First Gay President....

[sibelian]

.....



If anybody told me I ought to vote for a guy because he's gay (like me) I would just stare at them.



I'm sorry. I can't relate to it. At all. On ANY level. I'd vote for someone based on what they have said that they plan to do.

I wouldn't vote for someone based on a box they're in because there's no reason to suppose that their being in that box would result in anything in particular.

I SERIOUSLY wouldn't vote for someone based on their sexual orientation after having been told repeatedly that they have far more limited power than people really understand and will have to spend their entire time compromising. I'd vote for someone who knows when NOT to compromise, so that my interests are actually represented by action, not signified by assocation.

And I REALLY REALLY REALLY wouldn't vote for someone who puts forth their sexual orientation as a positive in terms of image after their having supported legislation that actually limits the freedoms and rights of my sexual orientation, whether that orientation's the same as mine or not.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Easy for you, with your Gay Privilege and all

But women are a true minority.

And Bernie didn't vote to stop funding the military.

Regards,

TWM

P.S. In all seriousness, great headline and post

[sibelian]

2. Dude, only half funny

There are some people who really fucking DO believe in "Gay Privilege"!!!

Not around here, particularly, thank goodness...

(let's see how long that last statement holds true...)

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Poe's Law is a cruel thing

You're right.

[MisterP]

30. there definitely is a suspiciously-quick turn toward separation over solidarity

that it's a crab-bucket competition for who's "allowed" to "speak for"--or even speak TO--a group, the search for people who are "not *really* X" or "infiltrators," the focus on finding and opposing an enemy

it's damn dangerous, but a well-concealed process

(also that gayness is a "white thing&quot

[sibelian]

44. YEAH, GAY=WHITE, WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?

What the FUCK is it?

Why would they want that?



Fucking DISGUSTING.

[MisterP]

47. it might be a cultural thing, but also there's moral currency in being persecuted

and that can generate jealousy that "outsiders" are trying to "dilute it," or take credit and take over direction, or act as infiltrators wedging "the movement" to bits

moral and organizational capital are in play, here (plus of course funds)

so the endgame would be LGBT attacking anyone "appropriating" safe spaces from them (and then itself dissolving) and Indigenes claiming everyone else has Everyone-Else Privilege

[sibelian]

48. I see the entire mess as relational thinking which I distrust deeply.

Nothing is ever what it IS, it's always what it means in comparison to something ELSE. It can't have any value of its own in terms of what happens as a result of it or what it does or who lived through it. Always how it RELATES to things.

And in that game you can say ANYTHING. ANYTHING AT ALL. NOTHING NEED EVER BE TRUE, nobody has to be responsible for anything because everything is about how someone feels about it.

It makes me deeply angry. The whole game attracts a swarm of liars who want to use the air to talk out loud to themselves, elliptically, through placing others where they need them to be.

"Moral currency in being persecuted" - how exactly you put it, MisterP. And how EMPTY it is. As if I would demand people see me in terms only of what other people have done to me. HORRIBLE, locking myself in a cage of their devising with THEIR keys, from the inside.

Safe spaces - bah! Safe, my arse. I'll tell you what's safe - a padded cell. When has anyone anywhere ever been safe?

LGBT already have safe spaces. We call it Being With Our Friends, no matter who they are. No forgiveness, no empathy, no understanding of the "enemy" = no friends, no safety, no space.

DU was supposed to be a safe space, wasn't it? Somewhere we could post without the right wing screaming lunacy at us?

Look at it now.

[MisterP]

49. it's an empty word game AND it's one-dimensionally identitarian! whee!

it's all about WHO to oppose, not WHAT to combat

crap! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-fitzgerald-gates-phd/unmasking-black-gay-privilege_b_6978224.html

[sibelian]

54. OOOOOOHHHHH my FUCKING GOOOOOOD

Black gay WHAT NOW?

[MisterP]

55. oh, no, I broke your brain!

[sibelian]

56. WHY DID YOU SHOW THAT TO ME?

I want to slit my wrists now.

It's like Scientology.

[MisterP]

57. but the real point is that a competitive or even "misery-poker" approach to issues always has

one terminus--fragmentation, squabbling, exclusion, and essentialism, a series of discrediting tactics and sterile cliched isolated academese, an inability to handle criticism with anything other than flight or main force

it's like Tumblr--in the name of "radicalism" we get a welter of transphobes, finger-wagging insistence that the races are best kept apart, and depiction of sex ("PIV&quot as some shameful catastrophe best done through a hole in a sheet: it's not a far-left problem, it's just neo-Victorianism bobbing back again

it even used to be if you revealed you were LGBT/nonwhite/regularly dodged explosives they'd back off, but now they've found ways to erase that feeling of being embarrassed and having to reevaluate themselves

[sibelian]

58. WHAT DO THEY WANT?

Last edited Sun Nov 22, 2015, 01:01 AM - Edit history (1)

IT DOESN'T WORK.

SURELY they have to see that it doesn't work, are they BLIND?

If you have no way of establishing naturally emergent phenomena from socially coerced phenomena then EVERYTHING becomes a matter of disoccultation and we just end up straight back in post-modernist hell with all actual behaviour and power relationships remaining EXACTLY the same while people do nothing but DESCRIBE each other. All disoccultations reveal further "masks" because the theory has no way of recognising an end-state.

No spine of consistent meaning is revealed so nothing can form the basis of an adaptive process.

If all conceivable natural responses to person in category X are equally "Xist" (even when the behaviour sets mapped to "Xism" consist of only two options that are mutually exclusive and considered to be motivated by diametrically opposed motivations when in response to persons of non-marked category W) then "Xist" stops being an adjective!!! It's not even language any more! Adjectives distinguish between things, if EVERYTHING'S "Xist" then there's no reason to use the term!

THEY DON'T GET ANYTHING.

Is that it? Do they maybe secretly NOT WANT to get anything?

Sorry. Went a bit Timothy Reiss there...

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/41j7g28w

[dsc]

5. In point of fact most historians say we have already had a gay US President

Buchanan, and we still haven't had a woman despite the fact women are at least 5 times as numerous. But of course, it is all fun and games to you, you have made that abundantly clear.

[demwing]

16. I think you're missing the point

And it has nothing to do with who got where first.

[hootinholler]

28. No way!

It had to be Jackson. No straight guy could pull off that hair!

[AlbertCat]

40. we still haven't had a woman

Everyone knows Grant was really a woman!

*********

FURTHER PROOF THAT LINCOLN WAS GAY
by PAUL RUDNICK
Issue of 2005-03-07
Posted 2005-02-28

The first draft of the Gettysburg Address began, “Four score and seven years ago-ish . . .”

When Lincoln was a boy, he would walk twenty miles through the snow every morning to buy magazines.

Lincoln was raised in a log cabin with a dirt floor, which he vacuumed.

Lincoln liked to say, “All men are created equal, except at the beach.”

Lincoln’s greatest regret was the movie version of “Phantom.”

Lincoln named his horse Mister Horse.

Lincoln wanted to call it “The Emancipation Proclamation—The New Sensation!”

Lincoln urged Congress to bind the nation’s wounds “with malice toward none, with charity for all,” although under his breath he murmured, “except for a certain red-headed lieutenant, and he knows why.”

As a young country lawyer, Lincoln often bartered his services for house seats.

For more than four years during his twenties, Lincoln shared a bed with his friend Joshua Fry Speed. It is now believed that he loved Joshua Fry Speed for his winning personality, and not because his name sounds like a George Foreman product.

The friendship finally ended when Speed told Lincoln, “You’re not the President of me!”

Another friend, Billy Greene, said that Lincoln’s thighs were “as perfect as a human being’s could be.” Lincoln was said to have responded, “It’s called Pilates.”

Lincoln was known as the Rail-Splitter. Few people realize that this was a cocktail.

When Lincoln was told that Lee had surrendered, he gasped and exclaimed, “Oh no she didn’t!”

Just before his first inauguration, he told Mary Todd Lincoln to go home and take one thing off.

Lincoln grew his beard because he thought it looked hot on Ethan Hawke.

Upon entering Ford’s Theatre on that fateful night, Lincoln whispered to his wife, “I hear it’s slow.”

[NCTraveler]

3. Sounds like common sense to me.

Though it would be foolish if it had no role in your thoughts at all. I have no clue what your point is here.

[JaneyVee]

4. Ah, DU is back to insinuating that...

Women are only voting for Hillary because she's a woman. Must be that time of the month again.

[sibelian]

11. Well, some people *outside DU*, I hasten to add, have actually SAID so.

Fair enough, if that's what they want.

[beerandjesus]

15. No, they've done it here too, lots of times. And continue to.

But they deny it if you call them out on it.

[sibelian]

17. Well, there's a surprise.

Anyway, I think it's silly.

[beerandjesus]

19. Well, I should be more specific.

I haven't actually seen anyone here say they're voting for Hillary just because she's a woman. What they say is, if you DON'T vote for Hillary, it's because you're sexist.

Comes down to the same thing, really, but I don't want to be inaccurate.

[sibelian]

35. That's indecipherable.

I mean it. I feel like I'm in a LOTR vs Harry Potter fan argument when people say things like that, that's how completely indecipherable it is to me.

[beerandjesus]

43. Hahaha!

[AlbertCat]

41. No, they've done it here too, lots of times. And continue to.

"I haven't actually seen anyone here say they're voting for Hillary just because she's a woman."

I've seen it.

Several times.


It's as ridiculous as dismissing Sanders because he didn't respond to being ambushed and screamed at in the name of BLM.... a tactic that looked bad and was disavowed by the real BLM.

One issue voters.... on things that aren't even issues.

[tk2kewl]

34. my father's wife refuses to discuss the primary - she wants a women president before she dies

she has literally disqualified me from discussion because "you're not a woman and can't understand"

that was in May

[sibelian]

36. Well, there you go.

:/

[Agschmid]

7. We've already had a gay president...

He just wasn't out.

That ceiling has likely already been broken.

[treestar]

8. It would be cool to have one that was out

with their spouse as the First Lady/Gentleman.

[Agschmid]

9. It would.

[sibelian]

12. Well, OUT, I meant.

Anyway, I don't think an OUT gay president will ever happen.

[Agschmid]

13. I do.

Have a bit more faith please...

[sibelian]

14. Faith in WHAT?

Why would it even MATTER?

I don't understand it. At all. The content of my post was perfectly serious.

[Agschmid]

18. Yup you were serious...

I swear this place sometimes.

[sibelian]

22. Yes. I was serious.

?

What's the big idea?

[closeupready]

25. +1. And not just G but B, too.

(Probably.)

[AlbertCat]

42. We've already had a gay president...

And an atheist one too...

But that's not the point of this thread.

[RiverLover]

10. I agree! This female will never vote for a woman simply because she's a woman.

Its self-defeating logic if the person who has commonality in one aspect with you works against you.

I wish a woman would be president, Elizabeth Warren, but not because she's a woman but rather because of who she is.

[DanTex]

20. What if there was a strongly qualified gay candidate that you supported.

And people kept telling you that you were only supporting him/her because of sexual orientation.

Over and over and over. Even though you never said that, even once.

And then people said "the only reason people are supporting him/her is because he/she is gay."

[sibelian]

23. That would be very annoying but it would be JUST as annoying

knowing I was voting along with a whole bunch of gay people who really WERE voting for him/her just because he/she was gay, therefore legitimising the criticism in general even though it was not true of me.

[SwampG8r]

21. I have been a lover of "lady parts" lifelong

As appreciative as I am I don't see anything in them inherently vote worthy unless they are attached to someone with principles I agree with.

[sibelian]

24. I don't get it.

She seems to want war. That's going to mean the displacement, disruption and loss of the lives of very large numbers of WOMEN.

[SwampG8r]

26. I can only say she can do nothing to

Remove my love and fascination with lady parts
Still my favorite

[sibelian]

27. Well, sir, I have known many heterosexuals in my time. A fine people.

In fact, there is an absolutely charming heterosexual couple who live directly above me, and as far as I can see they're just normal people so who am I to judge?

[SwampG8r]

29. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Lol

[Nye Bevan]

51. Nothing wrong with a white male president.

We've had a lot of them and some have been quite good.

[LuckyTheDog]

31. I'm pretty sure we've already had a gay president

James Buchanan.

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/our_real_first_gay_president/

[stevenleser]

39. Some say Lincoln was gay

http://www.salon.com/1999/04/30/lincoln/

[Sheepshank]

32. If a gay nominee was awseome

had the platform you agreed with (mostly), had the experience you felt was important (mostly) had influence and carried themselves well and appeared to be a great leader and was well liked by a majority of that person's constituency...would you walk away because you were afraid you were only votng for them because they were gay?

[sibelian]

33. No! LORD, no...

But I certainly would NOT place the candidates sexual orientation ABOVE those qualities as a deciding factor, I think that's just incredibly dangerous. There are nasty gay people. The rest of the qualities you describe would have to be in place, demonstrably and without ambiguity.

I would be VERY wary of a candidate who dismissed legitimate arguments from other candidates as "homophobia". I would be very angry with someone who tried treat my sexual orientation as an excuse to HIDE.

[99Forever]

37. Yeah... but it's HER turn gawddammit.

How dare you not knuckle under!

[Metric System]

38. Nobody ever says that except for her detractors.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

45. This is the best post I've read on DU in a long time

I wanna know what the hell happened to voting for someone because of their ideals and principles. And I want to know why a lot of self-proclaimed Progressives aren't supporting any of the actual Progressive candidates.

[sibelian]

46. I'm having a hard time believing this site is progressive in any way any more.

:/

[Nye Bevan]

50. Link to where a DUer said they plan to vote for Hillary purely because she is a woman?

Thanks in advance.

[sibelian]

53. Don't worry about it, Nye.

I've responded to that already if you look upthread.

[keithbvadu2]

59. You're sure this is not about Bush and

Jeff Gannon?

[sibelian]

60. LORD, I hope not.

PRIME EXAMPLE, in which case.

Wwwwuuuur. Goerge in a jockstrap. OK I don't wanna be gay anymore.