Posts
Something I'm seeing from my LGBT friends is an increasing frenzy about how Trump's election will affect them.
The core of it is coming from the extreme end of their political spectrum and it stems from a false equivalence.
Refusal to advocate for something is not the same as suppressing it.
These people wouldn't know suppression if it bit them in their ass.
What they're complaining about, mostly, is they don't have the ear of the people in power any more and their demands will not be transmitted uncritically to the masses now.
Now they have to convince people on the merits of their arguments.
Which, I remind them, worked when the topics of right to exist at all and being able to marry.
I also point out that they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by inviting groomers into the tent. That mistake will be costing them for decades and it's going to have a negative affect on a lot of people who've no interest in distorting children.
Way too many groups do this.
They win their fight and then realize that the prestige, money and power that came along with leading the fight goes away with the fight.
So they start another one!
Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a great example as well. They got enforcement up and enforcement based on a scientifically provable level of impairment from blood alcohol levels. And it worked! Rational people saw the increased enforcement and either stopped drinking before they got to 0.10 or didn't drive if they did. After a, brief, spike in drunk driving arrests the cops found there was nobody to pull over.
Faced with the loss of power, they got the BAC reduced to 0.08 in most places. 0.08 is not impairing for nearly everyone. A driver at this BAC isn't impaired and isn't a real danger (as long as they stay off their phone). Now people are resentful of the enforcement because it's targeting people who aren't impaired...
Back when the gays were screaming about "the right to marry," I pointed out that they could have had everything they wanted---if they were willing to compromise on the word "marriage!" It so happens that "marriage" is a term-of-art in many religions, many of which specifically disapprove of homosexuality in any form. There is precedent for this---back in the seventeenth century, even though Quakers were some of the most peaceful, law-abiding people in Britain, the jails bulged with them because they refused to take oaths when called to testify in court, which was seen as contempt of court. So a work-around was put in place, where people who didn't want to take an oath to tell the truth would "affirm" that they were telling the truth, and all was coolness.
ReplyDeleteA small, not-too-popular minority does not do well stamping its (collective) foot and refusing to compromise. Sooner or later, the majority loses its patience, and Hilarity Ensues. Running bawling to the courts when they find venues, bakers, or photographers who don't want to do what they want or go along with their plans does not help. The anti-discrimination laws were passed in a spasm of grief over St. JFK, and were very badly, over-broadly written. Back when the mainstream media controlled the narrative, they could easily get away with this, but with the internet and alternative information sources available, dissenters can find each other and find out that there's more of them than the MSM wants to admit.