Now, the GayMafia has decided who can and cannot identify as "gay"
-
SJWs are no more divisive or ridiculous than conservative republicans in the US. Nothing like jumping on a bandwagon.
Well, you're right on that one, SJWs can be considered the Mirror-image of conservative republicans.
And BTW, there's no such thing as the gay mafia. Grow up.
Not even the Silk Mafia?! :cry2:
-
This headline from the above-referenced Breitbart article is what's truly stupid: "The Advocate: Peter Thiel Can’t Be Gay Because He’s a Conservative."
Ummm, that's not "The Advocate" saying that. It's an op-ed, or opinion piece, and is clearly labeled "commentary," by someone who appears to have written all of three commentaries for that magazine. I know the half-wits at Breitbart don't make such brainy, vaguely sissified distinctions, but please learn the difference between news and opinion before tilting at the windmill of theSJWsofthegaycommunity…
I'm glad you read the piece they cite. Their interpretation intentionally misconstrues the thrust of the argument in an attempt to create a wedge (seems successful in here anyway). The opinion piece they reference talks at length that the actual definition of homosexuality and its subsets known as "LGBTQ" are a modern construct.
In the United States and many parts of Europe, the development of these categories led to the broader cultural understanding that these sexual acts created identities.
The understanding that sex had the power to define identity led to the demarcation of homosexual and heterosexual people — as well as the subsequent stigma that those who were marked as homosexual were aberrant, criminally deviant, and socially unacceptable.
The article then goes on to say this:
The gay liberation movement has left us a powerful legacy, and protecting that legacy requires understanding the meaning of the term "gay" and not using it simply as a synonym for same-sex desire and intimacy.
So my question becomes: Did Breitbart read the same article I read? The piece on the Advocate not only explains the evolution of the term "gay" but that, in the end, being "gay" is not a single subset that's possible to define solely as sexual intercourse. As a social construct people expect "gay" to mean many things by default. It's a loaded term meaning to be "gay" is to be a certain way, act a certain way, believe certain things…etc. The quote above illustrates this.
The article itself expands the definition of being gay beyond sexual desire as a cultural shift (see the above quote where it mentions historical context.) This is the opposite of what Breitbart claims it does. They never claim Thiel isn't gay. In fact, they reaffirm that, despite Thiel distancing himself of the typical definition of the LGBT identity, the identity itself isn't traditionally narrow and he desn't follow the modern identity of "gay".
Bretibart takes this part out of context
By the logic of gay liberation, Thiel is an example of a man who has sex with other men, but not a gay man. Because he does not embrace the struggle of people to embrace their distinctive identity.
The beginning of this quote is, "By the logic of gay liberation…" but they purposefully leave out the explanation in the rest of the article. Thiel is not "gay" in the sense that we expect everyone to follow the same definition. Personally, I don't live in the gayborhood. I hate going to beaches shirtless with 100s of other men, I'm okay with balding, and I don't shave or wax. I'm definitely homosexual, but I don't identify with what people may construe as being "gay". I was once told, "But you don't dress gay." Whatever the fuck that means. The article is explaining you can be gay (sexually) without following the "logic of gay liberation" that being gay means you have to believe or act a certain way.
In this way, Thiel reaffirmed his own sexual choices — while separating himself from gay identity. His notion that transgender people’s predicament is somehow a distraction effectively rejects the conception of LGBT as a cultural identity that requires political struggle to defend.
Translation: Thiel is a homosexual, but Thiel doesn't subscribe to the culture people have expected or defined as "gay". In fact, he rejects it hardcore.
Somehow I don't think Thiel can disagree with that statement. In fact, I think he would say it's accurate, 100%
Bretibart distils "gay" and inserts it as a wedge between people that subscribe to the scene and people that don't. Sadly, we don't need Breitbart's help in saying some people are too gay or "into the scene" etc. and making judgment calls on who is and isn't gay "enough". And in the end they got what they wanted and what Thiel likes to create: a demarcation between being a human with feelings and desires and being something some has labeled as a certain way and generally beneath contempt.
Bravo Breitbart and Peter Thiel, you've managed to take your own contempt for "icky gay things" and spread it to actual homosexuals and self-loathing gays.
-
I got super long winded again.
TL;DR
The Advocate says this:
Peter Thiel is not "gay" in the sense that the term is loaded to mean a single homogenous community that must be a certain way, act a certain way, dress a certain way, vote a certain way. Thiel rejects this definition of gay. The definition of "gay" as understood today is a social construct and not real or even long-lived historically.
Is Thiel a homosexual? Yes. He likes dick.
I do not think Thiel would disagree.
-
Why would you take anything that Breitbart says seriously? Those people live in some alternate reality. It's not news.
-
I got super long winded again.
TL;DR
The Advocate says this:
Peter Thiel is not "gay" in the sense that the term is loaded to mean a single homogenous community that must be a certain way, act a certain way, dress a certain way, vote a certain way. Thiel rejects this definition of gay. The definition of "gay" as understood today is a social construct and not real or even long-lived historically.
Is Thiel a homosexual? Yes. He likes dick.
I do not think Thiel would disagree.
Sooooooooo, the Advocate is advocating what I have been saying for ages. Being "gay" is a hive mind thing. I guess I have to turn in my "gay" membership card then.
We fought for the right to be different, but Generation Special Snowflake has decided that "different" is evil when it comes to the hive mind.
-
Sooooooooo, the Advocate is advocating what I have been saying for ages. Being "gay" is a hive mind thing. I guess I have to turn in my "gay" membership card then.
We fought for the right to be different, but Generation Special Snowflake has decided that "different" is evil when it comes to the hive mind.
No, that's not what they meant, what they mean is, that to most people, "gay" is seen as a collective thing with specific traits. That you have to be in the hive according to society's explanation. But that Tiel rejects that expectation.
So they aren't making a judgment call. They're just saying you can be whatever you want without fitting into the gay "mold" or the hive mind as you put it. Because "gay" is a label, not a real thing. Rather than attack Thiel's position, they're explaining his mindset: I can love men without being "gay" and this is why he also rejects the usual political activism. They're doing the opposite of what Breitbart claims, they're attempting to explain why Thiel can be so contrary to what people would expect from a "gay".
Is he "gay" by the usual definition? No.
Is the gay definition meaningful? Only as a societal construct to lump people together. It's a term used for this that's probably less than 100 years old. (Anyone else remember the Flintstones having a gay ole time?)
Are there people outside that construct that reject it? Well obviously.
So why is Thiel so hostile to gay political goals? Because he doesn't identify as "gay" in the accepted definition. -
The more that can be done to piss off right wingers the better.
Bring it SJWs!
-
No, that's not what they meant, what they mean is, that to most people, "gay" is seen as a collective thing with specific traits. That you have to be in the hive according to society's explanation. But that Tiel rejects that expectation.
Sorry, but being gay is nothing more than same sex attraction.
So they aren't making a judgment call. They're just saying you can be whatever you want without fitting into the gay "mold" or the hive mind as you put it. Because "gay" is a label, not a real thing. Rather than attack Thiel's position, they're explaining his mindset: I can love men without being "gay" and this is why he also rejects the usual political activism. They're doing the opposite of what Breitbart claims, they're attempting to explain why Thiel can be so contrary to what people would expect from a "gay".
Is he "gay" by the usual definition? No.
Does he like dick? YES, so he's gay. Just because he or I don't wear assless chaps and dance in the middle of the street to YMCA doesn't mean we are not gay.
Is the gay definition meaningful? Only as a societal construct to lump people together. It's a term used for this that's probably less than 100 years old. (Anyone else remember the Flintstones having a gay ole time?)
Fag is/was a stick and later a cigarette. Queer meant different. So what? HuffPost demands that gay no longer exists and that we are all queer now.
Are there people outside that construct that reject it? Well obviously.
AGAIN, just because I'm not clubbing until 4am and taking it up the ass behind the dumpster after the club closes, doesn't mean I'm not gay.
So why is Thiel so hostile to gay political goals? Because he doesn't identify as "gay" in the accepted definition.
I know gay people, who fit the lifestyle collective, who are against the "gay agenda". We have plenty of them here as members as well.
-
No, that's not what they meant, what they mean is, that to most people, "gay" is seen as a collective thing with specific traits. That you have to be in the hive according to society's explanation. But that Tiel rejects that expectation.
Sorry, but being gay is nothing more than same sex attraction.
sigh Sorry about what? They're describing the current condition, not that either they or you agree with it. In fact, you make the same point, that gay means same-sex attraction. But that Thiel's detractors conflate gay with behavior and that's not historically true.
You're agreeing with the article on The Advocate without realizing it.
The article explains that the demarcation between being "gay" and having same-sex desire is a societal claim. So people claiming "gay" requires Thiel be on board with all the political leanings of gays buy into the recent societal prescription. But that this label in itself is meaningless to the origins of the term and only recently used as a definition that includes behavior outside of same-sex attraction.
But to many people, if you don't wear "assless chaps and dance" you don't meet the new definition of gay. Or least not gay "enough". The article makes it clear that's just a new definition people have made up. So the Advocate is actually describing the "why" of Thiel's detractors, they make no claim to define who is and isn't really gay.
-
The article explains that the demarcation between being "gay" and having same-sex desire is a societal claim. So people claiming "gay" requires Thiel be on board with all the political leanings of gays buy into the recent societal prescription.
YES, the hive mind. I hate the f'ing hive mind.
But that this label in itself is meaningless to the origins of the term and only recently used as a definition that includes behavior outside of same-sex attraction.
I gave 2 other examples of words that have changed to mean something else. Words and phrases do that over time.
-
Alright…
So, from this article we can conclude that for some people, the term 'gay' now also involves certain societal constructs or perceived ways of thinking and behaviour. Not just the same-sex attraction.
Yet, there are some people who don't conform to this new identity construct and hence, are labeled as 'not gay' by the flock of drones and SJWs.
Honestly, considering the personal and group agendas, the religions, the races...the political leanings...the only thing we can still bond over is that we like dick.
Maybe since 'gay' has become as you describe it 'a loaded term', we might need to rethink it or abandon it altogether.
-
GAY needs to be taken back from the SJWs and drones.
We fought for the right to be different, not to be part of a hive mind.
If we decide to given in to these scum, then we need to fight to add "gay" to everything (election forms, opinion polls, etc, etc, etc) so they can auto fill in the forms for us. Which of the infinite genders will we use? Will we still be gay rather than pansexual, since not being attracted to the opposite sex is sexist, but only if the opposite sex is a woman. What do us white men do, since our hive mind hates us simply for existing.
So many questions.
-
Ah you poor guys. First the rest of the world is terrorizing you and now you even have mafia. When will it stop? :crazy2:
Maybe you should just call yourself non-straight. First straight people will probably be happy to have straight word mentioned and then here you have whatever is not straight. Now that I have more insights in what you have to go through, I just can't belive people can be that crazy. Did I live in a bubble all my life? Here we fight what will be said in a marriage certificate after you get married. Gays wanted it to be just partner, straight to be husband and wife. Why couldn't just be husband and husband or husband and wife? Noone could think of that at the time. My dad was so agains word partner, but with me and mum next to him, he wouldn't dare to vote as he wanted, specially when he found out his nephew is also gay so I managed to get 3 votes on gay behalf. We still lost, but that was first time I voted after over 20 years -
Ah you poor guys. First the rest of the world is terrorizing you and now you even have mafia. When will it stop? :crazy2:
Maybe you should just call yourself non-straight. First straight people will probably be happy to have straight word mentioned and then here you have whatever is not straight. Now that I have more insights in what you have to go through, I just can't belive people can be that crazy. Did I live in a bubble all my life? Here we fight what will be said in a marriage certificate after you get married. Gays wanted it to be just partner, straight to be husband and wife. Why couldn't just be husband and husband or husband and wife? Noone could think of that at the time. My dad was so agains word partner, but with me and mum next to him, he wouldn't dare to vote as he wanted, specially when he found out his nephew is also gay so I managed to get 3 votes on gay behalf. We still lost, but that was first time I voted after over 20 yearsTo be honest, the term 'Partner' is more general and hence serves at designing both members of the union, no matter their sexes, they're going to be 'partners for life' after all (we hope).
But yeah you're right…if I ever marry another, we will be both men, hence we will be husband and husband...but whatever. At least your government will save money by just having one type of draft for any marriage. ;D
-
In the UK, "partner" is the generic term for both couples of all sexualities, married or not.
