And finally, to be blunt, I said I think this whole feud is kind of stupid, that all of you share 95% of the same political and social objectives and that if you’re all slugging it out in the gutter over doctrinal issues the social conservatives who are the *real* problem can just step across you, and moderates and fence sitters who might otherwise get off the fence ask why they should listen to *either* side… and then go hang out with the social conservatives who offer them tea.
...at which point the loss of the such sociopathic idiots will cause me to weep tears of deeply amused laughter as I see the inevtiable expression on the fence sitters' faces as the conservatives tell them that they're untermenschen scum who deserves to die and htat that big racist Nationalist "We" needs to commit the occasional act of genocide for THE LORD.
The conservatives ARE our recruiters, the trouble is that it really hurts the cause when people who, as you say, share 95% of our political aims go around declaring that group X Y and Z are all untermenschen scum who deserves to be raped and murdered (unless anyone can better parse lucknkl's scatalogical Protocols-esque dribblings so that it doesn't involve holding the view that transwomen deserve to be kept out of rape crisis centers and violence shleters becasue they're Sekret Trans-Ants) and then declaring that "we" all need to, you know, turn a blind eye to this or that nastiness because it hurts teh Unity of Teh Group (AKA the white middle and upper class turds who presume to float to the top of any suitably large enough social movement) if we are bigoted towards Our bigots rather than Their bigots.
No, sorry, bigotry isn't acceptable no matter who's "side" the bigot's on, due to the major aspect of my politics being based around the idea that I want to get rid of bigotry - it's like how chimps and humans have a 95% similar genome, you still won't find me clambering into bed with a chimp, because quite frankly they smell and are dirty and have a great difficulty with things like not shitting in Our collective bed.
A 5% difference is a fucking HUGE difference if it's the right (or wrong) 5%.
My friendships and alliances are based on how they match my politics, you're a freind or ally because you're on my side versus racism, facism, sexism, classism - because my politics are personalised and they are based around a core moral principle that declares that all humans are human, and deserve to be treated appropriately.
This means that if you go off and start declaring that people A are all less than human and deserve worse treatment than they get already, or that people B are all more human than the rest and therfore deserve more respect and greater allowances for their fucked up behavior than the rest, then you are not on my side, i am not your ally, even less your friend.
Also I'm going to poke amanda anyway until she molests piny's ridiculously frigid bear into the sick and seedy underworld of bearstitution, just because I'm a big Bush Hating meanie head.
Tis a fact kind sirs, nothing makes my Thing Rise Up like people refusing to embrace Moral Clarity in the face of the diabolical Chickens-That-Are-Not-Chickens which are the republican party. /completely unconnected but deeply amusing nontheless (via)
24 comments:
I have a problem with a few things.
First, I think men need to STFU about women who fight. I read somewhere, I cannot remember now, a whole entry by a male wagging his finger. I don't care if he is on my "side" or not. He needs to stay the fuck out of it. It is as if women need the great white hope to jump in and direct them. @@<---- RMFEs.
Second problem, I cannot stand when some people who share the same view on the topic at hand as in TRANSPHOBIA is wrong as I do, yet they try to divert and corrupt because they no longer care about the cause but how they feel about me personally. And I hate them more when they do not have the courage to admit that is the deal.
chasingmoksha:
"yet they try to divert and corrupt because they no longer care about the cause but how they feel about me personally. And I hate them more when they do not have the courage to admit that is the deal."
You know, I really like that, and feel that way a lot of the time too.
RM, once again, well done.
RenEv -- you probably don't realize how hard CM is laughing over your comment right now. :)
QD:
I don't care if she is or is not, really. I am sort of past caring, in truth. I don't know CM, or her politics, or what she has or has not said to anyone about anything in the past...but that sentiment, currently, I can feel, you know? I don't need the play by play back story to occasionally empathize with something someone says. Hell, for all I know, CM could think I (and my ilk) are the antichrist, that does not lessen the fact that her comment there stuck with me, you know?
CM, the first two times I interacted with you was at B|L's and I defended your positions and your right to be heard. Here's me from the RM Threat Level post at BL:
#137 ...you have stereotyped chasingmoksha into a corner, which means you cannot hear a word she says.She is a human being speaking directly to you, yet you have decided without evidence what she believes and how she acts in real life. This is not intersectional behavior. This is bullying....
Elle follows me with:
#138 ...I have to step up to defend the Moksha I know. She’s a woman who is very cognizant of issues that WoC face and who has been a great ally. ...
You responded:
#139 ..Thank you Ravenmn and elle for understanding me.
elle you made me cry and that rarely, if ever happens on a computer.
Lately you've been saying nobody "has your back." So what am I - chopped liver? It feels like you have forgotten people who have supported you.
I don't want my blogging experience to be about taking sides and judging who is honest and who has evil intents. I refuse to take sides on this issue. I'll support you when I agree with you, I'll question you when I can't understand you, and I'll challenge you when I disagree with you.
No hidden agenda.
No lack of courage.
Just two or more people talking. Let's see where that takes us, OK?
RM said: "...it's like how chimps and humans have a 95% similar genome, you still won't find me clambering into bed with a chimp..."
You are one amazing quote after the other. I'll take that engraved in stone!
No RE, I have read a few of your blog entries. As I have stated more than once, people can do and say whatever they want. I am not of the crusade that will shove my opinion down someone's throat. I am on the group who call out people who think by me expressing my opinion that I am demanding that they do not live the way they live. That is what causes these little tempest in a teapot. People act like, "Well she said, it so she must be shaming me."
It is like cramming a foot in a shoe regarding of its size (because it almost fits, or it could fit with some alterations, etc).
Ravenm, I never said you are for or against me.
And no I don't feel like anyone has my back lately. I am a person, I am entitled to have that opinion.
That thread that you are referring to happened well over two months ago. Two months ago does not equal lately.
Nevertheless, I'm not trying to fight with you or hang you out to dry or whatever or the current sentiments running around, I just simply restating my opinion, and that is no one has my back. No one will admit how even though I clearly stated my side, "TRANSPHOBIA IS WRONG!", there were folks, (people will not admit it), who used it as an opportunity to attack me. I know this. So to discuss it without people admitting what they did would be just wasting time. And for other to give non-apology apologies is wasting time and insulting my intelligence.
CM, you are not using names, but here's how I hearing your post:
No one was talking about your (Bitch!Lab) ass, yet you used this as an opportunity to try and change the mind of someone (Ravenmn) who read my words without a bias and without names attached.
I am not under the spell of Bitch|Lab. She has not and CAN not change my mind about you. I don't give her or anyone that power.
Look, B|L isn't subtle. If she wanted to change my mind about you she would say so out loud on her blog or in comments.
Lots of us in femibloglandia agree with you and have supported you in the past. You're ignoring us by claiming entire discussions are ONLY about a personal dislike for you.
I'm not playing that game.
"No one was talking about your (Bitch!Lab) ass, yet you used this as an opportunity to try and change the mind of someone (Ravenmn) who read my words without a bias and without names attached."
WRONG!
I was talking aboutRenegade. It is laid out plain and simple. Read the first few comments.
You have just proven my point. People take ownership when it is not about THEM! Try asking someone if it is about them or not.
" dewd formerly known as ( ) said...
RenEv -- you probably don't realize how hard CM is laughing over your comment right now. :)"
I guess this is not starting shit?
Yeah right. And I have some swamp land to sell.
I wrote: "CM, you are not using names, but here's how I hearing your post:"
CM wrote: "Try asking someone if it is about them or not."
I think I did. You weren't listening. Again.
"See how you start shit Bitch Lab[I USED A NAME HERE]. No one was talking about your ass, yet you used this as an opportunity to try and change the mind of someone [Renegade, IT IS IN THE COMMENTS, FOLLOW THE THREAD] who read my words without a bias and without names attached."
HOW PLAIN MUST IT GET????
No one was talking about YOU RAVEN, and to assume so is taking an ownership that was not assigned as so.
This is the type of WILLFUL Determination not to understand something in black and white that I have been talking about.
I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
If you read my post, I told you what I thought your post meant. I quoted you directly, I told you how your post sounded to me. I did not re-phrase your quote or deliberately misinterpret your quote.
I made a mistake. I'm sorry.
CM: HOW PLAIN MUST IT GET????
It would help if you used names.
“It would help if you used names.”
Not trying to be snarky, but it would help if people read all of the comments, and the order of those comments.
I do not use names when I am talking about generalities. However, in this case I used Bitch Lab’s name because it was her comment that I was responding to. No, I did not insert Renegade’s name, because, one, I was not sure of the second part of her name, and two, following the comments, it should be obvious who I was talking about. I made a comment, Renegade made a comment, then Bitch Lab tried to instigate with Renegade, and then I called Bitch Lab out on her instigating. Yes, you (Raven) made a comment within those comments, but my following comment could not have been directed at you, when Bitch|Lab’s comment did not name you, but Renegade. Proving that she in fact behaving exactly the way I said in my first comment. However, in the first comment I was focusing on generalities, not anyone in particularly. Yet Bitch|Lab personalized that generality by doing exactly what I said that I detest generally.
Way to take accept an apology, CM. That was simply rude.
This is one of the biggest problems on the web. Everyone assumes they know who is talking about whom and has read everyone's entire output. We set ourselves up for all kinds of misunderstandings if we work under that assumption.
That is exactly what happened at Twisty's, at Amanda's, at FireDog, etc. We were supposed to understand their meaning even though it was never expressly stated and all kinds of different readings were possible.
You can hope for it. You can wish for it. But it isn't going to happen very often. When misunderstanding arises, we need to decide what behavior is acceptable and what is not.
By continuing to claim that it was simply impossible for me to misunderstand you, CM, you are doing exactly what I chastised someone else for doing to you. Here, I'll change the names.
"you have stereotyped me into a corner, which means you cannot hear a word I say. I am a human being speaking directly to you."
Oh Raven please.
I would have accepted a clear apology if I was given a clear apology. However, you have to throw in a dig at the end.
As follows:
"I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
If you read my post, I told you what I thought your post meant. I quoted you directly, I told you how your post sounded to me. I did not re-phrase your quote or deliberately misinterpret your quote. [Yet you left out who I clearly directed it at]
I made a mistake. I'm sorry.
CM: HOW PLAIN MUST IT GET????
It would help if you used names.
The bold is a dig. Instead of admitting you did not read or follow the thread you had to just throw in how it is my fault that you did not understand, (even though you did not read all the comments)because I left out one name of the two, that ANYONE could have followed if they read the comments.
So spare me. I don't play "your fault" apologies. And I may add that you have blown this way out of proportion. Something that never would have happened if the comments were READ!!!!
Anonymous KISS MY MOTHERFUCKING ASS! Try using your familiar name coward.
Btw Raven, that last line was for "Anonymous" not for Raven. NOT FOR RAVEN!
Thanks for that, R. Mildred. I appreciate it.
That is exactly what happened at Twisty's, at Amanda's, at FireDog, etc. We were supposed to understand their meaning even though it was never expressly stated and all kinds of different readings were possible.
NO IT WASN'T! They just kept stating this ridiculously limited reading of their words and statements over and over again as though choosing to ignore the many many ways their words were stupid/racist/transphobic made the statements not hateful, and then promptly ignored any and all evidence that contradicted their declarations - including the existence of people who criticised them who weren't lily white like them.
There was no freaking misunderstanding of what those fuckwits meant, all of them are much too good at expressing what they mean for there to be that sort of confusion - what they meant however and how they defended their arguements were all atrocious.
Oh for Christ's sake. Get over it already R. Mildred. Chasing Moksha is the main reason there is so much dissention here. Face the facts. She tries to belittle others while playing the fucking victim by bringing up her past and turning what others express as their opinion as something or someone out to get her. I've never seen a person with so much hostility pent up inside as that lazy bitch.
Anonymous, you sound pretty angry. And as far as bringing up my past, I think I only do that in my blog, which is my business, my blog, see how that works. What are you trying to say? That I should not talk about what I want to talk about in my blog because it some how gives you an unfair advantage to talk about me? HAH! That is insane and reeks of Ann Coulter logic.
Whenever I am personally attack I ask people to direct me to where I initiated an attack and all I usually get is “you were talking about me” when there is no proof that I was in fact talking about them and if they had read more clearly they would see that I was not talking about them. I am very confident in this regard because I speak in generalities unless I specifically direct something to someone. I learned that long time ago. I learned passive aggressive techniques (talking about someone when it looks like you are not) are not nice and is cowardly. Therefore, I don’t do it.
This is exactly why I am too cynical and do not believe that many people who claim to be fighting against oppression are in fact fighting against oppression. It reminds me of an article I read last spring in The National Review, The Atlantic, or The New Yorker; I am not sure which one. An Asian-American author, female was responding to a written attack she suffered at the hands of the women of the Mommy Wars or something like that. The mommies had asked her to write an article for them and she (the Asian-American author) said she would do it for around four figures. Instead of asking her exactly how much they went back and ranted how 5000-9000 dollars is excessively much. When the Asian-American author (I wish I knew her name, sorry) responded that four figures could be as low as 1000 dollars and that the Mommies were trying to do to her exactly what they were rallying against –not paying women what they are worth---, the mommies dismissed her as an elitist who did not care about women issues.
This kind of half ass circling goes on in the blogosphere. People do not read, do not ask for clarification, and do not apologize when they in fact wronged someone yet they like to point the finger to the person who stands up for themselves (which is what fighting oppression is all about, I think, standing up for members of a group who have been traditionally oppressed).
What a hoot, that I am the cause of all the problems. Twisty allows Tran phobia, Amanda and Lindsay demonstrate their racism, and Jessica pimps a book cover that undermines feminism, but I am the cause. LMAO! Maybe if I become a “me too” or “sure boss” or “you are so great” then I can break free from this perception I guess.
I am curious to what makes me "lazy."
I feel somewhat upset that everyone is fighting. Why is everyone mad? Can't we all tell people that transpeople are perfectly fine and good without fighting? I'm so tempted to eat fudge right now!
RM wrote: "There was no freaking misunderstanding of what those fuckwits meant..."
I agree entirely, RM. I wasn't referring to the transhaters who commented. I was referring to Twisty. I should have been more specific.
As I recall, it was unclear for a while whether Twisty was supporting the assholes. Twisty's first few comments were very flip and vague. They were absolutely unsatisfactory. That's the point at which I stopped reading Twisty. I haven't been back there since.
I agree there was open bigotry, that it was wrong, that people were right to call the bigots on their actions.
What I am arguing against is the idea I've seen in defense of Twisty, Amanda, et al that claims blog readers should not make judgments about specific blog posts.
I argued with many people at Amanda's who claimed that it was not possible to view the burqa image as a racist image, because Amanda has demonstrated anti-racist beliefs in her previous posts.
People apparently believed that, because Amanda has written many anti-racist posts in the past, she had built up an immunity from the ability to commit a racist act and we were at fault for not recognizing that immunity.
Those of us who complained were called inconsiderate. We were told we needed to read a bunch of Amanda's post in order to earn the right to make a judgment about a particular image or post.
I think this is an unreasonable demand and a bad excuse for inexcusable behavior. I don't need to know Lucknlyl's back story and her previous experiences with transgendered people in order to realize she is a bigot spouting hateful words.
I hope that makes more sense now. I'm having a bad week at work and I'm very tired.
CM, I apologize for my mistake and any misunderstanding between us. It is entirely my fault.
No problem Raven. You have always been very generous in dialogue with me and I appreciate that. Perhaps I should not be such a stickler with reading, but it seems to be my trade, I like complete clarity for some reason. And I know that I am not personable enough for most people. I am of the type that forgets to insert the little niceties that put most people at ease. Maybe I should add those more often, yet, consciously doing it makes me feel so phony, but I see the value in it, and I see how others do it without effort.
Nevertheless, I see you as an online friend.
I hope work is better next week.
I am sorry too.
chasin':
Hell, I don't even know you and apparently we would disagree about a ton of stuff, but I gotta say, well, people (namely Anony down there) are truly being shitty. (I just LOVE anonymous wisdom myself, nothing like a coward who throws stones with no name and all...). My theory, speak your mind, loud and proud, and well, yeah..you know I would guess
Post a Comment