51 réponses à ce sujet

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Link to article to prove I'm not making it up! xD

 

Sorry, I can't think of anything poignant or witty to say, as I'm too busy snickering just at the moment. I will be more sober regarding the subject when I've had a few more minutes to process it.

 

Edit:

 

Okay, so it is obviously tragic that police in Turkey tried to stop the Pride Parade with rubber bullets and tear gas. That having been said, the manner in which the effort backfired when the water cannons were brought in is so enormously symbolic that it may well work to prevent repeating such efforts in the future.

 

It may even make some of the people behind the decision afraid that they have tempted fate. Maybe the incident will even convince them to chill out a bit. Only time will tell.

[Simfam]

Nah next time they'll just batons.

 

The scum.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

 

for the police!

[mybudgee]

It may even make some of the people behind the decision afraid that they have tempted fate. Maybe the incident will even convince them to chill out a bit. Only time will tell.

Not likely

[DEUGH Man]

"Gay Pride? Water you guys talking about? You guys gotta jet."

[Beerfish]

Once there are no more parades we will know that equality and tolerance have been reached.  (I say this in all seriousness)

[SwobyJ]

Once there are no more parades we will know that equality and tolerance have been reached.  (I say this in all seriousness)

 

 

In seriousness though, its just a matter of time for Turkey and its younger generations. 20(ish)% support several years ago has become more like 30-40% support. Up it by another 10-20% and we have USA 10-20 years ago (LGBT tolerance), or up it by 20-30% instead and we have USA today (LGBT acceptance), in terms of majority demographical support for LGBT. Events like this are a short term victory for social conservatives while the social liberals win out in the end, with increased sympathy for the willingness of activists to step into situations where, well, they may be sprayed and gassed.

 

I do find it a fun messaging lately: Southern Ireland legalizes marriage and it gets its rainbow, USA legalizes marriage and it gets its rainbow, Istanbul has a pride parade in a majority-against culture and the resulting conflict creates a rainbow. This is all a symbolic framing of things, of course, but it works. The rainbow has its historical symbolism of being a path to the heavens, a higher plane of consciousness, a sign of good things*, only maybe broken by an eventual battle or dark times later on. The point is pretty clear - the LGBT are fighting for good and the regressives (beyond even 'conservatives' at that point) will be fighting for evil if they rebel just for the sake of being asses to LGBT. Just symbolism, and I normally don't care about it for this stuff, but it works. The rainbow, at least in most media, isn't shown for when gays are restricted, but when they receive recognition of rights.

 

 

*Though admittedly, the rainbow has also been viewed in cultures as dangerously magical, demonic, messes with natural existence, and illusion instead of understood reality. So while the rainbow has never been regarded as a full-on evil to be constantly opposed, it does have a mixed reputation and those who think it is something to hide from or is too disruptive to the normal way of things.

Frankly, its been a perfect symbol for LGBT along with all sorts of related cultural ideas.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Not likely

 

Historically, nations on Turkey's path have incrementally moved in that direction, so I'm actually inclined to believe it is significantly more likely than not.

[Billy-the-Squid]

Once there are no more parades we will know that equality and tolerance have been reached.  (I say this in all seriousness)

 

It'll never happen, "progressives" will always have something to ****** about.

[SwobyJ]

It'll never happen, "progressives" will always have something to ****** about.

 

That's kind of the point though, hate it or not (and disclosure: I hate it sometimes too). Progressives are, in some way or another (not even liberal progressives - there are conservative and other progressives in various ways, generally and not just in the left-right paradigm), dissatisfied with the current way of things. Even liberals themselves may be fine with the world as it is, except for wanting people more open to what exists in it. Progressives want change, they actively work for it and know that they will not have majority support for change until some potential point in the future. The change that progressives want may be seen as a positive thing in retrospect, or it may be something that hit dead ends and didn't recognize a dream for just delusion.

 

Progressives don't see an 'end point' for *all* existence, and they may not see a measured change as good enough for the people living today, existing in the here and now. They embrace change, but they may be egocentric enough to assert that THEIR form of change is THE way to go, and that it is THEIR responsibility/role to push that change so it happens earlier (for various moral/strategic reasons). And again, sometimes wide populations may look back on these people and their fighting for change, and have to admit it was a good thing to do. And sometimes they won't, but the concepts that progressives thought about remain in discourse.

 

For example: Whether you it or not, regardless of whether 'SJWs' win anything in the meantime, many of their ideas will filter through generations, to some extent, and impact future discourse and decisions taken. In that respect, they 'win'. Even if everything they ever said was destroyed, the fact they said it proves it will come up again and again, with more ideas leaking through. Their personal, individual visions of the world may not happen, but the ideas are proven ways for the mind to think, and its even the crazy ones (if you think they're crazy) that make change happen. Like, 'trigger warnings' may be removed from culture, but eventually, an increased sensitivity to the problems of others may still be the future, and that came through the more radical approach of putting trigger warnings everywhere. People look back on the idea, and take what they thought was good of it, and reject the bad, and it becomes the new liberal, which ultimately becomes a form of the new conservative. So change happened.

(IMO)

 

Another more concrete example: Eugenics. Favored by much of society for a time, the radically progressive (read: not necessarily good) approach of the Nazis to the still young science probably pushed advancement of it faster than otherwise, then it received an understandably huge backlash and ban. But now, we just do eugenics-under-a-different-name in our search for genetic treatments and even cures for diseases. Still technically eugenics, but dropping the baggage while taking the boons.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

In Islam Homosexual act is a big sin. Even if turkey have 70% acceptance nothing will happen, considering that that 70% will be sissy liberals and the other 30% will be hardass conservatives. The rest of middle east won't see this gayness till 500 years from now at least.

[Billy-the-Squid]

That's kind of the point though, hate it or not (and disclosure: I hate it sometimes too). Progressives are, in some way or another (not even liberal progressives - there are conservative and other progressives in various ways, generally and not just in the left-right paradigm), dissatisfied with the current way of things. Even liberals themselves may be fine with the world as it is, except for wanting people more open to what exists in it. Progressives want change, they actively work for it and know that they will not have majority support for change until some potential point in the future. The change that progressives want may be seen as a positive thing in retrospect, or it may be something that hit dead ends and didn't recognize a dream for just delusion.

 

Progressives don't see an 'end point' for *all* existence, and they may not see a measured change as good enough for the people living today, existing in the here and now. They embrace change, but they may be egocentric enough to assert that THEIR form of change is THE way to go, and that it is THEIR responsibility/role to push that change so it happens earlier (for various moral/strategic reasons). And again, sometimes wide populations may look back on these people and their fighting for change, and have to admit it was a good thing to do. And sometimes they won't, but the concepts that progressives thought about remain in discourse.

 

For example: Whether you it or not, regardless of whether 'SJWs' win anything in the meantime, many of their ideas will filter through generations, to some extent, and impact future discourse and decisions taken. In that respect, they 'win'. Even if everything they ever said was destroyed, the fact they said it proves it will come up again and again, with more ideas leaking through. Their personal, individual visions of the world may not happen, but the ideas are proven ways for the mind to think, and its even the crazy ones (if you think they're crazy) that make change happen. Like, 'trigger warnings' may be removed from culture, but eventually, an increased sensitivity to the problems of others may still be the future, and that came through the more radical approach of putting trigger warnings everywhere. People look back on the idea, and take what they thought was good of it, and reject the bad, and it becomes the new liberal, which ultimately becomes a form of the new conservative. So change happened.

(IMO)

 

Another more concrete example: Eugenics. Favored by much of society for a time, the radically progressive (read: not necessarily good) approach of the Nazis to the still young science probably pushed advancement of it faster than otherwise, then it received an understandably huge backlash and ban. But now, we just do eugenics-under-a-different-name in our search for genetic treatments and even cures for diseases. Still technically eugenics, but dropping the baggage while taking the boons.

 

 

Bull ****. Progressives are more often than not egotistical narcissists, who's sole purpose is to push an agenda to the detriment of everyone which it does not benefit. By and large the large inequalities have been erased in the western based civilisations, what we now have are a groups of whiny, perpetually offended victims who take offence at everything and everyone on behalf of those who aren't offended.

 

Most modern economies have progressed to a level of efficiency where these people's sole aim in life is to find offence, because that's how they earn a living, if we lived in any other time they'd starve in the street. The problem is precisely because they don't see an end point, seeing an end point would inevitably put them out of a job, given they have no marketable skills other than to run around shouting whatever flavour of the month oppression is on their list. What we've seen is precisely the result as they continually scrabble about for things to remain relevant, It's amazingly convenient that they all have problems with a comparatively wealthy well educated population which actually can provide them with financial support, legal privilege and political lobbying that's hypocritical self interest, the large corporations do the same, but when they do it political lobbying is a dirty word. 

 

Oh God, trigger warnings? Of all the brain damaged rubbish you could have chosen, trigger warnings? Yes, we have those already, for children's films. This is precisely why I treat them with disdain and derision. Over sensitivity is why these people when they come out of university or whatever bubble they live in can't function in the real world and pitch a fit decrying harassment at every turn. It's why they'll never amount to anything and are completely unemployable beyond their own little sphere because in the real world, work is stressful, highly pressured and if you **** up, you get shouted at, sworn at or fired. 

 

No, Eugenics isn't even close to what you're describing. Eugenics is breeding out the weak genetic characteristics of a species by selective breeding, sterilisation and genetic manipulation. We don't sterilize or prevent people from breeding based on their genetics whether they are faulty or not.  

[SwobyJ]

In Islam Homosexual act is a big sin. Even if turkey have 70% acceptance nothing will happen, considering that that 70% will be sissy liberals and the other 30% will be hardass conservatives. The rest of middle east won't see this gayness till 500 years from now at least.

 

These 'sissy liberals' just took tear gas to the face while you sat on your butt probably complaining about them.

[SwobyJ]

Bullshit. Progressives are more often than no egotistical narcissists, who's sole purpose is to push an agenda to the detriment of everyone which it does not benefit. By and large the large inequalities have been erased in the western based civilisations, what we now have are a groups of whiny, perpetually offended victims who take offence at everything and everyone on behalf of those who aren't offended.

 

Most modern economies have progressed to a level of efficiency where these people's sole aim in life is to find offence, because that's how they earn a living, if we lived in any other time they'd starve in the street. The problem is precisely because they don't see an end point, seeing an end point would inevitably put them out of a job, given they have no marketable skills other than to run around shouting whatever flavour of the month oppression is on their list. What we've seen is precisely the result as they continually scrabble about for things to remain relevant, It's amazingly convenient that they all have problems with a comparatively wealthy well educated population which actually can provide them with financial support, legal privilege and political lobbying that's hypocritical self interest, the large corporations do the same, but when they do it political lobbying is a dirty word. 

 

Oh God, trigger warnings? Of all the brain damaged rubbish you could have chosen, trigger warnings? Yes, we have those already, for children's films. This is precisely why I treat them with disdain and derision. Over sensitivity is why these people when they come out of university or whatever bubble they live in can't function in the real world and pitch a fit decrying harassment at every turn. It's why they'll never amount to anything and are completely unemployable beyond their own little sphere because in the real world, work is stressful, highly pressured and if you **** up, you get shouted at, sworn at or fired. 

 

No, Eugenics isn't even close to what you're describing. Eugenics is breeding out the weak genetic characteristics of a species by selective breeding, sterilisation and genetic manipulation. We don't sterilize or prevent people from breeding based on their genetics whether they are fault or not.  

 

I'm talking about 'progressive' in the general sense, calm down your outrage. 'Progressive' includes even technologically progressive, like working hard to go to Mars while others complain the resources should be spent on Earth. I'm not talking about a pinpointed state and social political term. I include that, but that's not all there is. Being a modernized party in a nation of farmers was once progressive and was opposed by the majority as dangerous to their way of life.

 

Yes, progressives are often hypocritical, and less likable than many liberals and conservatives. ..Yes. I don't know what else to say on that. I never said there were not many progressive jerks.

 

That it is expected that we have highly stressful, pressuring, shouting work is an interesting take, but something that many people fight and make significant inroads on. I appreciate that. Workplace harassment is increasingly not tolerated.

 

The idea of eugenics was to promote positive genetic traits. The implementation of it included selective breeding, sterilization. These are now typically understood to be radical and destructive approaches to promoting positive genetic traits, but genetic manipulation is increasingly being accepted as a harmless science if it can, for example, be restricted to things like curing diseases. That was my point. Eugenics was a social philosophy. Much of that philosophy continued, even if the politics and methods did not.

 

For 'SJW', I don't expect most of the politics and methods to survive. They're too divisive, hypocritical, and provocative. But I do predict that there will be more people than before caring about triggering true trauma in others. The philosophy of social justice (or whatever it represents to those who support it) continues, even if the details and methods may not. I say the same of pretty much everything, including religions, nations, races. Redefinition and revolution and synthesis of competing ideas is pretty much how we work. Even for LGBT, we're facing a world where we may not be ghettoized, executed, segregated, discriminated, but instead part of wider social fabric in the West. This actually tempers much of the more radical activism of the 1970s (trying to be a separate culture), yet still continues the spirit of why LGBT was and is a thing.

[AventuroLegendary]

Why didn't magical things like this happen during our 1960s civil rights movement? :/

[SwobyJ]

Why didn't magical things like this happen during our 1960s civil rights movement? :/

 

There were probably all sort of hopeful images then.

 

And they were probably mostly squashed by a large population and media that didn't support such things yet.

 

Hello Internet, where anyone shares an image within seconds.

[AventuroLegendary]

There were probably all sort of hopeful images then.

 

And they were probably mostly squashed by a large population and media that didn't support such things yet.

 

Hello Internet, where anyone shares an image within seconds.

 

Photos were around at the time. I'm referring to all of the water hoses used. Admittedly, it's hard to capture a rainbow in black and white.

 

It's funny to see Turkey taking a note or two from people over half a century ago. Go human rights!

[Master Race]

Inb4 Turkey makes rainbows illegal and shoots at them.

[SwobyJ]

Photos were around at the time. I'm referring to all of the water hoses used. Admittedly, it's hard to capture a rainbow in black and white.

 

It's funny to see Turkey taking a note or two from people over half a century ago. Go human rights!

 

Haha, I have hope for Turkey, at least when speaking to the Turkish Muslims I know or have met. Islam is rigid, probably one of the most rigid social systems in the world, but I don't believe its situation is as absolute as its opponents (and most ardent over-defenders) say. There are liberal Muslims and they are a growing (albeit still small) number. There are ex-Muslims and they are a growing (albeit still small) number. Christianity had those numbers decades, not centuries ago.

 

(American, but still important in a global communication society): http://www.patheos.c...come-unmosqued/

 

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Meanwhile in Pakistan

 

Spoiler

really stop attacking Turkey for this

[SwobyJ]

Meanwhile in Pakistan

 

Spoiler

really stop attacking Turkey for this

 

I attack anyone who makes the decision to aggressively attack people parading for their sexual rights. It might not be super harshly, and it may ease up, but I won't sit by.

 

I also don't treat Turkish people as children. They can take some opposition. I've done this in person and found much common ground and humanity. No pepper spray necessary. But against an oppressive system, one must march, and make oneself clearly known.

[Billy-the-Squid]

I'm talking about 'progressive' in the general sense, calm down your outrage. 'Progressive' includes even technologically progressive, like working hard to go to Mars while others complain the resources should be spent on Earth. I'm not talking about a pinpointed state and social political term. I include that, but that's not all there is. Being a modernized party in a nation of farmers was once progressive and was opposed by the majority as dangerous to their way of life.

 

Yes, progressives are often hypocritical, and less likable than many liberals and conservatives. ..Yes. I don't know what else to say on that. I never said there were not many progressive jerks.

 

That it is expected that we have highly stressful, pressuring, shouting work is an interesting take, but something that many people fight and make significant inroads on. I appreciate that. Workplace harassment is increasingly not tolerated.

 

The idea of eugenics was to promote positive genetic traits. The implementation of it included selective breeding, sterilization. These are now typically understood to be radical and destructive approaches to promoting positive genetic traits, but genetic manipulation is increasingly being accepted as a harmless science if it can, for example, be restricted to things like curing diseases. That was my point. Eugenics was a social philosophy. Much of that philosophy continued, even if the politics and methods did not.

 

For 'SJW', I don't expect most of the politics and methods to survive. They're too divisive, hypocritical, and provocative. But I do predict that there will be more people than before caring about triggering true trauma in others. The philosophy of social justice (or whatever it represents to those who support it) continues, even if the details and methods may not. I say the same of pretty much everything, including religions, nations, races. Redefinition and revolution and synthesis of competing ideas is pretty much how we work. Even for LGBT, we're facing a world where we may not be ghettoized, executed, segregated, discriminated, but instead part of wider social fabric in the West. This actually tempers much of the more radical activism of the 1970s (trying to be a separate culture), yet still continues the spirit of why LGBT was and is a thing.

 

You're equating people who belong to the most intelligent elements of society, men who mapped the human genome, put a man on the moon, created the theory of evolution, quantum physics and discovered the the origins of the Universes with some buffoon who can't string two sentences together without resorting to pseudo social science and decrying that there is some institutional jigger pokery of some description attempting to oppress them and they are fighting for "social progress" which just so happens to benefit them. 

 

One has lead to the creation modern civilisation and industrialisation, the other is a clique of moral purists that attach themselves to the coat tails of society and drag the rest of us into petty squabbles. They are not even close to being the same, or even similar, or haven't you noticed that the bunch of loons jumps on the "progressives" whenever they get the chance, like landing a probe on a comet because he wore a shirt which offended someone, or the creation of genetically modified foods, or that data points to men's brain's being different to women's, that global warming data is rather shaky etc. 

 

They're not progressive, they're moral purists, narcissists and hypocrites.

 

You've never worked in the financial sector, accountancy or law in the city have you? This is the way things are, the people who work in those areas, myself included know what the environment is like entering it; if you can't handle it then don't join. It's part of the job, screw up and get torn apart, if you can handle it and learn you'll manage. If you cry harassment, you don't belong there because it's only going to get more stressful the higher you go. It's the nature of the work and that it doesn't change. 

 

I predict the vast majority will not give a ****, just as they did before. In fact pushing it into everyone's face is going to have the opposite effect, leave well enough alone and most will simply remain indifferent one way or another keep prodding people and trying to make it like walking on eggshells and they're going to get annoyed and turn on whoever is acting as the morality police.