Box Turtle Bulletin

Brilliant defence of racism, Shofixti.

Sheesh.

Shofixti

I bet if I told you I believed in air you’d stop breathing just to make a point.

If you were to relax your maniacal commitment to anti-intellectualism you could note two things.

1) I don’t mention race, you’re filling in the blanks based on your own assumptions. Acculturation happens to cultures, not to races.

2) Acculturation is not a tool with which to validate or encourage racism, but exactly the opposite (and for reasons so obvious I don’t need to state them).

Why are patrons of gay bars being targeted? Why this pattern and recurrence? Hate is an unsatifactory answer. The reason I mention stressors at all is that I think 99.9% of hate is actually fear and ignorance misnamed. Do the life sciences not speak to us on the issue of predispositions and environmental stressors? It is therefore important to understand the machinery of fear, of ignorance, of stress.

enough already

The more clever of our enemies (by “our”, shofixti, I mean: gays, lesbians, bisexuals, the transgender, the intersexed) do exactly what you do: They substitute words, they use coded phrases.

They never, ever come right out and say it – but we all get it.

The hatefulness of this particular comment is beyond any commentary:
I have often thought that drag queens act as a defuser of this conflict (not all the time and not everwhere). But if you come into a gay club with anxiety, shame or anger it can help to have a spectacle of grotesqueness to sort of suck up or absorb some of that stress.
endquote

You play the instruments of “culture” and “identity” quite nicely – but the self-loathing, anti-gay hatred keeps bleeding through.

Anti-intellectual? No. Anti-bulls-hit, yes.

The more I read of your writing, the more you remind me of all the profs. from our English and Philosophy departments. The waffle on and on and on about chasing black cats through empty houses, at midnight, under a new moon, with burnt out candles.
After the cat has left the house.

These criminals attack gays because they know Christian society is behind them. They attack gays because they know the police only care about gays to the extent that they can get a quick blo-job before they head home to their wives.

The only way to stop this is to do what we did many years back in Munich when a group of young Turks were proving their manliness by attacking gays in a neighborhood where the local cop-shop was known to be anti-gay.

After several weeks of increasing violence, we got together a group of gays and lesbians and two transgender who were all my size (well over six foot, built like a brick you-know-what) and all well trained in self-defense. We sent out ‘victims’ right down to the cute handkerchief…and after two weekends the cops asked us to stop dumping beat up young Turks wearing perfume and lipstick on their doorstep.

We asked if they were willing to stop turning a blind eye – they weren’t but the newspapers made a big to-do and what with elections coming up and everything, that precinct got a new chief. A very nice lesbian who saw things differently.

It’s been almost twenty years now since that sort of thing happened. This is how you put an end to it, not by your apologia for racism, rather by focused, clear action.

Priya Lynn

Shofixti said “If you were to relax your maniacal commitment to anti-intellectualism you could note two things.”.

You’re confusing being a pompous blowhard spouting word salad with intellectuallism. I see now you’re here not just to soft-peddle your anti-gay views, but to try to pump yourself up ill-conceived but pretentiously phrased ideas. You’re not impressing anyone but yourself.

Priya Lynn

“Enough” said “The more clever of our enemies (by â€œourâ€, shofixti, I mean: gays, lesbians, bisexuals, the transgender, the intersexed) do exactly what you do:”.

Thanks for including us bisexuals :)

Shofixti

I don’t have a problem with drag queens collectively or individually, but I am sure you would discount any and all reasons supporting this. The “Drag Queen” has been a feature of feminist and gay & lesbian studies as well as several documentaries. They are employed as performers and their acts are part of a significatory system of gender.

Why are the cultures of gay men and women so entwined with the drag spectacle? It is not hateful to have a reading, an experience, an idea or a theory as to how to interpret some of those acts.

If you have a direct criticism against “acculturation”, the “diathesis stress model” or “relative deprivation” why don’t you come out and say so?

EA: These criminals attack gays because they know Christian society is behind them. They attack gays because they know the police only care about gays to the extent that they can get a quick blo-job before they head home to their wives.

They WHAT? While I think your reading of this is skewed I do have to congratulate you on a sociological answer – that extreme Christian discourses coupled with a resistant police force may license violence on a street level. But I really can’t picture these attackers sitting in a pew come Sunday morning.

Where I come from the police liaise with the bouncers at each club, there are also gay police who are diversity officers and mediate with the community – and on top of that I know far more ‘gay’ lawyers than straight.

EA: The more clever of our enemies do exactly what you do: They substitute words, they use coded phrases.

I am not tarred by this accusation. Today I may be using some big words, but their meanings all come from the discipline of psychology – and they are all Google-able. I am not trying to close down thought on a topic but to add texture – as I find violence so abhorrent.

Yes, I am well aware of the language the religious right uses – mostly because I am occasionally active on three or more of their blogs trying to show them how they are using most of those words wrong: “social construction”, “epistemology”, “post-feminist”, “meta-narrative”, “post-modern”, “moral relativism”, “sexual agency”, “gender identity”. All so wrong.

They have stolen/adopted/adapted/misappropriated the words of intellectuals and because you’ve heard it from them first, you seem to think that intellectuals have done the reverse: learned these words from the religous right.

Vizzini: Inconceivable! (The Princess Bride)

enough already

Shofixti:
Jump to conclusions much?

Shofixti

Would you like to propose a different series of events, or is it enough for you to only point the finger?

enough already

Shofixti,
It never changes with you – I have no desire to play the game by your rules.

I have, however, come to some conclusions about you, based upon our interaction here.

You suffer from a phenomenon we encounter more often among our graduate students, majoring in the “social” sciences than in those working in the “natural” sciences. This phenomenon is that of projection.

You apply terminology and concepts which you have learned as models to real situations – without grasping that the model you are applying is inadequate to the needs posed by the context.

You are obviously unable to view some aspects of the human condition – the receptive role in an.al sex(some of your statements also suggest v.agin.al as well) without considerable semantic discord. The same applies to “drag queens”. Aspects of some gay’s lives which cross the boundaries of what you very deeply hold to be “normal” male behavior just tweek you like fire ants.

It is impossible to be certain, of course, but if I were to assume (see, I, too can use the conditional and – watch this – subjunctive coming up!) you actually are not out to impose an intolerant Christian regime upon us, then it is fair to ask why you chose to load your sentences such, that we might come to no other conclusion than hostile intent?

And this, Shofixti, is why I – published author of several highly regarded papers in my field, several books which actually sold out (all but unheard of in my obscure discipline!) commercially, not remaindered and with countless paid speaking engagements do my very best not to use your “big words” when I actually want lay people to understand me.

You remind me of a colleague who, when a student makes the mistake of saying “make it colder” nearly has a Herzkasperl.

Sheesh. Double Sheesh.

If you truly aren’t out to do us in, then you have chosen the worst possible approach.
I’ve seen Turing programs with more adaptable responses…from the 1980s.

Rob in San Diego

David, just to let you know, straight black people do hate gay people. During the prop 8 election here in California, 78% of blacks voted for it when whites and christians were only 52%, and hispanics and asians were in the 30’s I think.

Shofixti

My mission has become to understand why and how there is such an epic gap in knowledge, in language and in meaning and identity between the academy and the gay-blogosphere. At times it seems truly colossal, and then at other times Timothy says exactly what I think.

I don’t understand how you can figure my main fault as being my attachment to a normative concept of male or masculine – when all I have ever said can easily be boiled down to a caution over normativity itself.

I have studied a little bit of religious philosophy, morality and theology as elective papers. But anything I have posted I have learned at the feet of left-of-centre academics, feminists, lesbian and queer theorists, social psychologists, documentary scholars, successful screenwriters, playwrights and novelists – and I don’t think a single one of them were Christian at all.

I don’t deny that the things I have said have caused consternation or even pain to some – but this outcome is so far from my expectation that it is still something I puzzle over. That I could be a vehicle of religious intolerance when my views are contrary to both biblical literalism and natural law objective morality is something I can only shrug at in disbelief.

Projection is not something that means “misapplying theory”, it is a defense response where the cognitions of the subject are attributed to objects outside themsleves, unconsciously. When someone misapplies a theory, some constructive responses are engaging the theory to expose its exact limitations or suggesting a different interpretation and rationale. To label the subject himself is not productive.

I take issue with an explanatory model of Christian+Hate+Police+Hate= violence against patrons of gay bars. Rob’s input also exposes a weakness in this reading.

enough already

Rob in San Diego,
You are speaking too broadly.

I’ve read several detailed breakdowns on who knifed us in the back and who didn’t and you just can’t get to “straight blacks” hate us from the available data.

Here’s a link to an early analysis from Nate Silver, his later work confirms this:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html

Shofixti,
On the contrary, you have been successful. Brilliantly so. Even the suggestion you might be an air-breather almost had me ready to point out that one can’t “see” this “air” you claim to breath…with a secondary argument that you’re a nitrogen breather.

You write:
I donâ€™t deny that the things I have said have caused consternation or even pain to some â€“ but this outcome is so far from my expectation that it is still something I puzzle over. That I could be a vehicle of religious intolerance when my views are contrary to both biblical literalism and natural law objective morality is something I can only shrug at in disbelief.
endquote

You, yourself feel no consternation and,tellingly – your disbelief is at the stupidity of the rest of us not recognizing your brilliance.

When 10% of my students fail to answer a question on an exam which the other 90% answer clearly, then I don’t beat myself up about it too badly.
When, however, 90% of my students fail to get a question right on an exam which, too my mind, I explained very well, indeed, I don’t fail them for ad hominem attacks…I withdraw that question and try to figure out what I did wrong.

Based on the answers – and, with the exception of moi, this is about as reasonable a forum as you’re going to find – you’re not even getting across to 10%.

Either you’re being too obscure (I doubt it) or your statements are clear as day and I’m not the only one not buying it.

Shofixti

Well, I’m sympathetic.

The difficulty that any of you have with a critique of the ethnic model of gay identity – I propose – is probably very similar to the difficulty that the orthodoxy has with any critique of their what-flows-naturally gender norms. The only difference being that none of you are threatened by hellfire should you entertain different ideas.

This is not to look down on anyone, but to acknowledge just how hard it is. “They” are going to have a really difficult time.

Priya Lynn

Shofixti, you hold the record for the biggest BS’er I’ve ever seen – by far.

enough already

What Priya said.

Erin

How did I know this would turn into a huge debate about blacks hating whites. Yes, sometimes we see scenarios when clearly a black person was beating someone up purely because the victim was LGBT, as we have seen other examples of anti-gay beating coming from homophobic people of all races. These men are getting mugged. The motive here is clearly to steal money and valuables. These are common street criminals who happen to live near this area and happen to notice that there are gay bars around, which means there will be victims who are walking away from bars while tipsy or flat-out drunk. That inhibits their judgement and makes them more clumsy and weak in fighting back. Gay people also often have to drive into their nearest major city to get to gay hangouts, meaning there are a lot of out-of-towners who don’t know the neighborhood perhaps as well as those who live there. There is also that stereotype that gay men are usually wealthy. These people are robbers who are capitalizing on the fact that this neighborhood has vulnerable victims who have nice things and carry lots of cash.

Really, can we stop getting at one another’s throats. I believe in hate crime laws and I would never deny anti-gay animus motivates violence. But there is no evidence of that motivation here, and the type of crime being committed suggests it’s not about hate-driven violence but away debilitating someone enough to grab their wallet and run.

By the way, of course I think these criminals are awful psychopaths who need to be brought to justice.

Erin

*Correction “Blacks hating *gays* I meant to say. Typing faster than I was thinking there.

enough already

Erin,
We seldom agree, but this was an excellent statement:

Yes, there are those black religious leaders who came out for prop 8, but focusing on that discounts every black ally, and chases away every moderate person of color on the fence about this issue. Enough of the divisions. Find ways to build bridges or else shut your mouth and stop ruining the actual progress others are striving to make.
endquote
Apart from the facts – blacks did NOT cost us Prop. 8 – it is just plain racist to place the blame on a single race for Christian hatred.

Shofixti

Thanks Erin,

My statements were never about race. I was only suggesting one way in which we might begin to empathise with people who are motivated towards these kinds of assaults.
I don’t see this as being motivated by hate. Your practical assessment is likely very valid – but it does co-exist with a social bias against gay men, especially in as much as they may be weaker, easier prey or more deserving of a mugging.

Priya

That’s likely your sixth consecutive little outburst at me without saying anything of value and opening no channel of discussion. I’m disappointed and I expect so much more from you.
So you feel frustrated by something I have said? Great – let me know what that is, what was your reaction? I can’t learn from statements made ad hominem.

Surely after a lifetime of exposure to academics from a variety of fields you could display a little more precision when it comes to semiotics. In your professional career have you really closed the door on the last twenty five years of feminism, cultural studies, critical theory, linguistics (and now even social psychology it seems) etc? I don’t understand how you can simultaneously compartmentalise and dismiss entire bodies of knowledge.

Is the reason you call B.S. really any different to the reason someone from the religous right calls your/our social policy B.S.? Yes, or No.

enough already

Shofixti,
I call bs because there is a world of difference between parroting words and echoing concepts on the one hand (your use) and actually making sense of what one has learned on the other.

The social sciences, bless their heart, are at best one miniscule step removed from 19th Century armchair anthropology.

When we consider evolutionary psychology and the near universally false observations arising therefrom, I’m not sure but what I should allow a larger step – backwards to post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.

All you have done in all the weeks of exchange between us is to convince me that you have not the faintest notion of what life lived in the real world of the United States is like for gays and the transgender.

I absolutely refuse to surrender one iota of my gay nature to any 1984, double-plus politically correct version of the world which you wish to subject me to.

Priya Lynn

Erin said “I would never deny anti-gay animus motivates violence. But there is no evidence of that motivation here…”.

Now see I on the other hand see no evidence that this is anything but anti-gay violence. If it was just a matter of money the targets would be from any bar, not just gay bars.

Shifoxti said “Thatâ€™s likely your sixth consecutive little outburst at me without saying anything of value and opening no channel of discussion”.

LOL, yes, outburst. I’m glad you’re counting. See the problem with you Shifoxti is that you use a lot of words and say very little. I’m sure you impress yourself, but as for the rest of us, not so much. You’re not here to discuss, you’re here to pretend you’re someone special – you ain’t.

Shofixti

Priya, My problem is I think in big words. I can try and slow it down, but that’s my failing. I had a boyfriend who would always tell me off for… well I thought I was being specific, but most people must find it obtuse. There are those who don’t though ;)

EA, I have never been to the US, so you are right. But other than that, a lot of what I say ends up meaning it’s opposite to you.

Take acculturation, it’s a word that is designed to unmask what a dominant culture can do to a dominated culture. It is supposed to open up understanding and empathy and ways to be sensitive to other cultures. But it ends up on your plate as racist apologia.

Then Queer, which is a word I have tried to say less and less because its liberatory meaning is reversed to you and becomes a kind of politically-correct purgatory. But when something is ‘politically correct’ it means that someone is trying to ‘centre’ language on a specfic controlled meaning yet Queer exists only as the opposite of this practice (to de-centre).

It puts me in an impossible position. I don’t know how this transformation takes place, but one day I will find out and be better off for it.

enough already

shofixti,
You fail to communicate clearly.
You fail to communicate coherently.

The problem does not lie with the words you use, in and of themselves.

You complain that most people find your language obtuse.

This is because it is.

You have failed, utterly, at one of the overarching goals of your consciousness-raising movement: To generate even the tiniest spark of sympathy for your ideas.

You can dismiss me – as a non-native speaker and someone working in the natural sciences (my younger colleagues often say “the real sciences”) it’s well possible that the brilliance of your reasoning escapes the “1 + 01 = 11” mentality with which I approach the world.

You may not, however, dismiss virtually everyone else – your failure to communicate with them here is not one of your using big words, it is because you express yourself incoherently.

I took great joy in the phrase “queer community”. New to me, it was a term which neatly sidestepped all the LGBTQQIA&etc bs. It incorporated a large group of people who are part of us but not L, G, B nor yet T. It was genuinely inclusive without demanding inclusion driven by political correctness.

And you still, after all these weeks, do not grasp that.

I still do not trust you. I’d not be the least bit surprised to find you were a Christian out to destroy us.

Erin

Priya, what evidence? These men keep getting mugged. They’re beating while shouting slurs at the victim then running away, in other words, beating them because they’re gay. They’re stealing their money. It’s called robbery.

Shofixti

When I see something that is not clear to me, I ask for clarity – I don’t write it off.

Would you elaborate on “queer community” for me: How does someone know if they belong to this group?

Priya Lynn

Shofixti said “Priya, My problem is I think in big words.”.

No, your problem is that your goal is to use big words, not to communicate. You seek to avoid specifics because you’re trying to soft-peddle your anti-gayness in the hopes that you can sucker people into accepting it.

Erin said “Priya, what evidence?”.

The evidence is that they’re only attacking patrons of gay bars.

Erin said “These men keep getting mugged. Theyâ€™re beating while shouting slurs at the victim then running away, in other words, beating them because theyâ€™re gay.”.

So we agree then.

enough already

Shofixti,
There are no possible words I can use to explain the concept to you in such a manner that you will not disagree, take issue, insist I see it backwards.

So why bother?

I’ve encountered your type before. Zou are so driven to “prove” I’m wrong, even when the words I use are correct, because, according to you, I don’t understand them the way you insist they must be understood.

It’s a bit like the fools who demand that nobody in the West can ever understand Asian thought – we lack the cultural background to even be aware that we are not aware.

And on, and on and around you go – a bit like Hegel (but without the brains) – just because you think you’re aware, you have proved you’re not aware.

So, thanks, but – pass. Maybe somebody else here is demented enough to play the game with you.

Timothy Kincaid

Erin

No, the gay people are not being targeted because they are “people who went to a bar.” A pattern of targeting gay men specifically identifies a certain intent.

True, it may not be ‘hate’, necessarily. It may be some perception of gay men as “weak” or “rich” or some other assumption, but targeting is going on. And the most likely reason (Occam would think this relevant)is that the perpetrators do not think it is going to result in them being perceived within their community in a negative way for such targeting.

And it is counterproductive to discount and dismiss a well established, well documented bias in the black community. It is simply factual that homophobia exists to a higher level within the portions of the African-American culture that are most segregated. That is evident from language in music and other culture as well as from the rantings of religious leaders. It is obvious that those African Americans who speak speak with hostility about gay people and do so with language such as “my people” or “my community” think that these views represent their people and their community.

We would be fools to presume that they are entirely wrong.

The solution is not to point fingers at each other. There are many factors that contribute to this phenomenon, and “blacks hate gays” is simplistic to the point of ridiculousness. To write off cultural complexity as “hate” is naive.

But it is also not wise to act as though this problem does not exist. Neither racism nor rose-tinted glasses will resolve a real issue that holds back both communities.

Obviously there is nothing inherent to black folk that impels them to take anti-gay attitudes. Melanin doesn’t have an opinion on the matter. And we MUST keep in mind that there are a large and growing number of black leaders and thinkers (and true icons) who advocate for civil rights for all. The disparity in anti-gay attitudes isn’t “because they are black” but because we haven’t effectively reached segments of this community.

And we aren’t there yet with everyone. Nor will we get there by plugging our ears or trying to explain away polls, and positions, and statements. When an opponents says “As a black man, I object to those homosexuals…”, we can’t ignore the power of the qualifier or refuse to address it.

We have work to do in a number of communities. Conservative Christians, Southerners, African Americans, these are demographics, among others, that statistically are areas where our message has yet to have been articulated in language that has been completely effective.

So that is what we need to do.

Not blame. Nor deny. But find the right way to appeal to the African American community in language that connects but doesn’t condescend, that respects culture, and that addresses specific fears about changing social norms.

Shofixti

Dear Priya and EA

Here we are again at the point where both of you close communication down, deny questions their answer and condescend the nature of my character. Yet you say it is because I don’t want to communicate, I don’t want to be specific, I don’t want to answer.

That is not true.

But I think I have found the common aspect to all of this, right back to the start, and it is something to do with finding hate in things.

Hate makes an evil out of empathy.
Hate is bedfellows with hate.
Please don’t say my words are hateful.
Please don’t scour what I have said for someone to call hateful.

Please.

enough already

Shofixti,
But you are, Blanche, you aaaahrrreee.

Shofixti, it’s always us, never you. Oh, right, there I go projecting again.

There is no possible discussion when one of the participants to the discussion is convinced that he knows the answers and the others are deluded, or foolish or both.

To be honest, you’re right: If you stated that we are air breathers, I would want you nailed down on “we” “are” “air” “breathers”, their context, the syntax, mood, voice and the semantic relevance both of the words chosen as well as those not used, coupled with detailed probability analysis of secondary, tertiary and obscure referents descending from and dependent upon.

Then I’d parse it for contra-positives.

Then I’d still argue it’s nitrogen with oxygen as minor molecular admixture, just to be safe.

Shofixti

EA: There is no possible discussion when one of the participants to the discussion is convinced that he knows the answers and the others are deluded, or foolish or both.

That lands me in a catch 22.
If I say you’re wrong -> Then it’s just Shofixti invalidating everyone again.
If I say you’re right -> Then it’s just Shofixti trying to be sneaky by playing along, but also admitting to all those nasty deeds.

Instead I will say that you can have any reaction you want to, but I would respect you more if you didn’t insist that eveyone else has this reaction too.

The beauty of the internet is that you can quote me if you really have a problem.
But I never claimed I had all the answers, just some of the questions.
I never said anyone was deluded or foolish – that is a personal interpretation.

I’m glad that air is more complicated than a.i.r.

enough already

No, Shofixti, no.
You wield the questions as weapons to force me to see that your perspective is right and mine is wrong.

There is not one single, solitary point in all the weeks of discussion which I have seen you genuinely reflect upon, not one.

Except, of course, how best to proselytize to idiots like me.

Jim Burroway

A this point, I think it’s time to observe that there are now 36 comments on this thread, only a very few of which are actually related to this post.

Sofixti, I think it’s time for you to take critiques to heart: your attempts at communication need some serious readjustment. As a personal observation, when several people are telling you that you come across as a blowhard, you can safely conclude that perhaps the problem isn’t with the better part of the world that has shared that impression, but perhaps is indicative of how your own attempts at communication are received — poorly. It takes a special kind of narcissism to conclude that everyone else is wrong and only you are right. It takes a special kind of genius to deserve that narcissism. Are you that special?

I only ask that rhetorically, because I do not want an answer. It’s for you to think about. As for you and everyone else, I think it’s time to bring this discussion to an end.

Erin

So, looks like both Priya and Timothy did not fully read or understand my posts. Great.

Priya Lynn

Erin, they may be stealing the gay people’s money, but they’re doing that as a method of extending and deepening the assault – Damn fa**ots deserve to have their money stolen.

They feel their is nothing wrong with stealing from gay men, something they’d be ashamed to do from someone who wasn’t gay.

Shofixti

Scott Adams said: I came up with the two-bucket hypothesis by observing how some people react to this (his) blog. When I float an idea that doesn’t fit into one of the two standard buckets for a given topic, people assume I am an enemy from the other bucket and post comments to that effect. Notice how often the commenters here argue against what I write as if my posts must be supporting one of the two existing buckets. That’s the two-bucket phenomenon in action.

from: http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/the_twobucket_mind/

Erin

“Damn fa**ots deserve to have their money stolen.

They feel their is nothing wrong with stealing from gay men, something theyâ€™d be ashamed to do from someone who wasnâ€™t gay.”

Priya, your assumptions about what’s going through the minds of the assailants does not constitute evidence. As I said before, I support hate crime legislation and its usage where appropriate. However we cannot label every crime with a gay victim a hate crime. It doesn’t always fit. And again, I think we all agree these people doing this are no good and deserve swift punishment. They are physically harming people in these robberies.

Erin

Also, Im not saying I know for sure these aren’t hate crimes. Again, they could be doing this just to hurt gay guys, and then removing valuables as a bonus. But until, there is actual evidence, we won’t know either way.

Timothy Kincaid

Erin,

You seem to be trying to make a distinction between the type of crime and the target. If the type of crime was robbery then, you seem to be saying, the motivation was greed or avarice and therefore not a hate crime.

But you are not acknowledging that this group of thugs are targeting a particular type of victim. And it is the targeting that makes this a hate crime.

It is true that we cannot label every crime with a gay victim as a hate crime. But this is not “a gay victim”, it’s a series of exclusively gay victims.

At some point we have to stop making excuses and searching for other explanations. At some point the search for the possible become improbable. Yes, it is possible that burning a cross on the lawn of a black family isn’t actually a hate crime. Yes it’s possible that targeting a string a gay men for assault isn’t a hate crime. We can’t know for absolutely certain… but it’s just not very probable.

Priya Lynn