Too Much To Dream

Not sure what you're saying here. That anti-war activism will result in people expressing anti-war views being rounded up?

Having (ahem) read Mrs. DuToit's post, I think the point is that pushing too hard -- and I would say in any direction -- may, and in times available for perusal has -- resulted in a backlash that benefits no one, but least of all those supposedly meant to benefit from the excessive pushing.

Societies have inertia, but they're not inanimate objects that only ever move in the direction they're pushed.

Adam knows very well that that is what I meant (and Mrs. Du Toit meant). He is attempting to start an argument.

Adam posted a comment on my site as well. He seems to think that teaching 14 year olds about fisting, and giving them gloves and lubricant, is simply teaching children to be "tolerant."

Ah jeezus -- that I've gotta read...

Well, now, that's not what I said at all, is it?

Adam, I am going to ask you politely not to come here and start a fight. You have your own site -- grouse there. By the way: you need to express yourself more clearly if you want people to understand you. Because that is certainly the way you came off.

Just to be clear: I honestly wasn't trying to start a fight, Andrea. I really didn't understand what you were trying to say at first. But now I think I do - abrasive anti-war activism will tend to harden pro-war opinion, and thus undermine the cause. In that, I have to agree with you. But I think it's a necessary evil, and doesn't negate the need to speak out.

There's nothing wrong with speaking out. There's also nothing wrong with encouraging tolerance -- though I just think the best way to do it is to shame the wrongdoer (ie, the bully who bothers gay kids, to give an example) rather than propagate Gays Are Wonderful! ad campaigns. Kids aren't sophisticated, but they can see through bullshit, and all it does is make them resentful and "anti" whatever is being shoved down their throat as "good for them." Even if it is good for them. And many, if not most, adults are the same way, though it takes them longer to react.

Well, I've noticed before that one's clarity of expression -- in this case Adam's -- indicates one's clarity of thought. And one's clarity of thought has something to do with one's ability to comprehend what one reads...

?

I don't understand what Adam could have said in his first three sentences here to make all of you jump down his throat (to the point of asking him to leave) -- Andrea did use the phrase "living on the lam" to describe former activists in a reactionary society, and Mrs. du Toit was not telling the truth (no, let's not equivocate, she was lying) about what Adam said on her comments page.

Adam could not have been clearer, either. Those who faulted him for a lack of clarity could learn to read more carefully.

Mr. Benedetto, no one here has asked Adam to leave. I used the phrase "living on the lam" to describe the sort of "outlaw" existence that some of what I call professional activists thrive upon but that the majority of normal everyday people -- straight, gay, bi, whatever -- want no part of. Most people want as peaceful an existence as possible. That attitude also has its inherent disadvantages, but a society in constant turmoil because a minority of its population (I am not referring to gay people here, but to the aforementioned professional activist types) is not 100% satisfied with every aspect of it is no society anyone wants to live in, and people tend to react to turmoil by becoming increasingly conservative, hidebound, and reactionary. Bothering people to distraction -- and worse, bothering, or being perceived as bothering, their children -- will not help any cause. Activists who talk a great game about "tolerance" of "diverse ways of living" would do well to practice what they preach.

My problem with Adam is that he came here and made an exaggerated assertion ("...anti-war activism will result in people expressing anti-war views being rounded up?"), and his remarks also seemed to imply that I was in favor of such a move. Since he -- and you -- seem to have trouble understanding the English language, I will further clarify what I meant: no, I do not believe that antiwar activists will be "rounded up" -- nor, if I may repeat myself, do I condone such a thing. What I believe is what I am already seeing happen: those antiwar activists (just to use them as an example) who have been the loudest and most visible have also been the stupidest. The inescapable silliness of the puppets and the Bush=Hitler meme and the "no blood for oil" mishegas, and the exposed evil agendas of some of the organizations behind many of the protest marches, with their what-the-hell-does-this-have-to-do-with-Iraq "Down with Israel!" theme parades, and all the rest of it, has turned off people in droves. It has made the reasonable antiwar contingent (which does exist) look like idiots by proxy. It has poisoned the dialogue, such as there was, between the right and the left. It has made many an undecided centrist less tolerant of peacenik hippies, who now seem sinister instead of harmless. It has made people who used to say "live and let live" much less tolerant of others. Is that a good thing?

And just to clarify one more point: I did not ask Adam to leave, I asked him not to come here if all he was doing was starting a fight. I have neither the time nor patience for such. If I really wanted him to leave, I would ban his IP.

It just sounds to me like you were the one who wasn't clear. Adam asked a question that was totally reasonable based on what you actually wrote and you jumped on him for it. And maybe "asking him to leave" is too strong a paraphrase of "don't come here if you're going to start a fight"...but given that he wasn't starting a fight (he first asked an appropriate question and then defended himself against an appalling and untrue allegation), I don't think I was far off the mark.

As far as the actual content of this thread is concerned...yes, I think anti-war stuff and pro-gay stuff will both rile up people who might be in passive opposition to our causes. Is that better than staying silent and allowing the people in active opposition to control the debate? There are pitfalls inherent in every strategy. As applied to gay rights, however, the present strategy has gotten results undreamt of a generation ago, and I don't see why we should back off now that young people are growing up so consistently and solidly pro-gay.

And as for not "bothering" other people...oh, BS. A good chunk of these idiots have gay kids they're in the process of screwing up, and those kids -- themselves citizens and future taxpayers -- have the right to know that their choices aren't limited to heterosexual marriage or eternal hell.

You know, insulting me will not get you anywhere -- and that is the entire point of what I said in my post. It's one thing to encourage young people to tolerate others different from themselves -- there are many methods of doing this, some more effective, in my opinion, than others. It's quite another thing to subject children under a certain age to what amounts to indoctrination in seeing certain lifestyles and practices only in certain ways. As I read Mrs. Du Toit's post, she was not objecting to teaching tolerance of gay or otherwise different people, but to very specific things that go beyond teaching "tolerance." I agree that it is a wonderful thing that society in general has become more accepting of alternative lifestyles and realize that much of this acceptance is due to activism and so forth. But activists who have seen their movements succeed to an unexpected degree have a tendency to start to take this success for granted. The old saying "give them an inch, they take a mile" is apropos here. And that is how they damage their cause and turn people away who would have been glad to accept them before. Whether you like it or not, 100 percent of the people are not going to accept your pet cause 100 percent.

By the way, I am attempting to remain polite with you, even though you have been condescending and borderline rude to me on my own blog. This is by no means my usual practice; consider yourself fortunate. I would also prefer that you not fight other peoples' battles for them here; if Adam has a problem, Adam should deal with it. I am not turning this blog into a he said/she said free-for-all. I can and will ban IPs and close comments. If you don't like it -- well, I have written many posts on the subject already, it's not my problem if you can't deal with my rules.

Adam knew exactly what he was doing and it looked like a troll to me. I saw his comments on Mrs D
du Toit's site so he can't claim he didn't know what Andrea was getting at.

There probably will be a backlash against all this politically-correct everything is relative and equal bullshit, I just hope it doesn't really screw up the progress that's been made in personal liberty.

Basically, keep your lifestyle out of my face, and I could care less what you do. Aloha

I'm sorry, I'm a little bewildered. I am not trying to be rude or disrespectful -- I honestly don't see what Adam wrote here or on MDT's that was in any way objectionable. If anyone was unclear, it was you. If anyone was offensive, it was MDT in her comment here.

Adam can, in fact, deal with this if he wants to. I wrote the first time because he's my friend, but I got caught up because I find the back-and-forth really confusing even having read all of the posts in question several times.

I don't know what I said that was insulting, unless it was the "BS" comment. I use the term fairly liberally, so I apologize if it offended you...though I maintain that I was not impressed by the argument of yours I applied it to.

If I am continuing to offend you, feel free to ban me. But to keep an open forum (as I do) is to invite others to criticize what one writes, and I feel that I've stayed well within the realm of civil discourse here.

I am sorry that a potentially interesting debate is being sidetracked. But maybe I should leave it alone and go to bed.

Well, this is not an open forum; rather, it is like a sort of salon held in someone's private house -- mine. There are plenty of open forums out there, but I don't feel like joining their number. It is true that my website is a publically-accessible one, and I don't feel like going to the trouble of making it a password only site. Criticism is fine, as long as it isn't the equivalent of insulting the cook because you didn't like the meal choices.

Mike, Adam read my first post, didn't read the link. He read the link and then the dicussion changed. He insulted me--I insulted him back. Now we're fine. As you'd see by stopping by the discussion after the initial horn locking, we got past that initial misunderstanding.

But, like Andrea stated about her blog, too many people assume that personal websites are open forums for any and all to say whatever they please.

I even used to have a bulletin board I called the "Salon" to make clear you were in MY house and had to conform to MY rules.

Nice cookies, Andrea. Can I have another cuppa tea?