Something I wanted to get across that I've been thinking about a lot is that this debate is in some ways about what Pride is for, and more critically, who Pride is for.
I've talked about the "vice grip of oppression" in other contexts but LGBT people as a community -- such as it existed -- were forged together by a threat, from the state and from culture, that did not differentiate them in any way. All LGBT people were unacceptable.
(That's not to say there weren't internal fights about who got to be the face of the movement -- even in 1950, the Mattachine Society argued that the best way to fight for "homosexual" rights was to prioritize people who looked like straight people. mtv.com/news/3022096/b…)
The fact that this fight, such as it is, is happening because everyone wants to be at Pride marches (or, perhaps be *seen*) at Pride marches, and that the vice grip has changed so much could be seen as a sign of progress. I don't know, though.
Anyway, we published this episode 58 years after my employer published this headline, so
"Highly unlikely"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Larry Nassar abused girls for 25 years and was so well liked the MSU women's gymnastics team had her athletes sign a letter of support when he got arrested in September 2016
90% of victims of childhood sexual abuse know their abuser, of those abused under the age of 6, 50% were abused by a family member.
So much of Michigan football hagiography is Bo-centered ("the team, the team, the team") but absolutely no hagiography or memory or halcyon "tradition" is worth the sexual abuse of young people and the covering up of said abuse by people who were in positions of power.
A random pet peeve of mine that is also a largely unsolvable human foible is that we always gain “strange new respect” for political or cultural foils when they start to sound more like us (or we think they do.)
“Wow, I used to hate X but now they make more and more sense because they sound more like me”
There are a whole host of folks for whom some have gained “respect” because they think they now think the same things, it would be way cooler if they respected them for thinking entirely differently, but man is fallen so
Like, don’t tell me it’s for the children, tell me it’s because you believe it is against God, I’ll at least buy that you actually think that
Also try not to drag out the same playbook when you want to cudgel someone else, it'll be like when the Dolphins ran the wildcat in 2008 and then everyone figured it out and the Dolphins correspondingly went 7-9 the next year
"Should these people be permitted by law to marry" is a funny question to poll if you think about it
I think all the time about how much effort was put forth to argue that, essentially, gay people didn't meet an imaginary bar to marry, a bar that straight people have absolutely no need to meet and certainly wouldn't need to go to court to do so
Okay, after some discernment I have watered down my take to say that the fact that I read this headline and said "good" and the author of this piece thinks that this is "bad" is a notable indicator of how libertarians and conservatives differ hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2021…