Why I'm Perma-Banned From Some LGBTQ Groups on FIMFiction · 2:26pm May 23rd, 2018
Back in the summer of 2016, Black Lives Matter halted the Toronto Gay Pride march, demanding inclusion on the LGBTQ Rainbow Flag. The Toronto gay organizations, instead of scornfully-rejecting this demand (as it deserved, since the Gay Pride marches are about LGBTQ issues rather than racial ones), capitulated.
At the time I predicted that Canadian gays had only bought themselves future trouble for doing this, as showing weakness to a bully is rarely a good idea, especially if the bully is weaker than you (as BLM is, institutionally, compared to the LGBTQ community),
I was right, as in the future BLM made more outragous demands, such as insisting that LGBTQ cops be not allowed to march in the Gay Pride parades -- and some Gay Pride parades actually submitted to this further one (which was clearly meant to both divide the LGBTQ community and to rob the Pride marchers of members who could handle themselves if BLM tried to rough them up, putting them further at the mercy of BLM).
I pointed this out on the main LGBTQ group forum.
I also pointed out that the most serious long-term threat to LGBTQ in the West comes, not from Christian Fundamentalist groups, but rather from Muslim ones, as we have already seen in Europe where the LGTBTQ communities have come under routine severe persecution by Muslims, including physical attacks that rarely result in convictions or serious sentencing under the legal system.
I also pointed this out on the LGBTQ forums.
For these sins, I was perma-banned. This is despite the fact that several of my actual stories have strong and positive LGBTQ themes, and were already on those sites.
I mostly blame Lady Froey for this, as she's the only one who has personally banned me. I'd discusss the issue with her -- but, well, she's personally banned me, so I can't PM her. All I know is that what was supposed to be a thirty-day ban has now stretched out past a year or more, and I'm not sure why I'm such a terrible person -- when my stories are evidently acceptable.
Anyone who cares to enlighten me, can. Heck, I've even unblocked Lady Froey -- she's welcome to post to this thread, if she likes, and explain it herself.
because you dared to question anything that had to do with LGBT issues.
4867758
Not all LGBTQ are so thin skinned. Please do not lump us all into one group.
4867758
I'm actually pro-LGBTQ rights, on a Classical-Liberal rights model that human rights should not be denied to people based on actions or aspects of character that do not harm others through fraud or force. I'm also quite alarmed by the tendency of many on the Radical Left to side with racial and ethnic minorities over LGBTQ people in cases where the members of the racial or ethnic minorities persecute LGBTQ people for their sexual identity.
This is not yet a serious problem in America, but it is already a very serious problem in Europe.
4867762
I don't. LGBTQ people are not turned out on cookie-cutters; any more than are straight cis-people. Which is good, because I'm not entirely straight myself.
And not all LGBTQ groups on this site have banned me.
4867773
I have no control over others, what she does is not what I do or vice-versa
4867773
I can't, because I'm banned and blocked. If anyone else wants to, I don't think I've blocked her. I recently cleared out all my blocks, because I find blocking people kind of silly. I'm 53 -- I grew up before optional and virtual reality.
4867793
Yeah, I'm cool with that. I'd probably like LadyFrooey if I ever met her IRL; a very dear friend of mine has said she's a good person.
4867802
Froey? Well, I may have mis-spelled it. I hope not
Change your IP and create a new account
4867807
I'm not about to do that -- I like being Jordan179, and if I made a new account it would probably be to post very different sorts of stories. My LGBTQ themed stories are otherwise very similar to my straight ones, in terms of my approach to life in them.
4867802
You're right! Fixed the mis-spellings on the primary blog post. Thank you!
Was the manner in which you made these points dickish?
Not my rodeo, by a long shot (not even the same continent), but cooperation between minorities isn't better than rivaling?
For example, public system students here in Chile often protest for a better education (we don't have a public university system nor similar). Yet, this year, instead of the usual demands, we joined the feminist protests to stop the institutionalized discrimination in universities. I've been in protests since 2007, and this is the biggest one I've seen.
Same with the muslim community. Granted, religiously conservative muslim are verbally and physically aggressive towards the LGBT+ community, but so does every other religiously conservative group. By isolating a particular one, in my opinion, feels more like aggression over said group than pragmatism.
Maybe that's the perspective from the other side when they decided to ban you? I've reported before on these kind of debacles within political groups (in Chile, obviously), and it often involves a difference of perspective from both parts. In the experience, this does get a solution when both sides do the exercise of tracking the other's thought process.
Of course, this is just an opinion. Like everything worth discussing, purely subjective. If anything, food for thought, I guess?
4867831
After all this time, I honestly have no idea. There are some people in the LGBTQ community who very much do not want to face up to the degree to which the Muslim ummah in particular hates them, because it is a potential point of disagreement between the LGBTQ movement and the Third World cultural movement in the West.
You can see a similar rift in intersectional feminism, because intersectionality tells them that Muslim immigrants should be their allies, but this collides brutally with Muslim rape culture and overall devaluation of women (especially non-Muslim women). Sometimes, the world isn't the way one wants it to be.
4867844
In the case of BLM, I think the problem with the LGBTQ community came from BLM aggressiveness and the BLM belief that everyone else, even ostensibly on the same political side as them, should give way to and subordinate themselves to BLM concerns. This is one of the big reasons that the BLM movement has mostly failed: it antagonized too many on the Left and permanently antagonized both Right and Center.
In the case of Islamic fundamentalism, I think that Western liberals and radicals are totally fooling themselves. It's analogous not to modern Christianity, even modern Christian fundamentalism, but rather to the Christianity of the days before the Enlightenment, specifically the medieval Crusades and the 16th-17th-century Religious Wars.
The evidence from Europe is that the self-perceived Islamic superiority over women and gays is so vast that they consider it their fundamental human right to rape and kill members of these groups, and will not accept any legal limit on their power to do so. There is really no compromise possible between the Western LGBTQ movement and a group which wants to literally murder them, and tthe Western LGBTQ movement is utterly fooling itself when it imagines otherwise.
4867846
.
I don't think I expressed myself correctly. My bad, I have this complexity addiction
I can see you have a position, and you do explain yourself from where it comes from. What I meant before is that if you have explored the oposite side's stand. I don't mean for you to agree with it. Just track down exactly how did they see you and your proposals in a way that deemed being banned. It may be a massive misunderstanding, as these themes are that complex to begin with.
4867844
The assumption that "minorities" are good natural allies simply due to "minority" status is a dubious one. For instance, Christian Fundamentalists (as opposed to Christians as a whole) are a minority even in the United States of America, yet they are not good natural allies of LGBTQ groups or people, despite their minority status. One can imagine a group called the "Kill all Queers Alliance" which would be an even tinier minority than mere Christian Fundamentalists, who would be even a worse natural ally.
It is demonstrably true, through numerous opinion polls and public statements, that Muslims as a whole are more hostile to LGBTQ people than are Christians, and that Muslim Fundamentalists are even more hostile to LGBTQ than are Christian Fundamentalists. Muslim Terrorist groups, including most especially ISIS, tend to actually be close to my hypothetical "Kill All Queers Alliance" in philosophy.
So ... no. It depends on the nature of the "minority group." Some will tend to be friendly to LGBTQ, some neutral, and some hostile. Some will even be insanely hostile. It applies on a group-by-group basis.
4867857
I was told I was being inappropriate and hateful. Then I was banned. There was no attempt made to engage with any of my ideas.
That's why I'm pissed.
4867844
The big problem with trying to jam together the agendas of disparate interest groups into one vast alliance is that members of each group may agree on their own interest group's general objectives but disagree with the other groups.
For instance, suppose that the US (for whatever reason) found itself at war with, say, Brazil. Now members of the American LGBTQ community might have differing opinions toward this war -- some might be hawkish and some dovish toward the Brazil War. But if the LGBTQ groups all decided to be anti-war, they might lose the allegiance of the hawkish LGBTQ people, because this is an issue that is not particularly oriented toward being LGBTQ. See?
4867874
I admit, calling the groups minorities has become a very lousy term. What I should have said was oppressed groups. I do believe we should cooperate between us, because the source of the oppression to begin with is common to most, if not all of us. I won't speak for the groups I don't belong, but if we can do more together than against each other, I will do all I can to help.
On Christians and Muslims, I fear we, as a society, are starting to consider two heterogeneous groups as homogeneous. Not for having a common belief, they are all alike. But then again, that's not my discussion, so I will stop at having my opinion expressed.
On your situation, which was my concern to begin with, you have all the right to he angry. But at the same time, what good it will o to hold onto that anger? If anything, wouldn't it make it better for you and the stand you want to represent and express to open the dialogue? All in all, your call. From me, just food for thought.
4867876
I really don't like to use archetypal/hypothetical situations for these talks. They often involve perfect conditions, like grupal hegemony and a direct action-reaction chain. It's no different from physics models that don't consider environment conditions (no air, no gravity, no friction, etc.). As a journalist, each time I see one of these in an interview, the moment they are applied to real situations, the models fall apart in instants.
In my opinion, it's more pragmatic for oppressed groups of all types to focus in what they have in common.
4867896
Is it?
In the specific case of LGBTQ, the main cause of oppression is religious and other ideological dogma, which leads to the rejection of alternative sexualities. LGBTQ people do much better in liberal democracies (because of the concern with civil rights for all) and capitalist economies (because their money is as good as anyone else's) than they do under other forms of government or in other economic systems.
Now, I would argue that everyone tends to do better under liberal democracy or in capitalism than in other systems, but the specific sources of oppression are different for different oppressed groups. Most particularly, since Muslim immigrants tend to overwhelmingly be (1) Muslim and (2) rather hard-line, uncompromising fundamentalist Muslims, there is no natural alliance between them and LGBTQ groups -- indeed, there is natural enmity.
That's what I've done, here. Obviously, I can't have a "dialogue" with someone who is blocking or banning me, as the essence of being blocked or banned is refusal to allow that person to use one's forum. However, I'm okay with talking to Lady Froey by PM if she unblocks me, or on her groups if she unbans me, or here if she cares to make her points.
I didn't close her off. She closed me off.
Lady Froey is the reason I never submit my stories to LGBT groups on Fimfiction, even when the story is 100% LGBT related like Girl Talk. I've had one interaction with her and it was that bad.
It's just like Stephen Fry said.... political correctness is leading us all to an Orwellian 1984 world...
4867917
I'm sort of curious about what you wound up disagreeing with her about. If you want to tell me you can do it either in here or in PM, I'm also "Jordan Bassior" on Facebook.
4867939
Here the PC attitude has already doomed European LGBTQ in some countries, and is endangering them in others. The Muslim immigrants hate their guts, and the Powers That Be will always appease the (large, violent) Muslim minority when it comes to the Muslim persecution of the (small and mostly non-violent) LGBTQ minority.
4867896
If you don't like "perfect" situations, consider the attitude of American LGBTQ in the 1980's toward Communism. There were plenty of gays who were hawkish on defense and foreign policy, and voted for Reagan and George HW Bush for those reasons. This was hardly irrational from their POV, as they knew that given a Communist victory they would likely be persecuted by the Communists, and of course nuclear attacks do not distinguish between sexual orientations in their choice of victims.
There may well be plenty of LGBTQ who are voting Republican now for similar reasons, but substituting "Muslim Fundamentalist" for "Communist."
There is no logical reasons why all LGBTQ must agree on any issues, particularly issues (such as defense and foreign policy) which either have no particular sexual-orientation component, or whose sexual-orientation component runs counter to the Left point of view.
Indeed, LGBTQ Democrats should be glad of the Republican Religious Right, for without them most LGBTQ persons would probably be Republicans, hands-down. Ethnic minorities tend to be less tolerant of LGBTQ than the white majority.
4867917
There's the Free LGBT group though. They aren't as ideologically rigid. Help them grow!
I feel your pain, mang.
I can't raise my head without somebody sniping at me for being anti-gay. Among other things.
Goes back into hiding.
4867971
I really don't think you got my point. So, let's just agree to disagree. Still, I'd like to see how you expressed your points on race and religion from the LGTB+ standpoint. Sheer curiosity, to be honest.
4867989
You don't strike me as being at all anti-gay. Aside from the obvious sympathetic queer characters and relationships in some of your stories, I know you're a personal friend of one of my own best friends, who is a transgirl.
4867939
That's a very shallow appreciation of the situation. Yes, Stephen Fry said that, but in the context of PC going extremist. If anything, any ideological extremist take will lead to oppression as the result. Hence why Orwell, despite being a socialist himself, wrote 1984 to begin with. It's also why there have been dictators from both extremes of the spectrum.
When you really look at it, nowadays counter-PC is also going down as an oppressively extremist group, too. It does follow the same group conduct, as seen in events like "gamer gate". At the end of the day, instead of rejecting the side from which we have seen going extremist, I see it makes more sense to reject extremism on itself.
4868004
I don't remember what I actually posted over a year ago. However, I know what I think on the issue, namely:
Western liberal democracies are the friendliest civilizations the world has ever seen toward LGBTQ people, as indeed they are toward most sexual variations. To the extent that they are "white" civilizations (which is debatable) this means that whites are -- on average friendlier to LGBTQ people than are other racial groups (and remember, this is a cultural not biological factor).
Likewise, modern Christianity and Judaism are among the friendliest religions toward both atheism and LGBTQ people that the world has ever seen (I can think of some friendlier sects of Buddhism, Hinduism, and various pagan faiths but I'd heve to look hard).
These facts create an unavoidable conflict between the pro Third World orientation of the modern Left and the tendency of LGBTQ groups to be Leftists. To the extent that the modern Left advocates immigration of people from the Third World, and especially Muslims, into the modern West, it advocates making our culture more HOSTILE to LGBTQ people.
This is reality, and one already demonstrable in most of modern Central and Western Europe, where immigrants from Africa and the Mideast, particularly the Muslim ones, have made cultures which were once very friendly toward LGBTQ people (such as the Netherlands and Sweden) extremely dangerous for LGBTQ people. This is because the immigrants form gangs which attack known queers, and the police are leery of prosecuting the criminals in such situations (in order to avoid rousing the immigrant street).
LGBTQ people have actually begun to flee those countries, for that reason. If we do the same thing here, we can logically-expect similar consequences. To the extent that we can avoid them, it's due to the Second Amendment -- American gays may resist such abuse with deadly force, and have their rights to do so protected under law.
So that pretty much sums it up.
Hey there, Jordan. Furion here, I'm the one who's currently in charge of one of the groups you seem to be referring to. Lady Froey left FiMFiction last year, so I'm afraid if you're waiting for some sort of explanation or apology from her you're probably not getting one, and you're not going to be able to change that by encouraging your followers to ask on your behalf. As for your ban, I honestly wasn't aware that it was only supposed to be a 30-day ban. We tend to operate on a three-strikes model, usually, and while I vaguely remember what happened I seem to recall it wasn't something I'd go as far as to ban a first-time offender for a whole month. One of the other administrators should already have lifted your ban, but I'll go ahead and check once I've posted this comment. I'm terribly sorry for that, she didn't usually fail to keep track of her bans like that. She's not In charge anymore, though, so I'm going to go ahead and say let's pretend it never happened and set your strikes back to zero. You're free to come back to LGBT if you want.
4868017
Yeah, I can see our point, but I can also see how it would get misinterpreted. There's a lot generalization in there, specially towards religious and racial communities. For example, calling a culture "white", then using that generalization to attribute all of said culture's achievements to white people. That, regardless of intention, comes off as race supremacy. I've seen you for enough time to know your intent is nowhere close to that, but is still how it comes out.
Also, I do see you as a friend (namely one I disagree a lot with, but a friend indeed), so I'd offer you an advice from someone who knows about communications: Not saying you need to change how you think, but it would help you to rethink how you express said thinking.
Take care, pal.
I deleted my comment because I am not someone who is particularly involved in either group, and as such have no right to try and influence you or them. I apologize for wasting your time.
4868054
That's why I specifically said that I meant it culturally rather than biologically.
But thank you for the kind words.
4868031
I did not know that! Thank you, then.
4868083
Yes, I get your point. But again, you did call a culture by the name of a race. The implication remains, even if there's a correction along it. I know it sounds like a fallacy focusing over a detail instead of the entire speech, but that's the point of semiotics. Even the smallest detail can mean a world of difference. If you're interested, check the Frankfurt School of Critic Thinking, and the School of Paloalto. Both compose a good base on semiotic communication.
Also, no problem. As I said, pals.
4867762
I understand that most are not and they are happy with their partner of choice. The ones who are so thin skinned l have issue with
May I see your sources of information on these issues?
4868145
The only alternative I can see is for him to call it Western culture as I've seen a lot of people call it. That still isn't fully accurate though as there are western countries that don't fall into the same category. Western, European, North American are all alternatives but it honestly doesn't detract from what he says because he clarified his point. Anyone that takes issue with it as a racial thing is obviously means they didn't read or chose to ignore information provided. Beyond that the reaction to be outraged at the word "white" in either context isn't exactly a positive point either.
4868260
I could have said "European-descended," I guess. Though other cultures are often racially-identified.
4868260
That's besides the point. No matter how much you say it isn't the intent, or the text itself clarifies it, a racially charged sentence is bound to draw a reaction. Again, I'm fully aware it doesn't sound serious, or important in an objective appreciation. but communication on itself is a subjective act, so if you want to be heard, you have to take in account that subjectivity.
On the name of the culture, Western Culture is the one used in academics studies because of the geopolitical localization it provides. Whereas White Culture refers to a racial localization. Even if it's not the intent, it is a term that implies segregation. Also, it is less accurate. For example, you can't call Jazz and Blues "white music", because it is part of a movement that began within Afro-descendant groups. However, they can be called "western music" because their conception happened withing the Western context.
As I said, communication and culture, as a whole are entirely subjective, and have to be treated as such. Also, anything worth discussing is subjective. If it wasn't there couldn't really be a discussion.
4868525
You make an extremely good point there. All right, I will amend that to "European-descended" cultures.
4867762
Well said.
Interesting blog post. The world truly is going insane. Islam isn't even a race. It's a theocratic ideology employing strategies of conquest if you want to get technical. People choose to be or not be Muslims. And anyone who can't see that the ideology is a serious threat in the world (possibly the single most serious threat at this time in history), then I don't know what to say other than pointing out that trigger-happy SJWs should be avoided at all costs.
Personally, I'm not even sure how to feel about the subject matter itself. I'm no friend to either LGBTQ or BLM type groups. The whole "gay pride" thing baffles me, to be honest. Is it not enough that they've now got the law on their side? Why the flamboyant, obnoxious attitudes we so often see from them? Look, I don't care what other people choose to do in their bedrooms. As long as they don't make me do things I don't agree with, they can do whatever they want with their lives.
Here's an interesting point: I've had some rather lengthy discussions with a number of real-life zoosexuals. These people I can actually respect more than the LGBTQ community because they aren't parading in the streets drawing attention to themselves and trying to make sure that nobody disagrees with their chosen form of sexual pleasure. Zoos, apparently, just want to be left alone to love their animals, and they don't even want it legalized because that would create unnecessary complications and attention. So the discussions got me to thinking: Why don't the gays do this? They're legal. Why don't they just do their thing in peace and in privacy, and be happy about it? At this stage, it feels much more like a political movement with a social-engineering agenda than a genuine "I just want to love whom I choose to love" argument.
Behold, Jordan179...the pale, wasted imitation of the Great Worm Ourobouros which is the Left. It can only continue to exist by eating its own tail.
The difference being that it actually makes progress in this endeavor and will eventually kill itself when it doesn’t have a nebulous, not-there “VAST RIGHTWING CONSPIRACY TO GAS MINORITY GROUPS” to rabidly foam over.
4867831 Pardon for the late entry into this blog post...
Jordan179 has never, either in my observations of his behavior with others or in my personal interactions with him, been a dick in any way, shape, or form.
He has always been nothing less than a genteel and even-tempered conversation partner and debate opponent, who rarely says anything without a reason for it, and, while bald about facts (or what he believes is true), is not blunt to the point of pain, but rather does his best to be as gentle and sensitive about it as possible without either compromising his beliefs or offending others.
He and I do not see eye-to-eye on very much (I am much further to the Right than he is), but there is no one else I would rather have an intelligent conversation or debate with than Jordan179.
If any offense to his words or stances are taken, it is assuredly contrived on the part of the “offended” group.
TL;DR: Take it from someone who IS a dick.
Jordan ain’t one of us.
4870006
That's probably the nicest thing any dick has ever said.
4869282
Imagine thinking raping animals is better than consenting adults having sex.
5085006
I'd say that all rape is horrible. But I'm not sure what your point is. Who was talking about rape?