no_form do think the label "safe space" implies that people holding positions of power get to "assign" that label rather than it emerging organically from the actions of people who want to create safe spaces for themselves.
I do not get your rationale. In the past of some and in the present of others, people in power condemned homosexuals and homosexuality was (and is, depending on the country) outlawed. No one "in power" assigned a place as gay - and in fact, prior to the the removal of homosexuality as a crime, gay appropriated places (whether they were indoors or outdoors) were always unofficially gay, either because the owner was himself or herself gay, or gay friendly or simply wanted to make good money.
. Which is to say that they were not designated as such by people in power (even if they were unofficially tolerated or were somewhat indirectly profitting by overlooking such a usage of private space) but by the people seeking a refuge from such a power. They only became officially gay when homosexuality stopped being officially a crime. Gay people have always assigned themselves their own spaces, always been proactive in appropriating spaces for their changing needs: be it for socializing, sex, or just living. If anything, gay spaces are extremely good examples of safe spaces " emerging organically from the actions of people who want to create safe spaces for themselves."
great insight Chatter, nothing more to add on that note. i do however still think that when places are "unofficially" or "officially" tolerated by authority, it's ultimately the authorities in power who will give or take way that tolerance from an organically emerging queer space. i.e.: shut it down by law or with force.
C of C, I agree with your statement but for one thing, social norms do condone some sense of official or community recognized status on a space. A gay bar is as much a fact as the people who believe it to be just as we believe the worn out paper in your wallet is worth a dollar, status is a social construct official or not.
no_form, the one doing the designation is not the one tolerating the designation. you mentioned designation in your previous post, now are you trying to pass off tolerance as being designation?
for instance, i've heard of police and municipalities being bought off by straight businessmen, running unofficially gay clubs, in a country where homosexually is illegal. the real proactive entity who initiated this was not the property owner nor the authorities, it was the gay community themselves, who appropriated the place, first by testing it out to measure the tolerance of the straight property owner, someone who thought he was opening up a regulat (ie straight) nightclub ..and who in the process, as much as he might have been a homophobe or not, saw the gold mine for what it was. the authorities were at the end of this chain. the place became a huge magnet for the gay community who used that opportunity to build networks of friendships that further led to fortifying them. naturally it is and was never a sustainable formula for the space itself; once the authorities became intolerant (whether because there were problems between the property owner and the municipality or whatever), the gay community pushed into another space, they designated yet another gay space. the history of the gay community's development carries the memory of the places in which it grew into and then out of. the same occured and still occurs today in regards to cruising grounds, even within gay friendly cities. the authorities trim down trees and bushes to discourage gay people from sexually appropriating the space; immediately another space pops up on the gaydar.
taking away the gay people's agency in their choice of spaces, and giving it over to 'people in power' would have implied that gay people would never have had gotten to where they are today.
what is so personal about "Queer space, after archinect/forum discussion. Heaps of irony and an even bigger joke." ? What is being tackled here is the topic in the archinect context, not a person.
On the second, "^^As usual, Sister Superior lays down the rules." it was really in response to someone's tendency to lay down their own rules on an ongoing discussion and therefore, if it were personal, i thought it only had to do with the facet of this person that was impeding others' contributions here. so, again, not really an unwarranted attack on a generalized personal basis.
Again I repeat, this attack had NOTHING to do with Queer Space apart from the fact that it occurred in one.
It is not a pattern like school shootings are. It is a gun control issue, and purely an American one at that. I say "American" because this is the only country where a "lone wolf" can buy a gun and shoot up 50 people, unlike Paris, where there multiple attacks.
Its complex. There are multiple factors and important issues that relate to the events. Its absolutely a gun control issue. But its also a public safety/public space issue. As far as I can tell, its also a radicalization problem that may relate to a social conservatism problem that touches the issue of homophobia (perhaps internalized homophobia) in the muslim community. It also appears to be a masculinity issue that relates to the murderer's history of domestic abuse. It may also be about mental illness.
To say that this is only about guns is to deny the complexity of reality in favor of a strategically oversimplified narrative.
Again I repeat, this attack had NOTHING to do with Queer Space apart from the fact that it occurred in one.
But the fact that it occurred in one is not a coincidence. It's not irrelevant. It was an attack *on* Queer Space (if that's what we're calling it now) as much as it was an attack within one.
to davvids point you can work this event backwards in analysis, which is what most people do. sameoldoctor says gun problem, sure it is. but where did the problem occur - in a Queer Space (no?). i can not think of a neutral scenario where you withdraw the humans massacred and not connect the people to the space to the attack. you may be suggesting that one complex thread with another leading up to the event suggests that it is NOT a completely Queer Space issue, but the fact is it happened at one. (i am using Queer space in how this thread was formed). and lets say this space was never officially Queer, and only after the event did we determine the majority killed were Queer, wouldn't it then arise that the crime was projected at one specific group that occupied one specific space. you can not gloss over it like the threads just accidentally met there. it happened there at a space mainly occupied at the time by those people. not sure you can completely detach the Tool - Guns from the incident.
Chatter of clouds and Peter N, I've nothing to add but thanks for an engaging discussion.
This thread is turning into a full on dumpster fire.
Jun 16, 16 7:03 pm ·
·
sameolddoctor,
Your wrong. In other countries, lone wolves do and have bought guns in non-U.S. countries and did mass shooting in non-U.S. countries. Facts do not support your claim. The problem is not a U.S. only problem.
damn you no_form. the second you say that Balkins shows up. Balkins you search dumpster fire or something?........have the concersation without the inclusion of Guns. try that.
this is a song by a Lebanese band whose lead vocalist is openly gay (something pretty different in Lebanon). The song is about attacks by the police (maghawir = commandos) on gay clubs in Beirut. It tackles guns and the inflated sense of masculinity, a militarized machismo. very pertinent here
This thread drives me nuts and is part of the problem. How would you design a space for a 20 year old? 30? 40? 50?... Sexual preference aside, those are really different taste, cultures, etc.
Try to remember “gay” isn’t a ‘lifestyle’. Lifestyle is something you choose. So if you choose a clubbing lifestyle… then that is the sort of place you might feel comfortable. If you choose a healthy lifestyle; maybe a gym or park… So flip it; All you know is the sexual orientation. Create a safe place for a hetero where he/she can feel he/she could ‘be herself/himself’…. whatever the f'k that means since I’ve never felt you should be anything different than who you are beyond cultural norms in that situation (like quiet in a library). These spaces can be anything.
The trick is getting the like minded people to also want to be there at the same time. Hence the gay dance club, or private golf clubhouse, or starbucks, or yoga park, or _____....
If you want to have a "safe" space for the LGBTQ crowd in a "diverse" city that includes a significant number of fundamental Muslims that want to kill them, I don't see how you do it. In Istanbul, Turkey, there was going to be a gay parade in a few days, but a Muslim Youth group has called on the marchers to be killed. Nothing whatsoever to do with the US, gun laws, Islamaphobia, or any of the rest of it.
And here is a pretty intelligent assessment from a religious point of view on the Orlando shooting and the backlashes expected against the Moslem community:
no way Volunteer, you went there, so non PC of you..........with regard to Space and Place and Occupants..........interesting thing about Islamaphobia vs Homophobia - going to argue two sides of this if I can - Will vs Fate...........according to the majority of Religous people Homosexuality is Evil and is either inherint evil temptation that can be cured through God or is an erroneous choice that may receive forgiveness if you choose the accepted ideology............. According to most Religious people - Religion is a choice you must make. So if being gay or religious are both choices you make, then what is the Phobia?..............the phobia is simple - other people who make other choices scare you and sometimes they scare you so much your "gut" reaction based on your "ethical" choices emplores you to eliminate them from either making their choices or from even being able to make a choice. your fear is justified through your choice of ideology. this is why you choose the "correct" ideology. you would also never admit that your choices were anything other than free will. Only based on Ideology can you justify your phobia.................Lets say though Homosexuality is fate through biology and Religion is fate through manifest destiny (Gods people). Then the phobia is nothing more than a "truth", an indicator of danger and therefore the fear is a natural reaction to Evil. You can not help yourself but to fear what you do not like naturally. what is unhealthy and unsafe for you - your fear is based on your survival instinct............so Queer Space phobia could be 1) a place where people go that make choices that scare you or 2) a place where a natural breed of inviduals gather that scare your breed - like sheep and wolves. ........1) if you remove the human choice makers then what signifies the space? 2) if the gatherings of like breeds are natural biology, what natural elements of such spaces attract such breeds?....................if Religion is a choice and Homosexuality a biological fact - That means then, a Queer space is a Safe space for those who have no choice to be other than who they are and can only choose where they can go based on the rest of societies defined ideologies- a system of ethical choices. The burden for such safe spaces then lies on the defined ideology of society, which is a free will choice system outside your biological make-up..........what is interesting to me at least, is that Religion is a choice that is an ideology that can limit the rights of others because of who they are naturally. and yet we give so much "tolerance" creedance to these Religions. Religions have Safe Places (usually) for gathering.......all seems backwards to me. Your Religion jusitfies your phobia and hate, but you can choose your religion and not yourself. Or am I wrong to think Religion is a choice? .........mightyaa notes queer is not a lifestyle, but wouldnt it become one if the current social ideologies limit your behavior and places for gathering?
Olaf, I agree with your point about will vs fate but would like to add;
For gays we often chose to conceal or tamp down the camp unless we know we are in a safe space for us to live it up a bit. The Problem with the safety of Queer Space is the fluidity of the gay community. you can be a flaming queen a butch jock a bi curious or a straight allay who like to dance to good music. this presents an inherent danger in that the queer space is vulnerable to infiltration and attack. It could be homophones looking to lure someone to a secluded space for an attack (this is the way most trannies are murdered today) or private investigators looking to black-male people. So Safe Queer Space has depended on very complex and subtle signals to validate a person's belonging. The LGBT community has been able to blend in like a chameleon for decades. And thus camouflage has lead to Gaydar, Pixey and other passwords that have helped keep people safe.
As we let our guard down in the face of sweeping changes and advancements in equality we also loosen our ring of defense. Sometime the best way to protect ourselves is to keep company with people we know are on our team or a part of our tribe.
Peter Normand Sometime the best way to protect ourselves is to keep company with people we know are on our team or a part of our tribe.
A bit too tribal, in my opinion. But I understand that it may not always be a choice and that it is a protective response. However, it is also good to keep a critical distance here. For instance, this tribalisation, and closing in upon onseself, can lead here to declaring monopoly over the tragedy as an exclusively gay homophobic affair, when clearly there were a convergence of naratives, none of which need exclude the other (mysoginistic masculinity, gun control, internalised homophobia, psychological problems, the media influence of ISIS and its like over the net, etc). But you find gay activists equating this to Stonewall. In my opinion, equating this with the Stonewall is not only misrepresentational (Stonewall was a response against the homophobic establishment and authorities....Pulse does not have such an address in the person of Omar Mateen). but also misdirectional. The true fight remains with the persistantly homophobic and opportunistic establishment figures (many of whom use this occasion to inflame hatred against Moslems, immigrants, other races, etc...and some of who are wishwashy about gay rights, caring only for votes and popularity, soulless Clinton being a case :).
So, if anything, I believe gay people should build horizontal bridges to other groups who suffer from discrimination and pertinent groups in this affair, including those fighting for guns, rather than willingly accept to incarcerate themselves to a ghetto that was itself the result of histric homophobia. Similarly to accept this event as one with mutiple convergent readings having violence as the convergence point.
if, however, all what gay people care about is cocooning in nightclubs and protecting these spaces of theirs, then, again in my opinion, not only is this a regressive response (similair to withdrawing to sucking on one's thumb) but it also reflects them as passive victims caught up in a small pocket of commercialism reserved for them, increasingly puryfying themselves into purer and purer stereotypes - many of which implicitly foster sexism, racism and the likes..and paradoxically, in the meantime, rejecting more and more people who are do not live up to those stereotypes.
CoC I do think Peter addressed the complexity issue in the end of paragraph - be a chameleon, yet make your own space when the codes are read and understood. makes me think of the mafia. the issue with horizontal bridges is you need to find a vertical opressor to all agree on. i would suggest Queer crosses all races and classes of people and therefore a unified horizontal front would be nearly impossible....for instance, lets suggest Clinton was actually a Lesbian..........CoC you note horizontal bridges between unlike groups based on my arguement posted above Peters.......I think you have to divide groups that invent ideologies that earn themselves discrimination and groups that develop an ideology to protect themselves in unison against discrimination......half jokingly, I have noted I am a Religious Bigot somewhere on this forum.... I think this is actually justified and one group of religions can if they like reject another. I do not disagree with a religous group who suggest doing so....... The base arguement for coexisting Religions essentially means we are all humans but chose different set of values to believe in for our daily routines and long term existential goals...... But, for those who have chosen these values, more often than not, the others who have not accepted same values are the enemy and coexisting is Blasphemy and Evil in essence........ This is also where I think liberal left "tolerance" becomes absurd and often backwards. You could suggest the limit of "ideological tolerance" is the point where "hate" becomes the character of the ideologies. But is it "hate" to discriminate and reject someone on prinicpal? Is it "hate" to honestly believe it is the end times and it is your duty to God to destroy the enemy? If you were to ask these religious people why they hate, they would actually note the people we think they hate are the evil ones and God has called for justice and out of love for their God and Religion they must fullfill God's plan for their lives?..........so these people, people who choose often destructive ideologies have safe places (Churches, Mosques, Temples, etc....) and have much influence over a "secular" set of ideologies in the form of an apparatus called the "government".......so do you build horinzontal bridges with people who invent or follow invented ideologies? i would say no, as that pushes one narrative over the only one that matters - justice. agaib what makes this an interesting philosophical and social question, at least in my "straight" mind, is Queer can cross all races and classes and religions - a yet is its own social group.
C of C and Olaf, I can see your point but I think you two are putting a bit too much thought into this. Queer Space now is more about preferences (not the mythical you choose to be gay kind) , when I am out and about shopping for a husband or just Mr right now I have personal preferences and they can be very specific. Gay bars help us distill the available choices so we know who to hit on. Unfortunately in any gay bar now you can swing a cat and hit a straight guy or gal just as much as what you might bee looking for. So building bridges is important in a political context but in a social and sexual context it can be counter productive and damaging to a community. The other thing that is reverting slightly back to the good old days is in-person dating instead of online dating. The numerous abuses and impostors trying to scam gays in particular is driving this. Trust but verify and the best way to verify is to lay eyes and hands on what it is you are looking at and for. The problem we are facing is the dilution of queer space where all who dared to enter knew what is expected and what is on the menu.
i tend to be very philosophical about stuff, overthinking is natural, but finding the overthinking meaningful is altogether another topic. in the future people will request segregation as a right, i am talking like 100 years from now....i-culture insinuates this
Queer space, after Orlando
no_form do think the label "safe space" implies that people holding positions of power get to "assign" that label rather than it emerging organically from the actions of people who want to create safe spaces for themselves.
I do not get your rationale. In the past of some and in the present of others, people in power condemned homosexuals and homosexuality was (and is, depending on the country) outlawed. No one "in power" assigned a place as gay - and in fact, prior to the the removal of homosexuality as a crime, gay appropriated places (whether they were indoors or outdoors) were always unofficially gay, either because the owner was himself or herself gay, or gay friendly or simply wanted to make good money.
. Which is to say that they were not designated as such by people in power (even if they were unofficially tolerated or were somewhat indirectly profitting by overlooking such a usage of private space) but by the people seeking a refuge from such a power. They only became officially gay when homosexuality stopped being officially a crime. Gay people have always assigned themselves their own spaces, always been proactive in appropriating spaces for their changing needs: be it for socializing, sex, or just living. If anything, gay spaces are extremely good examples of safe spaces " emerging organically from the actions of people who want to create safe spaces for themselves."
great insight Chatter, nothing more to add on that note. i do however still think that when places are "unofficially" or "officially" tolerated by authority, it's ultimately the authorities in power who will give or take way that tolerance from an organically emerging queer space. i.e.: shut it down by law or with force.
chatter: you agreed with what no form said, you just didn't realize it.
C of C, I agree with your statement but for one thing, social norms do condone some sense of official or community recognized status on a space. A gay bar is as much a fact as the people who believe it to be just as we believe the worn out paper in your wallet is worth a dollar, status is a social construct official or not.
"Queer space, after archinect/forum discussion. Heaps of irony and an even bigger joke."
"^^As usual, Sister Superior lays down the rules."
Very open and accepting. No personal attacks there, no sirree.
no_form, the one doing the designation is not the one tolerating the designation. you mentioned designation in your previous post, now are you trying to pass off tolerance as being designation?
for instance, i've heard of police and municipalities being bought off by straight businessmen, running unofficially gay clubs, in a country where homosexually is illegal. the real proactive entity who initiated this was not the property owner nor the authorities, it was the gay community themselves, who appropriated the place, first by testing it out to measure the tolerance of the straight property owner, someone who thought he was opening up a regulat (ie straight) nightclub ..and who in the process, as much as he might have been a homophobe or not, saw the gold mine for what it was. the authorities were at the end of this chain. the place became a huge magnet for the gay community who used that opportunity to build networks of friendships that further led to fortifying them. naturally it is and was never a sustainable formula for the space itself; once the authorities became intolerant (whether because there were problems between the property owner and the municipality or whatever), the gay community pushed into another space, they designated yet another gay space. the history of the gay community's development carries the memory of the places in which it grew into and then out of. the same occured and still occurs today in regards to cruising grounds, even within gay friendly cities. the authorities trim down trees and bushes to discourage gay people from sexually appropriating the space; immediately another space pops up on the gaydar.
taking away the gay people's agency in their choice of spaces, and giving it over to 'people in power' would have implied that gay people would never have had gotten to where they are today.
SneakyPete,
what is so personal about "Queer space, after archinect/forum discussion. Heaps of irony and an even bigger joke." ? What is being tackled here is the topic in the archinect context, not a person.
On the second, "^^As usual, Sister Superior lays down the rules." it was really in response to someone's tendency to lay down their own rules on an ongoing discussion and therefore, if it were personal, i thought it only had to do with the facet of this person that was impeding others' contributions here. so, again, not really an unwarranted attack on a generalized personal basis.
This might explain my earlier comment.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/16/smith-wesson-gun-sales-boosted-profits-50-percent-mass-shootings-fear
Again I repeat, this attack had NOTHING to do with Queer Space apart from the fact that it occurred in one.
It is not a pattern like school shootings are. It is a gun control issue, and purely an American one at that. I say "American" because this is the only country where a "lone wolf" can buy a gun and shoot up 50 people, unlike Paris, where there multiple attacks.
Sameolddoctor,
Its complex. There are multiple factors and important issues that relate to the events. Its absolutely a gun control issue. But its also a public safety/public space issue. As far as I can tell, its also a radicalization problem that may relate to a social conservatism problem that touches the issue of homophobia (perhaps internalized homophobia) in the muslim community. It also appears to be a masculinity issue that relates to the murderer's history of domestic abuse. It may also be about mental illness.
To say that this is only about guns is to deny the complexity of reality in favor of a strategically oversimplified narrative.
Again I repeat, this attack had NOTHING to do with Queer Space apart from the fact that it occurred in one.
But the fact that it occurred in one is not a coincidence. It's not irrelevant. It was an attack *on* Queer Space (if that's what we're calling it now) as much as it was an attack within one.
to davvids point you can work this event backwards in analysis, which is what most people do. sameoldoctor says gun problem, sure it is. but where did the problem occur - in a Queer Space (no?). i can not think of a neutral scenario where you withdraw the humans massacred and not connect the people to the space to the attack. you may be suggesting that one complex thread with another leading up to the event suggests that it is NOT a completely Queer Space issue, but the fact is it happened at one. (i am using Queer space in how this thread was formed). and lets say this space was never officially Queer, and only after the event did we determine the majority killed were Queer, wouldn't it then arise that the crime was projected at one specific group that occupied one specific space. you can not gloss over it like the threads just accidentally met there. it happened there at a space mainly occupied at the time by those people. not sure you can completely detach the Tool - Guns from the incident.
This thread is turning into a full on dumpster fire.
sameolddoctor,
Your wrong. In other countries, lone wolves do and have bought guns in non-U.S. countries and did mass shooting in non-U.S. countries. Facts do not support your claim. The problem is not a U.S. only problem.
damn you no_form. the second you say that Balkins shows up. Balkins you search dumpster fire or something?........have the concersation without the inclusion of Guns. try that.
thanks for that no_form
aaaand I'm out.
Some great comments in this thread, thanks for those.
this is a song by a Lebanese band whose lead vocalist is openly gay (something pretty different in Lebanon). The song is about attacks by the police (maghawir = commandos) on gay clubs in Beirut. It tackles guns and the inflated sense of masculinity, a militarized machismo. very pertinent here
This thread drives me nuts and is part of the problem. How would you design a space for a 20 year old? 30? 40? 50?... Sexual preference aside, those are really different taste, cultures, etc.
Try to remember “gay” isn’t a ‘lifestyle’. Lifestyle is something you choose. So if you choose a clubbing lifestyle… then that is the sort of place you might feel comfortable. If you choose a healthy lifestyle; maybe a gym or park… So flip it; All you know is the sexual orientation. Create a safe place for a hetero where he/she can feel he/she could ‘be herself/himself’…. whatever the f'k that means since I’ve never felt you should be anything different than who you are beyond cultural norms in that situation (like quiet in a library). These spaces can be anything.
The trick is getting the like minded people to also want to be there at the same time. Hence the gay dance club, or private golf clubhouse, or starbucks, or yoga park, or _____....
This was absolutely and attack on "Queer Space" because it was a social space defined by the presence of queer people.
If you want to have a "safe" space for the LGBTQ crowd in a "diverse" city that includes a significant number of fundamental Muslims that want to kill them, I don't see how you do it. In Istanbul, Turkey, there was going to be a gay parade in a few days, but a Muslim Youth group has called on the marchers to be killed. Nothing whatsoever to do with the US, gun laws, Islamaphobia, or any of the rest of it.
Maybe there needs to be more vigilante groups like the Lavander Panthers.
A good read on the topic of islamophobia here :
Stop Exploiting LGBT Issues to Demonize Islam and Justify Anti-Muslim Policies
And here is a pretty intelligent assessment from a religious point of view on the Orlando shooting and the backlashes expected against the Moslem community:
Orlando Shooting - Condemnation, Double Standard & Staying Safe - Sh. Dr. Yasir Qadhi
no way Volunteer, you went there, so non PC of you..........with regard to Space and Place and Occupants..........interesting thing about Islamaphobia vs Homophobia - going to argue two sides of this if I can - Will vs Fate...........according to the majority of Religous people Homosexuality is Evil and is either inherint evil temptation that can be cured through God or is an erroneous choice that may receive forgiveness if you choose the accepted ideology............. According to most Religious people - Religion is a choice you must make. So if being gay or religious are both choices you make, then what is the Phobia?..............the phobia is simple - other people who make other choices scare you and sometimes they scare you so much your "gut" reaction based on your "ethical" choices emplores you to eliminate them from either making their choices or from even being able to make a choice. your fear is justified through your choice of ideology. this is why you choose the "correct" ideology. you would also never admit that your choices were anything other than free will. Only based on Ideology can you justify your phobia.................Lets say though Homosexuality is fate through biology and Religion is fate through manifest destiny (Gods people). Then the phobia is nothing more than a "truth", an indicator of danger and therefore the fear is a natural reaction to Evil. You can not help yourself but to fear what you do not like naturally. what is unhealthy and unsafe for you - your fear is based on your survival instinct............so Queer Space phobia could be 1) a place where people go that make choices that scare you or 2) a place where a natural breed of inviduals gather that scare your breed - like sheep and wolves. ........1) if you remove the human choice makers then what signifies the space? 2) if the gatherings of like breeds are natural biology, what natural elements of such spaces attract such breeds?....................if Religion is a choice and Homosexuality a biological fact - That means then, a Queer space is a Safe space for those who have no choice to be other than who they are and can only choose where they can go based on the rest of societies defined ideologies- a system of ethical choices. The burden for such safe spaces then lies on the defined ideology of society, which is a free will choice system outside your biological make-up..........what is interesting to me at least, is that Religion is a choice that is an ideology that can limit the rights of others because of who they are naturally. and yet we give so much "tolerance" creedance to these Religions. Religions have Safe Places (usually) for gathering.......all seems backwards to me. Your Religion jusitfies your phobia and hate, but you can choose your religion and not yourself. Or am I wrong to think Religion is a choice? .........mightyaa notes queer is not a lifestyle, but wouldnt it become one if the current social ideologies limit your behavior and places for gathering?
Olaf, I agree with your point about will vs fate but would like to add;
For gays we often chose to conceal or tamp down the camp unless we know we are in a safe space for us to live it up a bit. The Problem with the safety of Queer Space is the fluidity of the gay community. you can be a flaming queen a butch jock a bi curious or a straight allay who like to dance to good music. this presents an inherent danger in that the queer space is vulnerable to infiltration and attack. It could be homophones looking to lure someone to a secluded space for an attack (this is the way most trannies are murdered today) or private investigators looking to black-male people. So Safe Queer Space has depended on very complex and subtle signals to validate a person's belonging. The LGBT community has been able to blend in like a chameleon for decades. And thus camouflage has lead to Gaydar, Pixey and other passwords that have helped keep people safe.
As we let our guard down in the face of sweeping changes and advancements in equality we also loosen our ring of defense. Sometime the best way to protect ourselves is to keep company with people we know are on our team or a part of our tribe.
Over and OUT
Peter N
Peter Normand Sometime the best way to protect ourselves is to keep company with people we know are on our team or a part of our tribe.
A bit too tribal, in my opinion. But I understand that it may not always be a choice and that it is a protective response. However, it is also good to keep a critical distance here. For instance, this tribalisation, and closing in upon onseself, can lead here to declaring monopoly over the tragedy as an exclusively gay homophobic affair, when clearly there were a convergence of naratives, none of which need exclude the other (mysoginistic masculinity, gun control, internalised homophobia, psychological problems, the media influence of ISIS and its like over the net, etc). But you find gay activists equating this to Stonewall. In my opinion, equating this with the Stonewall is not only misrepresentational (Stonewall was a response against the homophobic establishment and authorities....Pulse does not have such an address in the person of Omar Mateen). but also misdirectional. The true fight remains with the persistantly homophobic and opportunistic establishment figures (many of whom use this occasion to inflame hatred against Moslems, immigrants, other races, etc...and some of who are wishwashy about gay rights, caring only for votes and popularity, soulless Clinton being a case :).
So, if anything, I believe gay people should build horizontal bridges to other groups who suffer from discrimination and pertinent groups in this affair, including those fighting for guns, rather than willingly accept to incarcerate themselves to a ghetto that was itself the result of histric homophobia. Similarly to accept this event as one with mutiple convergent readings having violence as the convergence point.
if, however, all what gay people care about is cocooning in nightclubs and protecting these spaces of theirs, then, again in my opinion, not only is this a regressive response (similair to withdrawing to sucking on one's thumb) but it also reflects them as passive victims caught up in a small pocket of commercialism reserved for them, increasingly puryfying themselves into purer and purer stereotypes - many of which implicitly foster sexism, racism and the likes..and paradoxically, in the meantime, rejecting more and more people who are do not live up to those stereotypes.
CoC I do think Peter addressed the complexity issue in the end of paragraph - be a chameleon, yet make your own space when the codes are read and understood. makes me think of the mafia. the issue with horizontal bridges is you need to find a vertical opressor to all agree on. i would suggest Queer crosses all races and classes of people and therefore a unified horizontal front would be nearly impossible....for instance, lets suggest Clinton was actually a Lesbian..........CoC you note horizontal bridges between unlike groups based on my arguement posted above Peters.......I think you have to divide groups that invent ideologies that earn themselves discrimination and groups that develop an ideology to protect themselves in unison against discrimination......half jokingly, I have noted I am a Religious Bigot somewhere on this forum.... I think this is actually justified and one group of religions can if they like reject another. I do not disagree with a religous group who suggest doing so....... The base arguement for coexisting Religions essentially means we are all humans but chose different set of values to believe in for our daily routines and long term existential goals...... But, for those who have chosen these values, more often than not, the others who have not accepted same values are the enemy and coexisting is Blasphemy and Evil in essence........ This is also where I think liberal left "tolerance" becomes absurd and often backwards. You could suggest the limit of "ideological tolerance" is the point where "hate" becomes the character of the ideologies. But is it "hate" to discriminate and reject someone on prinicpal? Is it "hate" to honestly believe it is the end times and it is your duty to God to destroy the enemy? If you were to ask these religious people why they hate, they would actually note the people we think they hate are the evil ones and God has called for justice and out of love for their God and Religion they must fullfill God's plan for their lives?..........so these people, people who choose often destructive ideologies have safe places (Churches, Mosques, Temples, etc....) and have much influence over a "secular" set of ideologies in the form of an apparatus called the "government".......so do you build horinzontal bridges with people who invent or follow invented ideologies? i would say no, as that pushes one narrative over the only one that matters - justice. agaib what makes this an interesting philosophical and social question, at least in my "straight" mind, is Queer can cross all races and classes and religions - a yet is its own social group.
C of C and Olaf, I can see your point but I think you two are putting a bit too much thought into this. Queer Space now is more about preferences (not the mythical you choose to be gay kind) , when I am out and about shopping for a husband or just Mr right now I have personal preferences and they can be very specific. Gay bars help us distill the available choices so we know who to hit on. Unfortunately in any gay bar now you can swing a cat and hit a straight guy or gal just as much as what you might bee looking for. So building bridges is important in a political context but in a social and sexual context it can be counter productive and damaging to a community. The other thing that is reverting slightly back to the good old days is in-person dating instead of online dating. The numerous abuses and impostors trying to scam gays in particular is driving this. Trust but verify and the best way to verify is to lay eyes and hands on what it is you are looking at and for. The problem we are facing is the dilution of queer space where all who dared to enter knew what is expected and what is on the menu.
Over and OUT
Peter N
i tend to be very philosophical about stuff, overthinking is natural, but finding the overthinking meaningful is altogether another topic. in the future people will request segregation as a right, i am talking like 100 years from now....i-culture insinuates this
That's truly a great post on the topic. I am looking for more addition on this topic.
Have you seen this incredible resource about the Facts of Different Countries: http://www.wordsiseek.com/facts-about-worlds-different-countries/
hey cith1989 stupid shit, I have a solution for you
i haven nothing to do with your stupidity and false choices, sue me for being stupid.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.