Right Wing Regressives Need to Stop

[NineBerry]

Disruptive protest at private venues should not be legal. But whether it is legitimate is a matter of personal opinion.

[Forty Two]

LGBT isn't a political persuasion but a state of being.

Well, there are political aspects, and religious aspects. For example, the protest could be against the LGBT event because of opposition to public funding of transitioning treatments, bathroom usage, marriage issues, or whatever. These are political issues.

Being male is a state of being, but that doesn't stop people from gathering to protest and disrupt men's conferences. That's because there is no hard line between politics and states of being.

[Brian Peacock]

So, what's the distinction - disruptive protesting a pro-LGBT event vs the same actions toward a pro-fascist event?

LGBT isn't a political persuasion but a state of being.

[Forty Two]

Disruptive protest at private venues should not be legal. But whether it is legitimate is a matter of personal opinion.

I think I can agree with that, with the caveat that personal opinions are often based in reason and that the personal opinion as to whether a given disruptive protest is legitimate would seem to warrant a more reasoned view than, say, the personal opinion about one's favorite color. Even though something is a personal opinion, it's still worthy of inquiry as to why. Some opinions are better than others.

[Forty Two]

So, what's the distinction - disruptive protesting a pro-LGBT event vs the same actions toward a pro-fascist event?

LGBT isn't a political persuasion but a state of being.

Again, but protesting a pro-LGBT event or play can be an exercise in political protest.

Further, since when are states of being beyond the realm of either politics or protest? Or, why would they be.

And, the LGBT "movement" is in part political.

[pErvinalia]

L'Emmy was clear that the legitmacy of political protest is contingent on rights not political persausion. Shall we move on now?

Sure, but, what, then, was the lack of equivalency in the example of the disruptive protest of the pro-LGBT play? If legtimacy of political protest is contingent on rights, then isn't the disruptive protest of the pro-LGBT play just as legitimate? Isn't it equivalent? If not, what's the distinction. If so, then I'll be thankful for the clarification.

I can't speak for Lemmy, but I'd say an lgbti play isn't necessarily political. A play about Trump is definitely political.

[Forty Two]

So, the test in your mind would be that to be the proper subject of legitimate disruption, the object of the protest must be political?

It seems to me that this test is unworkable, because there is no real way to distinguish between things that are political and things that are not political. I've heard some folks say that abortion is not a political issue, because a woman's humanity and fundamental rights are not proper subjects of political debate. And, there are plenty of LGBT issues that are political, like funding for medical procedures and treatments, marriage rights, dependent benefits rights, pronoun and free speech issues, and religious issues. Almost anything can be symbolically political, as well.

Take flag burning. That's a political statement, but the flag itself is not per se political. It's arguably just a symbol of the country. But, protesters use it to symbolize oppression, tyranny, the establishment, and many other things.

I'm gathering here from the responses, that there is an effort to conceptualize a difference between a legitimate disruption being against a political thing or issue, and one that is not legitimate would involve just sort of a characteristic or a "state of being." I'm not sure how to apply that distinction in real life, though, and where the concept comes from. But, I see what you're getting at.

I'd give an example here, though, of the situation at Evergreen College, where there are groups of students protesting against white people, literally. They say white people were supposed to leave campus for a day or some period of time. White people have become the subject of protest, because of their "state of being" white, and the protesters disrupted the college campus, disrupted classes, and prevented classes from moving forward. Do you think that is protesting a state of being, or a political protest?

[Svartalf]

So, what's the distinction - disruptive protesting a pro-LGBT event vs the same actions toward a pro-fascist event?

LGBT isn't a political persuasion but a state of being.

for that matter, so is being straight

[Svartalf]

L'Emmy was clear that the legitmacy of political protest is contingent on rights not political persausion. Shall we move on now?

Sure, but, what, then, was the lack of equivalency in the example of the disruptive protest of the pro-LGBT play? If legtimacy of political protest is contingent on rights, then isn't the disruptive protest of the pro-LGBT play just as legitimate? Isn't it equivalent? If not, what's the distinction. If so, then I'll be thankful for the clarification.

I can't speak for Lemmy, but I'd say an lgbti play isn't necessarily political. A play about Trump is definitely political.

mmmh, and LGBTQ writer creating a play around such themes is likely to have political motivation, we no longer are in Oscar Wilde's times when such themes were either buried under the carpet, or cast as light comedy, the people who are of such persuasion tend to have revendication and to want to occupy the scene...

[pErvinalia]

So, the test in your mind would be that to be the proper subject of legitimate disruption, the object of the protest must be political?

No. I was attempting to clarify Lemmy's argument (I hope I've got it right).

I'm gathering here from the responses, that there is an effort to conceptualize a difference between a legitimate disruption being against a political thing or issue, and one that is not legitimate would involve just sort of a characteristic or a "state of being." I'm not sure how to apply that distinction in real life, though, and where the concept comes from. But, I see what you're getting at.

Speaking for my position here, you know me, I'm up for punching Nazis and pretty much anyone who is a bully or a hateful cunt. Not that I actually go around doing that. But I'm happy to do it if needed.

I'd give an example here, though, of the situation at Evergreen College, where there are groups of students protesting against white people, literally. They say white people were supposed to leave campus for a day or some period of time. White people have become the subject of protest, because of their "state of being" white, and the protesters disrupted the college campus, disrupted classes, and prevented classes from moving forward. Do you think that is protesting a state of being, or a political protest?

I guess it's political and due to their state of being. I think that was a "legitimate" form of protest, but pretty fucking stupid.

[pErvinalia]

L'Emmy was clear that the legitmacy of political protest is contingent on rights not political persausion. Shall we move on now?

Sure, but, what, then, was the lack of equivalency in the example of the disruptive protest of the pro-LGBT play? If legtimacy of political protest is contingent on rights, then isn't the disruptive protest of the pro-LGBT play just as legitimate? Isn't it equivalent? If not, what's the distinction. If so, then I'll be thankful for the clarification.

I can't speak for Lemmy, but I'd say an lgbti play isn't necessarily political. A play about Trump is definitely political.

mmmh, and LGBTQ writer creating a play around such themes is likely to have political motivation, we no longer are in Oscar Wilde's times when such themes were either buried under the carpet, or cast as light comedy, the people who are of such persuasion tend to have revendication and to want to occupy the scene...

Yeah, you are probably right to a degree. Although, I can imagine situations when it is just about fun/art and not political.

[Brian Peacock]

So, what's the distinction - disruptive protesting a pro-LGBT event vs the same actions toward a pro-fascist event?

LGBT isn't a political persuasion but a state of being.

Again, but protesting a pro-LGBT event or play can be an exercise in political protest.

What's the nature of that protest?

Further, since when are states of being beyond the realm of either politics or protest? Or, why would they be.

Who said they are? But is protesting a state of being a legitimate political protest? Do you think it's legitimate to call for ginger people to have their rights limited or degraded for example?

And, the LGBT "movement" is in part political.

You only offered a nominal 'pro-LGBT event', but what difference does it make if the event is organised by a scare-quotes-movement or not, and how?

[pErvinalia]

Do you think it's legitimate to call for ginger people to have their rights limited or degraded for example?

MOTHER OF GOD!

Normally I wouldn't call for the rights of gingers to be limited, but for that guy I'd definitely make an exception..

[Forty Two]

So, what's the distinction - disruptive protesting a pro-LGBT event vs the same actions toward a pro-fascist event?

LGBT isn't a political persuasion but a state of being.

Again, but protesting a pro-LGBT event or play can be an exercise in political protest.

What's the nature of that protest?

Exactly the same in nature as the douchebags at the Julius Caesar play.

If you mean, what are the protesters protesting - let's just say they have a notion that the LGBT movement is overall detrimental to children and society at large, and they are against non-traditional marriages, public funding of transitioning surgery and drugs/hormones, and they have religious objections to what they deem sinful lifestyles, and behaviors which they think should be made illegal again.

Further, since when are states of being beyond the realm of either politics or protest? Or, why would they be.

Who said they are? But is protesting a state of being a legitimate political protest?

In my view yes, as I can't think of a single protest that is not "legitimate." I mean, I hate the guy who stands outside the county building and preaches the gospel...every, frickin', time, I go there... but, whatever he's doing is a legitimate exercise of his first amendment rights. SJWs protesting a men's issues conference are mostly total toolbags, but their protest is legitimate, until they cross the line to disruption of the event (like pulling fire alarms, commandeering a stage or podium, or making so much noise the event cannot take place, that kind of thing.

Do you think it's legitimate to call for ginger people to have their rights limited or degraded for example?

Sure. If people want to voice that opinion, it's a legitimate exercise of the right to free speech and expression, freedom of thought, and such. Do I think it's nice? No. Do I think it makes a damn bit of sense? No. Are the bigots and maybe racists? Yes.

And, the LGBT "movement" is in part political.

You only offered a nominal 'pro-LGBT event', but what difference does it make if the event is organised by a scare-quotes-movement or not, and how?

By pro-LGBT event or play, I meant that the play advanced a pro-LGBT message, in the same way a pro-fascist play would be advancing a pro-fascist message.

In my view, it makes no difference who organizes the event. Everyone has a legitimate right to protest. Nobody has a legitimate right to disrupt the event by commandeering the stage, or taking such actions as making it impossible for the event or play to proceed. It seems to me that this would be an uncontroversial view, one that anyone can agree with. But, the issue seems to be that some folks seem to think, unless I'm not following correctly, that some "disruptions" as I've described, are legitimate, whereas others are not. I'm just trying to get at the thought process behind that distinction.

We're making headway here, because I'm getting some elements of a theory, that disrupting an event in furtherance of "political" protest would be "legitimate," whereas if it's to further a protest against a "state of being" or other non-political issue, then it would not be "legitimate." I think I've got that right, even though I haven't quite been able come to grips with why anyone thinks that's a distinction that applies here.

I'm also a bit curious if the same kind of "disruption" is considered "legitimate" where the protest is by pro-fascists against an anti-fascist play or event. I'm gathering a faction here thinks that yes, such a disruption of the kind at the Julius Caesar play would be "legitimate" even if it were fascists protesting an overtly anti-fascist play. Although, I may get corrected on that. Maybe there is a distinction I'm missing there, too.

[JimC]

LGBT isn't a political persuasion but a state of being.

However, it is often strongly associated with generally left-leaning politics...