different subject isn't really relevant IMO. If that is what is driving the concern and crazy reaction to this than it makes the LGBT community look ridiculous.

Did you read the last part of my post? Not trying to be rude but since you brought up an example about gay people I feel like you might have skipped it

That's my concern, when we label each other rather than talk things out disconnection grows. why talk specifics when "das racist" is dropped and now you're scared to even say another word?

how can, in this context, you have a conversation when the answer to all your concerns is "ummm actually what you're saying is violent transphobia and even thinking that out loud means trans people are in danger"?

to be absolutely fair the right does this too all the time, citing religious freedom and practices to excuse behavior, or worse shuts down context by stating history doesnt matter in the present day.

there ya go, you hack:



https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/issue-brief/child-and-teen-firearm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/

It's how communities organize though--around specific, seminal moments. It is perhaps in-part why the LGBTQ+ community has a unique relationship w/ the word "violence", given that the history behind Raegan's response to the AIDS epidemic was 'violent' via inaction. Just an example.

Thanks for the reminder too, about your post. I do think that most people who have strong, negative views about LGBTQ+ people also have had very few, if any, meaningful relationships w/ people who are LGBTQ+. I try to take that into consideration whenever I have conversations about people on this topic, and as a result, the words I use and the understanding/empathy I try to practice, may not be what's seen in places like Twitter or elsewhere. I can understand why people have a sexual association to this conversation, sure.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Mar 28 2023 01:28pm

I don't know what the correct answer(s) will be, but assuredly having empathy is a necessary component for anyone hoping to utilize dialogue as a vector for change. What I think most all social movements struggle with internally though, is the lack of consensus on goals and strategies. Will, for example, shutting down Jordan Peterson from speaking on a college campus via protest result in any meaningful dialogue or a shift in position amongst Peterson's fans? Likely not. So then such protesting is a "bad" strategy if your goal and strategy is to move people via dialogue. However, it is an excellent strategy if your goal is to "Not let people easily have a platform".

i'd say empathy isn't required for "good" conversation, empathy comes from "good" conversation.

if two people are mad at each other and talk for 1 minute nothing changes, 10 minutes and they'll shift a bit. lock them in a room together for a few hours and they'll get real empathy for each other's viewpoints.

we need to seek to allow long conversations, either in 1 sitting (unreasonable) or the combination of dozens or hundreds of encounters irl and online.

Peterson would have been done and gone by now if not for deplatforming. he's a fire they used truckloads of gas on.

I can agree with this.