Should the US fly the Rainbow Pride flag at US Embassies?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burdman30ott6

We do however have a fine selection of cheeses you may pick from to accompany your whine

So why is it I've only ever been offered that stale chocolate chip cookie? LOL

Most of us assumed you were lactose intolerant or a vegan.

I'd say nope, although I still have an eeny-weeny bit of hope that LGBT people will be given their own state.

Then our "Gaytopia" embassy will wave it's Rainbow Flag, and if you wish, you can put whatever friendly flag beneath it.

In 2009 "gay Zionism" and "Sodom for the Sodomites" still seemed like a good idea, but now that sexual essentialism has fallen completely to social constructionism, it seems like a gay state is redundant.

You can't have a republic of shape-shifters.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BrianFlanders

That would be the American flag. Or at least what it represents.

That's a big ole nope. The American flag represents collectivism (just like all flags). I guess I was being facetious, as an individuality flag wouldn't exist. Because individuals have to give up their individuality to become clusters. A flag represents a group identity. And thus, you're embracing identity politics by flying a flag.

originally posted by: halfoldman
I'd say nope, although I still have an eeny-weeny bit of hope that LGBT people will be given their own state.

Then our "Gaytopia" embassy will wave it's Rainbow Flag, and if you wish, you can put whatever friendly flag beneath it.

In 2009 "gay Zionism" and "Sodom for the Sodomites" still seemed like a good idea, but now that sexual essentialism has fallen completely to social constructionism, it seems like a gay state is redundant.

You can't have a republic of shape-shifters.

Been a long while since I read anything that homophobic...well done.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

What do you mean homophobic?
In 2009 I genuinely believed in gay separatism, or a unique ethnicity and oppressed lgbt people across the globe could move to their own safe space.
Even at the time it was a radical almost "queer punk" position - but the graffiti was around.
Actually some said it was "heterophobic" - you lgbt people no longer want to live with us.
Yeah, and at the time there were party invites that sometimes said: "Don't bring any 'breeders' (heteros)".
I guess the whole thing on inclusivity hadn't taken hold yet, or was not universally felt.
And yeah, especially in Africa things seemed pretty dire, and unlikely to ever change in most countries on the continent.
So why not make a sliver of space where all the oppressed people can go?
Just nobody had a clue where it might be.
But homophobic was the last thing it was.
Although, granted it undeniably took homophobic slurs and ideas of the time, and literally re-inverted or reinvented them. But "Sodom for the Sodomites" was a radical slogan since the early 1970's (the era of the Radical Faeries, and so forth).
Sadly AIDS took many of those radical communities (there were entire communes) in the 1980's and early 1990's, but I remember.
Nevertheless that radicalism actually made significant cultural points and contributions to lgbt rights today, in countries that have them.
It's history, whether one likes it today or not.

a reply to: halfoldman

A state just for gay people eh?

Whats next a continent for whites only?

Talk about slippery slopes!

Somehow i just don't see that working, in any world past, present, or future.

Mod Note"

There is way too much personal bickering going on in this thread. KNOCK IT OFF before everyone involved is Posting Banned to cool down.

Do not reply to this note.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Uhm... you know it is an interesting twist in the world when openly gay people start being accused of homophobia simply because they disagree with a vocal minority of straight people claiming that concessions and public platitudes are needed to prove how diverse and accepting a society is towards homosexuality.

I have to wonder, is this pride flag being flown because gay people want it flown, or is it an exercise in virtue signalling by a portion of the non-gay population who feel it is necessary to perpetually remind everyone how woke they are?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well, if it is about people wanting to be reminded of how awakened they are, that might be a reason as to why the establishment refuses to display the flag at US Embassies.

Personally, i think most people are still sleeping soundly enough.

Hence the bull crap simplification of left/right division and perpetual class war that's raging on most stages around the world.

a reply to: andy06shake
Because the cultural wars in the US (which influenced other countries too) were very much led by Christian TV preachers and fundamentalists - some of whom indeed said put all the lgbt people on an island and in a generation they'll be extinct (a flourish on their same-sex love is a "deathstyle", not a "lifestyle" propaganda).

So some of us were like fine, show us the island.
Take me there tomorrow.
And in five years it will be the most desirable, most nicely decorated real-estate on the planet.
You'll all want to visit, or even buy property there.

That's what we were trying to say.
And that was not homophobic, that was a deep trust at the time in the ability of gay culture to create or develop something beautiful.
We were willing to take up the challenge that ultimately never came, although what used to be the run-down area of Cape Town was built up by queer labor to become prime real estate - to such an extent that working or middle class gay people can't even afford to live there today.

a reply to: halfoldman

Christian TV preachers and fundamentalists eh?

All i ken about they mad bastards is that Jebus needs peoples money for there own personal jet aircraft and that Westboro Baptist mob and their ilk are so far departed from =reality that it's not even funny.

You canny be separating gay people from everyone else mate, the logistics, nevermind the sociological dilemmas that would present themselves would number in the 100s of 1000s.

Life is life mate, sex is just what people do to pass the time and procreate, end of the day we are Jock Tamson's Bairns, more similar than apart.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I believe that the pride movement exists because homosexuals all over the world are still facing prejudice. 72 countries it’s illegal to love the person you love of they’re the same gender and on at least 10 of those countries ot could get you killed.

a reply to: andy06shake
Well, you had one slogan against another one.

They came up with one, and we subverted it.

Radicalism perhaps, is for the young.

I never said I still believed it (in fact, quite the opposite in my original post on this thread tonight).

But homophobic that thinking was not - it was one leg of the gay movement.
Gathering the movement (or even "special" ethnicity) in a space, like San Francisco since 1969, just even more independent.

I think The Pet Shop Boys' version of the song "Go West", was a last wry comment on it.

The Village People version in the previous decade was still celebratory and upbeat about gays migrating to their own space, but the tone of the latter version is more cynical.

So just because it's an almost defunct idea now, doesn't mean I made it up.

a reply to: halfoldman

Which slogans?

I've not mentioned homophobia to you halfoldman, but suggesting a separate state for only Gay people could indeed be interpreted as such.

It's a nonsensical notion at best, and at worst sexual segregation, hence my ambivalence to even entertain such a proposal.

It would never end well.

Gays already have their own space, it called their house/flat/apartment/room.

We all have our own space unless of course we are homeless and then i imagine sexuality is the least of concerns.

a reply to: andy06shake

Awake and woke are two entirely different states of being. One is legit, awareness of the real world around you, the other is a walking political cosplay in which you're just as big of a mark for BS as the folks you rail against, only you prescribe to the imaginary BS of the opposite side from your enemies.

Recognizing that property "ownership" is an illusion in a world where the government can take anything you possess and mandates you pay an annual fee to them for the privilege of "owning" it, artificially manufactured "equality" is purely evidence that nature doesn't make things equal and never intended for it to be equal, and realizing the government uses taxation and redistribution to buy their way into power same as monarchs and dictators do is being "awake." Believing you deserve something purely because you exist, viewing self deprecation as a virtue, blaming personal failures on everything but your own shortcomings, and rejecting the fact that society and nature are intended to operate in favor of the majority, dominant species is being "woke" and it's a goddamned joke.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I've not got any enemies any longer burdman30ott6, imaginary or otherwise.

Simply, people, that i disagree with.

Which is hardly the same thing.

Freedom and security are as illusory as property or ownership.

I've always found its best to simply take what i need, deserving or otherwise, as long as it's not from people with less than myself or everyone else of similar caliber, now if only our respective governments could appreciate that concept we might actually begin to awaken and address the real issues we face as a race.

I believe i am deserving because i contribute to society just like the next Man, after all, what more can one do than carry on regardless?

NO

a reply to: andy06shake

Yeah, correct, we can agree it is a dated notion in 2019 ("Sodom for the Sodomites!").

It was once proposed, but never worked.

I can't guarantee it won't pop up again though.

a reply to: halfoldman

Well, history does indeed have a penchant for repetition down to the fact that we simply refuse to learn from one generation to the next.

Our limited longevity would be the main contention there.

Seems to me we are only just beginning to understand, appreciate, and even begin to bestow true wisdom and knowledge when death or senility comes along knocking at the door.

Hopefully, the information age in which we now live will go some way as to alleviating our generational discombobulation.

But practically speaking, wouldn't the rainbow flag lead to misunderstandings?

Knock, knock at 3 am ...

No this is not the local gay bar, this is US embassy!

Oops, sorry.

Why you got the rainbow flag then?
Bunch of jerks!