Disqus - Latest Comments for AMERICAblog

Re: Pete Buttigieg is a bad gay? Here we go again.

John Aravosis — Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:51:55 -0000

Actually, I think you don't understand. If "immigrants are gay too!" makes being gay, or LGBT, an immigration issue, then every issue is an LGBT issue. Rich Wall Street bankers are gay. So are neo-Nazis. So are those LGBT issue too? Is Crimea an LGBT issue? And whose side should we side with - the LGBT Russians or the LGBT Ukrainians? It's not intersectionality, it's an effort to steal our movement for non-LGBT causes these folks care about more than they do LGBT issue. And they don't want us to do both. These people outright admit tat they think we should have never done marriage equality of the military ban. And you'll notice they never even talk about ENDA, and issue that actually helps trans people. They only want us to work on non-lgbt issues. That's not intersectionality, that political appropriation.

Re: Fox News is now a threat to national security, with guest Garrett Graff

John Aravosis — Thu, 30 Jan 2020 11:43:04 -0000

Fortunately, Fox News isn't media, so there's no problem.

Re: Fox News is now a threat to national security, with guest Garrett Graff

John Aravosis — Thu, 30 Jan 2020 11:42:49 -0000

Yes, it is!

Re: Pete Buttigieg is a bad gay? Here we go again.

John Aravosis — Sun, 15 Dec 2019 14:23:33 -0000

Bingo.

Re: Pete Buttigieg is a bad gay? Here we go again.

John Aravosis — Sun, 15 Dec 2019 14:22:46 -0000

No, he's steeped in history which he both lived and studied up on. You should do the same. And stop the racist attacks, or you will be banned. Feel free to disagree with anyone on this forum, but if you're going to attack their race, as a way of attacking their arguments, you're going to be gone.

Re: Pete Buttigieg is a bad gay? Here we go again.

John Aravosis — Sun, 15 Dec 2019 14:21:17 -0000

Amen.

Re: Pete Buttigieg is a bad gay? Here we go again.

John Aravosis — Sun, 15 Dec 2019 14:20:39 -0000

I'm sorry, but no. You're quoting me Crit Theory. Which by its very nature is intended to redefine everything in order that you define yourself into winning. Everyone else is per se evil and wrong, especially if they're white, male or gay, so you per se win any argument by simply noting your opponent's race, color or gender. You are not representing trans people, or gay people, or bisexuals or lesbians when you redefine their issues for your own partisan and personal purposes. You care more about poverty and housing, for example, than you do LGBT rights. And that's fine. But don't pretend you're an LGBT activist or advocate, or that you're representing those interests when you devote your activism to non-LGBT issues. Again, I have no problem with people who work on non-LGBT issues, someone has to as we want those issues addressed as well. What I cry foul on is when you attempt to wrap yourself in the rainbow flag after outright ignoring all of our civil rights causes, and actually condemning the successes we've had to date.

And if you're not familiar with your allies' incessant attacks on white gay men, and their incessant claims that white gay men have contributed nothing to do the LGBT movement, then I'm not here to be your Google guide. If you're going to argue LGBT activism, then steep yourself more deeply in it and learn it before you speak or write.

PS You're not "on the left." You're on the far left. Big difference. Progressives are elated with the successes our movement has had. Far-left (I'm gonna guess "socialist") Crit theorists like you and your friends are not, because the traditional LGBT causes don't serve your goals of hijacking the LGBT movement, and other progressive movements, for your own pet causes. Rather than simply fight those causes, you want to steal our cause and redefine it as yours -- steal our thunder, our advocacy, our grassroots, our political power, and our money. It's one thing to ask that we all work in partnership on the left -- we absolutely should, and do. It's quite another when you demand the LGBT movement close up shop and reopen its doors for your non-LGBT causes exclusively, causes that you've conveniently pink-washed by calling them LGBT when they're not.

You need to learn some humility, as do many in your movement. You represent one faction of the far-left wing of the liberal movement. You don't represent "LGBT people" or "the left" or "progressives." You represent your Crit theory friends. And yes, you're all quite loud, but your volume doesn't make you powerful, significant, or correct. Once you come to terms with that, you'll be a more effective advocate.

Re: Pete Buttigieg is a bad gay? Here we go again.

John Aravosis — Sat, 14 Dec 2019 17:15:55 -0000

Carlo, you should see what people have been saying the last ten years. LOTS of people have been arguing that. As for the rest of your argument, I'm not sure how to respond to it because it's all crit theory buzzwords meant to shut the other side up by demeaning their race and gender. It's not a place to begin a constructive conversation. I will say, you're the ones with the privilege. Explain to trans people why your pet issues are more important for the LGBT movement to focus on than actual LGBT civil rights, including trans rights.

Re: Pete Buttigieg is a bad gay? Here we go again.

John Aravosis — Sat, 14 Dec 2019 17:12:34 -0000

We're impacted by every issue. Intersectional folks find this some grand new revelation, and it's not. It's also a red herring. The fact that all our issues intersect somewhere has nothing to do with whether we should chuck LGBT issues overboard and devote our energies instead to issues that aren't specifically LGBT, and that scores of other groups are already working on. These folks are arguing that we should have never actually worked on our own issues at all. Try explaining to trans people why we're not longer going to work on their civil rights because you'd rather work on poverty and housing instead.

Re: Pete Buttigieg is a bad gay? Here we go again.

John Aravosis — Sat, 14 Dec 2019 17:07:46 -0000

Actually, a simple review of LGBT history will show you who was at the lead of most of it over the past 70 years. I get that it benefits you personally to try to rewrite that history, but that's not actually a justification for doing so.

Re: Podcast: Rep. Adam Schiff talks Trump-Russia

John Aravosis — Fri, 08 Feb 2019 11:06:45 -0000

Hey! No we didn't get an answer on that. Who let him into the White House every day right before the Iraq war?

Re: Trump campaign Web site contradicts new claim that Mexico will not directly pay for the wall

John Aravosis — Fri, 18 Jan 2019 12:22:17 -0000

You're still here! And still making those false equivalences between Democrats and Republicans. Bill, Bill, Bill. Has 2 years of Donald Trump taught you nothing?

Re: Kavanaugh’s attorney attacks Swetnick: Why wouldn’t a high school girl report sexual assault at a party?

John Aravosis — Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:23:28 -0000

You're right about the ages, I just checked. The affidavit didn't spell out her age, but the NYT says she graduated high school in 1980, and the allegations are from 1981 to 1983. I dont' think that changes a lot of the analysis, though. I edited it accordingly above.

Re: Kavanaugh’s attorney attacks Swetnick: Why wouldn’t a high school girl report sexual assault at a party?

John Aravosis — Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:12:06 -0000

Yep

Re: Would Americans vote for a socialist?

John Aravosis — Wed, 25 Jul 2018 11:50:30 -0000

It's certainly welfare. But we don't label things like they do. And we should.

Re: GOP Rep Jordan: Teen sex scandal is a deep-state plot concocted by Rosenstein

John Aravosis — Thu, 05 Jul 2018 15:35:58 -0000

We need that man on our side!

Re: Trump approval below Reagan’s and Obama’s

John Aravosis — Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:18:05 -0000

I hope so. Depending how Korea goes, it could go up again.

Re: Glenn Greenwald is incredibly hypocritical

John Aravosis — Thu, 26 Apr 2018 15:16:20 -0000

No, I meant, yes I wrote that, and isn’t that typical of Glenn what’s he’s doing. I didn’t mean “that’s glenn who wrote my tweet.” I simply meant “that’s Glenn, being an ass again.”

Re: Glenn Greenwald is incredibly hypocritical

John Aravosis — Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:02:22 -0000

Being a bigot is a bad thing.

Re: Glenn Greenwald is incredibly hypocritical

John Aravosis — Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:02:09 -0000

That’s Glenn.

Re: Rick Wilson on why Trump is a traitor

John Aravosis — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 11:18:09 -0000

Yeah, it was tough getting Rick to open up ;-)

Re: Facebook knows what doctors I go to

John Aravosis — Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:36:43 -0000

I'm sure they do

Re: Podcast: David Frum on Conor Lamb, Trump/Russia, & authoritarianism in America

John Aravosis — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:41:12 -0000

You guys are raising taxes on 20% of the middle class who supposedly were getting a tax cut, and aren't, all to pay for your huge tax cut for the rich. As for guns, when you grow up and learn to take care of your weapons like big boys and girls, you can have them back. But you've proven you're not ready yet.

Re: Star Wars’ Carrie Fisher, my interview

John Aravosis — Tue, 26 Dec 2017 15:50:56 -0000

Yeah, she had us absolutely in stitches. A brilliant woman.

Re: Trump’s speech suddenly slurs during major Jerusalem statement

John Aravosis — Wed, 06 Dec 2017 22:50:57 -0000

Hadn't seen that, but I'm not sure what I'm looking at, don't see dentures.