...I feel compelled to add a bit of deeply. fucking. angry. commentary.
I expect Califia would understand, somehow.
This. This. And, it is NOT limited to any one thing, goddamit, but there are reasons why some of us get this basic principle at a gut level, i mean BESIDES just not being totally stuck in a primitive level of ethical and emotional development, god knows why some people ARE...
Here it is:
You don't fucking out people.
Furthermore, you don't suddenly treat them like shit because they reveal something to you that frankly you ought to get on your damn knees and be -thankful- they trusted you enough to reveal in the goddam first place. You don't dump shame on them and PARTICULARLY you do NOT get to coat it in some sort of fucking sanctimonious self-justification because of your frigging -dogma.- -Fuck- your dogma, it was supposed to be helping real people, -precisely- the people who you -just shat on-, gee, i guess maybe it's NOT WORKING. or, at MINIMUM, Ur Doing It Wrong.
As the saying goes, if this doesn't apply to you, don't take it personally. If it does--well, Christ knows you'll never be honest enough to admit just how despicable you're being, because that would undermine your entire frigging self-identity and we can't have THAT for Maud's sake. Just know this: Karma's a bitch. No, that is not a frigging -threat.- That is an observation of how the world works. The real one, not the pathetic little fantasy treehouse land you've cobbled together to nurture your festering wounds and spin fables of grandiosity and paranoia.
"The great thing about believing everyone's out to get you is that sooner or later it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy."
Seriously though: prove me wrong. Stop being a whited sepulchre. Do the right thing for once in your damn life. Stop your martyred whining for five seconds and -consider- that -maybe-, JUST MAYBE, you, yes YOU, o Righteous Crusader, are hurting someone else, -specifically-, and, frankly, gratuitously.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Are you thinking of anything specific, or just talking in general about the hazards of outing?
Yes, and yes. And that's all I'm going to say about it.
I remember when a college friend told me she was a lesbian. I said "Oh...ok" She asked if I hated her and I said "no." and that was the end of it. If a person wants someone to know something, then that person should be the one to tell. Not someone else out of "concern". The whole concept of "outing" is just so much mean spirited gossip.
yeah. i've yet to see an outing produce acceptance and civil rights for queer folk.
but we oughta keep on trying, right?
i guess i'm willing to make some level of exception for doing so when the person in question is a clear and present danger to queer lives, but even then i'm still gonna be queasy about it.
what gets me the most is the glee with which some folks engage in it. it's just plain unsettling.
Rootie --
A friend of mine came out to me as gay on the last day of high school, right after the last exam.
"I'm gay," he said, and after a pause, "is that okay?"
I just hugged him. He broke my heart.
(I've corresponded with him since; he's much more confident now, and doesn't even remember being that fragile.)
re you referring to the fact that we are getting ready to dump Lindsey Graham over the side? Did you object to Larry Craig being outed?
What do you propose we do with anti-gay politicians who happen to be gay? Their sexuality is used as extortion (by the right) to extract more and more anti-gay policies/legislation from them. They can therefore end up far more rabidly homophobic in their actual Senate/House voting and policy positions, than the straight right wingers.
What would you suggest? Do you think they have the right to continue, comfortably closeted, while other people suffer as the result of the policies and regulations (such as against gay adoption and civil unions) they are responsible for?
personally i was not referring to Craig (about whom i have as much schadenfreude as anyone else) or any other politician.
but yeah, i don't have a problem hoisting anti-gay politicians or other powerful/influential figures who get caught being -hypocrites- on their own petard, even as i recognize that hi irony it still doesn't help the greater problem of general stigma much. But, getting them the hell out of power does; so, while i don't think it solves problems by itself, i don't actually have a problem with it.
i do have a problem with it being used for any other reason, even if it's someone i personally can't stand, find inimical for some other, unrelated reason, etc.
Okay, Belle, that's good to hear. I have worried about the political ramifications of this (a lot), but my fed-up-ness level has now overcome any guilt I have about outing him (Graham).
What would you suggest? Do you think they have the right to continue, comfortably closeted, while other people suffer as the result of the policies and regulations (such as against gay adoption and civil unions) they are responsible for?
Personally, I reckon homophobes need to be dealt with in a way that does not depend explicitly on their sexual orientation, but that's just me.
hypocritical homphobes are more annoying than the regular kind, but not actually, in effect, worse in some way just because they're gay - we need to deal with their homophobia not their hypocrisy, because that's the problem, and their hypocrisy is just a piss taking extra that doesn't really matter, in the grand scheme of things.
Well...perhaps. On the other hand, I can't say I can rustle up a whole lot of sympathy for people who craft inimical homophobic legislation who do hoist themselves on their own petards and thus take themselves out of the political gene pool. Yeah, it's playing dirty; that degree of dirty, I can live with. "Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself..."
or, to mix me some literary references:
"I do not believe that I am a vindictive [person], but when the immortal gods take a hand in the matter it is pardonable to observe the result with complacency."
--Somerset Maugham
and y'know, it -does- matter in that it underscores the elitism and corruption of the whole enterprise: rules for thee but not for me; as well as the "look, these laws -aren't reasonable;" even the person who WROTE them clearly doesn't adhere; maybe time to rethink this whole thing?
and their hypocrisy is just a piss taking extra that doesn't really matter, in the grand scheme of things.
Gay people denied their partner's health insurance or inheritance, etc would disagree with you that it "doesn't really matter".
Gay people denied their partner's health insurance or inheritance, etc would disagree with you that it "doesn't really matter".
The hypocrisy doesn't matter, "oh look, here's a man who's stealing your rights, who's dehumanizing you through law, here's a man putting you in camps and stealing your children - but what's shocking is that he goes in for the secret butt secks, let's hit him for that." just seems a bit...off, so outing them as a specific tactic doesn't seem that good a thing- not just morally but strategically, becuase it's dealing with the things that's really fucking annoying rather htan the actual problem - which is his policies, not his sexual orientation.
However, should they happen to end up trying to give a handshake to a part of an undercover policeman that is not their hand, sniggering is agreeable - else you'll explode in a shower of suppressed schadenfraude! (I'm doing that annoying thing of agreeing with everyone while disagreeing on some randomised point, I'll stop now.)
well, the strategic part is that this particular inimical person who's already caused a great deal of damage and was poised to do more, is no longer in a position of power. sometimes that's just cutting the head off the hydra; other times though, well...the short-term gain does seem worth whatever long-term karma detraction comes of the "resorting to nanny nanny boo boo sexshul scandal" thing.
Post a Comment