You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #74: Hmm. It's a shame that you think Stonewall was unethical. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. Hmm. It's a shame that you think Stonewall was unethical.
<<you refuse to admit that violence, no matter who does it, is wrong>>
<<you have consistently defended those who did the attacking>>

No, I have not consistently "defended" hitting an old lady over the head. Obviously, hitting an old lady over the head is about the dumbest thing you can do.

I have consistently doubted that the incident even happened, knowing that Joel's Army are pathological liars and psychotics who advocate that we be murdered in the street according to biblical law. I have not seen the injuries caused by this "rabid gay", and I do not believe for one second that these pathological liars would hesitate to use such an opportunity, if it existed, to cause a media stir.

However, the foundational liberating event of LGBT people in US history was a violent riot that lasted for days-- and included a mob of LGBT people throwing molotov cocktails at police trapped inside the club. Yes, I refuse to admit that violence "whoever does it" is wrong because I don't believe that Stonewall is wrong. All those cops did was enforce the law as written.

That being said, I don't think violence against "little old ladies" is good propaganda. In that sense "it's wrong" (so it's a good thing it probably never happened.) A physical altercation with the male figureheads of the Klan or the Minutemen, on the other hand--so long as the LGBT community won the fight--would absolutely boost our support across the board, humiliate the enemy, and lower its ability to recruit.

For clarification, I also support John Brown and other 19th century slave uprisings, the Zapatistas, and women who escape attackers through violence or stab stalkers to get away. John Brown, from what the Southerners say, killed women and children. The Zapatistas raised arms against a nation who "merely wrote words against them" in the law books.

I'm not a free speech absolutist. I expect that if I walked into a Black neighborhood singing Klan songs and passing out literature that called Black folks "demons", I would absolutely get my ass kicked. Whether that is "right" or "wrong" is trumped by human nature and the logic of human dignity. I don't support it condemn it anymore than I support or condemn wind or rain.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC