Electronic Music 411 - Gay? - homo, ghey, gay, queer, jdg

livebunny said: "none of us would be making stupid electronic music if it hadnt been for gay black men...

stupid fucking thread...

i cant believe im posting to it.."

lol!

Recent blogs: Hi. I'm Jetsom. I never blog.

08/24/06 + Jetsom

room said: "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all.... - Noam Chomsky"

Yeah, I don't get this either. I don't know if it was in reply to my post. It doesn't really seem to address what I was saying ("I question the use of guilt/punishment...The cleansing of language but inwardly, no change" etc.), there's something missing.

For me, an attempt at a thorough dialogue on this would have to start with addressing the common taboo issues amongst pc types as well as the obvious socially unacceptable prejudiced views. I mean this would take some time..and you can't get anywhere with most people most of the time; they have their fixed opinions and they can't be bothered with the rest - it's too much trouble to get our brains working.

Recent blogs: Hi. I'm Jetsom. I never blog.

edited: Aug 24 2006 + cbit

tecknoman said: "I find it annoying when people act like others shouldn't be allowed not to approve of gay people. It's a new kind of puritanism or piety. It's like they're saying "i'm so tolerant since I'm OK with gay people" but at the same time they're not tolerating any opinion that differs from their own in any tangible way."

Wikipedia has an interesting entry on tolerance link the whole thing was interesting and the part 'Tolerating the intolerant' seems especially relevant here:

wikipedia said: "In particular, should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance? What if by tolerating action "A", society destroys itself? Tolerance of "A" could be used to introduce a new thought system leading to intolerance of vital institution "B". It is difficult to strike a balance and different societies do not always agree on the details, indeed different groups within a single society also often fail to agree. The current suppression of Nazism in Germany is considered intolerant by some countries, for instance, while in Germany itself it is Nazism which is considered intolerably intolerant. Issues that are controversial in various countries include the separation of church and state, homosexuality, the consumption of tobacco, alcoholic beverages and other drugs, reading disapproved political tracts, and deviant sexual acts as well as the correct reaction to disorderly conduct and misdemeanours (for example, see zero tolerance policy).

Philosopher John Rawls devotes a section of his influential and controversial book A Theory of Justice to the problem of whether a just society should or should not tolerate the intolerant, and to the related problem of whether or not, in any society, the intolerant have any right to complain when they are not tolerated.

Rawls concludes that a just society must be tolerant, therefore the intolerant must be tolerated for otherwise the society would then be intolerant and so unjust. However Rawls qualifies this by insisting that society and its social institutions have a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance. Hence, the intolerant must be tolerated but only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions."

so in rawl's view, by tolerating discrimination towards gay people, a tolerant society puts it's future at risk. So not tolerating intolerant behaviour (discrimination against gay people for instance) is an example of a society exercising its right of self-preservation that he mentions.

Recent blogs: Cocoa coding query, DIY Monome schematic, Mormo: fly-on-the-wall view of track in progress

08/24/06 + energygiant

livebunny said: "

who cares where who sticks their cock in what...

"

why its gotta be about cocks? i think there are a few girls here too. and to answer your question, MEEEEEEE you fucktard.

Recent blogs: someone was also born today, You have been restricted from posting temporarily., googleplex-ed

edited: Aug 24 2006 + Jetsom

cbit said: "Rawls concludes that a just society must be tolerant, therefore the intolerant must be tolerated for otherwise the society would then be intolerant and so unjust."

logical, and a perfectly good, clear starting point.

However Rawls qualifies this by insisting that society and its social institutions have a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance. Hence, the intolerant must be tolerated but only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions.

This is a work around, it's abstract, it's avoiding the facts pointed to in the previous statement rather than confronting the whole issue. To confront part of the issue is obviously limited and therefore flawed, however satisfying this is to read.

The point I really want to make here is: Why not come clean about all that? Why is coming clean about it seen as 'getting in the way of progress towards a greater goal'? Can't we go beyond that? Why do we have to be de-emphasising facts that are considered dangerous to this ideology? Why be so precious? What are we concerned with; the problems or the answers? Answers are nice to handle because they inspire hope and a feeling of progress and 'dealing with it'. While problems make you feel like you're staring into the void, the murky waters. I don't know if I'm making myself clear.

I don't know, I consider this a given when it comes to exploration. Otherwise I'm drawn towards being reactive/defensive with you because our ideology conflicts, making this much like ordinary everyday dealings, or I don't have the patience to try and find threads of common understanding. Ha! There; some tasty ammo for your arguement! I'm the one who I have a problem with. You might as well do your "as you said" thing again and have done ;-).

Recent blogs: Hi. I'm Jetsom. I never blog.

08/24/06 + cbit

no, sorry, i don't follow. what do you mean by 'come clean about all that'?

Recent blogs: Cocoa coding query, DIY Monome schematic, Mormo: fly-on-the-wall view of track in progress

edited: Aug 24 2006 + Jetsom

cbit said: "no, sorry, i don't follow. what do you mean by 'come clean about all that'?"

About what I just typed. Either I'm predictably vague, or you're predictably um..predictable. Either way, I knew that was going to be your next post!

I mean, could you agree or disagree with anything I said in that post? Sorry it might come out funny, because I'm concious of it being a public forum so it's hard to be open, maybe I missed some crucial details.

Recent blogs: Hi. I'm Jetsom. I never blog.

08/24/06 + room

There are rules that society decided to uphold

There are beliefs that individuals have a right to .... internally

Society punishes illegal actions actions by individuals / vigilante action can also "punish" illegally

Incitement to hatred against minorities is seen as an action that can be legally punished in some societies around the world (intolerance of intolerance - as cbit highlights is an action)

What we believe, say and do is a product of the context in which we exist as is societies response to it....

In which countries/societies is sexuality still an area where legal punishment can occur?

Recent blogs: The Wire - review Favourite Places, dreamweaver cs3 help, The CD

08/24/06 + room

i'm being predictably abstract and rambly

Recent blogs: The Wire - review Favourite Places, dreamweaver cs3 help, The CD

edited: Aug 24 2006 + Jetsom

I don't think my thinking fits here. 'society decided to uphold..'...I mean, this is too abstract for me. Who's society and where is he now? I'm not trying to be clever, I just think we're talking about different things and it's causing confusion - probably because I haven't made myself clear.

Recent blogs: Hi. I'm Jetsom. I never blog.

08/24/06 + filarion

i had a long post ready to go on that wikipedia article but decided to can it.. either it's way over my head or those theories are flawed. who gets to decide what is threatening our ability to be tolerant again? ack.

just be gay and frolick in the bushes :p

Recent blogs: Neo Ouija Facebook Group, Pics: STFU Heidelberg 08, STFU Heidelberg Livestream

08/24/06 + soft

i vote this thread worst blog ever.

Recent blogs: stranded in berlin!!, STFU arrangements Heidelberg, i joined the darkside

08/24/06 + cbit

why don't you like it soft?

Recent blogs: Cocoa coding query, DIY Monome schematic, Mormo: fly-on-the-wall view of track in progress

08/24/06 + huck

As a man with a dick that gets hard I can choose to do anything I like with that hard dick. These are mysterious urges that really do not belong in the public eye, in my opinion. I can remember when I first started to find my sexual freedom, when I first started having some ideas of what my hard dick wanted to get up to, feeling very much that it was entirely out of my conscious control. It was really more of an animal or dream urge and that was part of what made it so deeply satisfying (as well as terrifying.)

Also, all animal and dream urge behavior can be somewhat embarrassing with the lights on. You who prefer all-male gay sex: watch a lesbian porn video. Isn't it humorous??? You who prefer straight sex: watch a gay porn video. How embarrassing!!!

It disgusts me to be identified societally with the animal or dream urge that gets into my dick. I am more than my dick, no? And perhaps you are using this somewhat embarrassing behavior to put me in some place below you. To intimidate me.

To all of you who make reference to "homosexuals" "gays" or "queers" I have to admit my first urge is to spit in your face. (More about my second urge later.) All animal and dream urges are sacred and should be tolerated and experimented with in sacred privacy (something we seem to have less and less of these days.)

Society is severely over-populated. In order to work there needs to be compromise and order. There needs to be some manners. We should be cordial and polite to each other. Always. We should be careful about the feelings of others, and carefully word our opinions. But in our private space we can watch carefully for the glance that comes from the animal or dream urging eye of a potential partner. And we can act on that urge, so long as nobody is getting hurt by our actions. If it gives two people mysterious pleasure to rub their stubble together and put their tongues into each other's mouths, let it be done!

I wish I could have been Tchaikovsky, urging for hard dick in a society where sexual appetite is not associated with societal standing. Then I could privately have dick, and even have kids and a wife! Hell, maybe I would discover that I am have a truly bisexual appetite! Hopefully I would manage that a little better than our dear, departed friend Peter, but instead I live in a society that makes me embarrassed for the urges I have, and press me to identify with one of the other... thus solidifying myself... In my opinion, it is evil and deathly to be too rigid!

There is nothing more powerful than ambiguity. Sex is ambiguity. To all of you who deny ambiguity with your bombastic and fascistic views, I politely disagree, but in private I am inspired to fantasize about opening up your shirt, taking off your belt... a lot of other animistic dreamy stuff ensues. Happy now?

Recent blogs: schmuckle-song, I may be called Huck, but...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14

You must be a member to reply or post. signup or login