Bigotry over what you do in the bedroom or who you marry simply isn't a thing here.

So basically you take your station in life and make claims how that should be some sort of benchmark for an entire group?

Makes me wonder where "here" is?

Part of the reason I dislike this...sensationalism over a lifestyle choice or calling is because it polarises what I personally feel should be seen as normal, and I fear may lead people back to treating it as a big deal.

The few, isolated incidents I've had where someone actually took offense to my homosexuality were allevated and defused by not treating it as a big deal, not getting mad on my part, and with a bit of good humour on the side. If I'd gone full tumblr on those people, I am fairly certain I a) would have justified the person's irrational fear (and more often than not, bigotry has its root in fear ) and b) would not have helped other gays by doing so.

Bigotry, in the modern age, is a social defect, and just like any other social defect, you do not resocialise people suffering from it by antagonising them. If that is your M.O., you are part of the problem. I quit the Antifa ages ago for that reason and they're still throwing rocks and making no difference today (it's just different people; eventually, everyone quits).

You defuse and resocialise these people, who often dwell in isolated fringe groups themselves, by including them, befriending them and showing them that your way of life is normal and 99% of the time no different than their own. Once they realise something is "normal", they tend to accept it. And it works. The most prominent example being, a while back, a black man who joined the KKK and reintegrated a bunch of Klansmen who suddenly had to face the reality that what they hated was simply...normal.

However, the moment you treat something as "special", "extra-ordinary" (it's right in the word there, "not ordinary") or worthy of a huge amount of news coverage, you polarise people. Take the Christopher Street Day or the Love Parade. I know many, many people who have nothing against individual ravers or gays, but massive, attention-grabbing stunts like that tend to bring out commentary such as "Oh great, it's those junkies again", "Can't those faggots ever shut up?" or "no sleep tonight, the nutcases are dancing again" and so forth. Hence my initial distress when reading yet another of the growing frequency of articles that addresses something as a "problem" that has not been one for years. Even if the article is LGBT-friendly, putting things on a pedestal leads to inevitable backlash. I am dead sure, that the majority of the people who are shitposting against gays in the feedback there would not even think of doing so, if they didn't encounter an over-emphasis of the subject matter in their media. If you walked up to these people and started a conversation, 90% of the time, you probably would not even hear a single homophobic slur.

At least, before folks started jumping down their throats about it all. Sometimes, people create their own demons. It's sad.

you do realise that there is no "sensationalism over a lifestyle" going on? what is going on is that there is one group that accepts different lifestyles as "normal" and another that has problems with those lifestyles. the second group is making the big deal out of such issues, not the first. an lgbt-character in star wars (or anywhere else) would get no reaction from me. people complaining about such a character will.

i think it's really great that you have been able to find a way to deal with bigorty affecting you personally, but again, you seem to ignore the fact that you are not the problem. it's the other person! how you react to bigotry is up to you and however you want to react is valid. being the bigot never is. why would you feel the need to act a certain way when someone else is being the problem?

i agree with your strategic approach of fighting bigotry in society. i say that despite the fact that i am extremely antagonistic towards racists, homophobes, misogynists or any other kinds of bigots. while there are plenty of people for whom your methods work, but there are also plenty where you won't get anywhere. i guess that must have been some pretty chill clansmen to accept a black man. to me your example is flawed, because if the kkk accepts a poc, the clansmen involved have already realised they were wrong.

again you claim somehing is "treated as special". um, yeah... by the bigots?!

"I know many, many people who have nothing against individual ravers or gays, but massive, attention-grabbing stunts like that tend to bring out commentary such as "Oh great, it's those junkies again", "Can't those faggots ever shut up?" or "no sleep tonight, the nutcases are dancing again" and so forth."

um... maybe you would like to reread what you wrote. if someone says "can't those faggots shut up" you actually believe that they have nothing against individual gays? uh... right...

you realise that there is backlash, but also think that what actually causes the backlash is no longer a problem? how does that work? people have no problems with lgbt people, but as soon as one gets a little spotlight there's backlash? i am unable to follow your reasoning here. care to explain?

i hope i am missunderstanding your last statement, because it sounds a lot like "hostility to immigrants is caused by immigrants, antisemitism is caused by jews", and so forth. considering you were antifa you probably know this reasoning well. btw, i agree that violence is not the right way for positive change in society. standing up to bigotry verbally is quite a long way from throwing stones or burning police cars though, so i resent the implication.

to me it looks like you just want to be left in peace and feel that whenever certain issues are adressed publicly that personal peace is threatened. that's a valid position and if it works for you... great! i'm just not sure your way works for very many people and by extension, if all members of a group being discriminated against act that way, there won't be any change at all. all movements of emancipation in history have had to fight to change the status quo. we need to try and "fight friendly", but fight we must.

After fighting against discrimination for being part of a group, if that battle is won, then there are two options - that group starts being treated the same as everyone else and people no longer think of it as anything special. Or the fighting continues into its champions seeking to make that group privileged.

The battle for equality is a progression and not all areas of the world or sub-cultures within it progress at the same pace.

What we are seeing is someone from the position of having achieved their group being a non-issue talking to people who are still fighting for prejudice as they perceive it. And vice versa. So of course there is a clash of worldviews.

The thing that DeathByGrotz is saying, is that sexuality is a non-issue and from someone or some society that this is true for, people fighting against prejudice are actually a negative because they are pushing things away from the achieved end state and at best, keeping discrimination as a thing in people's minds, or at worst, they are starting down that path of entrenching privilege and special status and declaring that members of the group are distinct from other people. So I fully understand the push back from DeathByGrotz in feeling a reaction to such things. The position that they are coming from, is the desirable end state for a healthy society: not lots of people being condemned for what they are, nor lots of people lauding people for what they are. But simply shrugging and moving on. One thing that I find some well-intentioned people don't get with race or sexuality or whatever, is that fighting for their cause should ultimately end with that cause going away. And I believe we are achieving that.

So it is great that someone like DeathByGrotz says what they say and we will know we are making progress if more and more people like this start saying it's a non-issue and complaining that there is even a debate about such things. There's a long way to go in much of the world but we need to make sure that as victories are won, we move on to fight where the battle is still going on, not start cementing difference in the regions where prejudice has died away.

I can go months without race even being brought up, never even thinking about it particularly. I go to America and suddenly people are saying how they respect my race or how proud I should be to be this race, and it doesn't make me feel great that I am so respected, or secure because people reassure me about it. It makes me a little nervous and uncomfortable because why is this even a conversation if that person doesn't have issues. It makes it clear to me that they still have that label and it doesn't matter much if it's a label saying "call this person an offensive name" or "tell this person I respect their people" (1), what I want is for people not to be treating me as anything different in the first place.

Obviously it's relevant in some cases - you don't expect a *** guy to sleep with you if you're female, you don't offer a muslim a pork sausage, etc. But other than that, I completely agree with them, for many of us, and I would hope in this community, it's time to just shrug and not even think about it. When you're in Egypt or Russia and this comes up, then you break out the old combat stance. But we always should keep in mind the end goal and it's achieving exactly what DeathByGrotz has, imo.

Peace and coolness,

K.

(1) Okay, obviously the second one is actually preferable in practice, but I think you get my point.

EDIT: WHY does g ay have to be censored like it's something that cannot be spoken of?

I was just typing a reply, but knasserl nailed it so eloquently I would really be detracting from his words it I did. I assure you, Danterotterdam and especially shlominus, that I read what you said and gave it considerable thought. But the above put it as well as anyone ever could

I'll just answer the question posed then, and say that I am in central/eastern Europe.

I was just typing a reply, but knasserl nailed it so eloquently I would really be detracting from his words it I did. I assure you, Danterotterdam and especially shlominus, that I read what you said and gave it considerable thought. But the above put it as well as anyone ever could

I'll just answer the question posed then, and say that I am in central/eastern Europe.

Thanks. Though I would have been very interested in your own reply. I'm in the UK so also Europe, but not quite as good on the subject as the mainland. Still pretty good for the most part, though. Older people are more likely to make a thing of it and of course for most of the muslim community it's more of an issue. But generally I think we're achieving what we're talking about. I understand entirely what you mean about provoking backlash. More and more of the prejudice I see here is stemming not from a priori prejudice but as a reaction against anti-prejudice over-reach. I think in much of Europe you have successfully turned down the right path and with luck and a little care, that will continue. I think in the UK, we're around that turning point but still have to be more careful that we don't backslide through either not doing enough or through doing too much. But we have examples to work towards of successfully making sexuality a non-issue, so I think and believe we will get there. What you describe is the case for much of the UK and most of the middle class and probably a majority of the working class. If we can avoid over-correcting and keep from losing what we've gained, that will settle down as the norm for Britain.

i would have preferred a reply as well, as i don't think knasserll adressed any points i brought up specifically. there's a lot about your post that simply leaves me speechless.

i am sure we want the same thing and there are many ways to achive those goals. i think your assessments of why there's "backlash" is terribly off, but i might be wrong.

peace!

ps: i am from austria, where the conservative party has just declined changes to a law to protect lgbt people from discrimination. maybe it's for the best. no backlash that way, right?

So it is great that someone like DeathByGrotz says what they say and we will know we are making progress if more and more people like this start saying it's a non-issue and complaining that there is even a debate about such things.

Well said, and I agree. It's just that I feel that DeathByGrotz is ignoring how much *active* political power is being put into continuing oppression and denial of basic rights...maybe not where he lives, but these are internationally accessible boards. There are some states in the US where you can get fired for being g a y. Until those kinds of laws are repealed, it makes complete sense to me to make an issue of it.

Austria is bad in terms of legislature in that regard, but also part of the EU, which means you have the option of, effectively, going over the heads of the FPÖ when they're in office. It is unfortunate that you're stuck in a country that is behind the rest of Europe in terms of equality, but, there is a way to get things done, and a way to create media presense which ends up in antipathy. Protests and activism that hinders people in their daily affairs tends not to work, neither does antagonistic behaviour.

You will, no matter what ethnicity or gender or orientation you belong to, be confronted with slurs in your day to day life. It is important to know where they come from and that the person saying them is not necessarily even thinking about them, or carries any form of aggression towards whatever they're casually dissing. People often do not think about what they say, and when they say things, they repeat what they learned while growing up.Tolerance is still a "new" thing, not even a century old. You're going to run into a lot of people who don't think twice about how something might be hurtful, because to them, it isn't. They grew up that way.

Then there's people who were raised to genuinely believe a certain group is their "enemy". This is very sad, both for them and society around them, and they are often insular in nature themselves. Twenty years ago, this was normal for Bavarian villages, for example, to actively hate foreigners. Nowadays, it's unthinkable to genuinely act that way. Talk that way? Sure. But act on it like they used to, no. I'll go into what changed later.

So: They either have deep seated preconceptions, or they're just parroting along things they learned from their parents. In neither case are you going to get anywhere by demonising these otherwise normal people. You're not going to guilt trip them into a different behaviour pattern either. They have no guilt, because beyond talking a certain why, they're not really doing anything that actually, tangibly hurts people in a way they would understand. The other type have no guilt, because they think they're doing something good. Antagonism against them only reinforces their belief that you are the enemy.

Changing this is a process that requires, as galling as it may appear, especially if you're invested in a struggle, for one side to stop escalating things and be willing to try a different approach. I saw, firsthand, how protest marches and activism did nothing but annoy people, and give them fuel for their prejudices. I also saw, firsthand, how having a gay teacher at a school changed peoples' minds eventually. At first, there was all the expected chatter and talk. He ignored it, and just kept teaching, was polite and listened when parents came to him with concerns and overall a friendly, competent fellow. Now, when the stereotype in your mind is a drag queen marching on CSD, something like that completely erodes it. More and more people followed that and similar examples. The CSD marches stopped, there was no more "enemy" to unite against in the form of the gay community. We were their neighbours, their teachers, their colleagues, we encouraged and supported coming out of the closet, and most of us did so implicitely. And after a few years of that, and some setbacks and ugliness, we were just part of the scenery. Twenty years later, no one cares if you're gay or not. We removed ourselves as an antagonistic force and did normal things where people would like us. It worked.

So I guess, what I'm trying to say here is that by overemphasising how different something is, you're not doing yourselves any favours. That's what I mean by creating your own demons. "Raising awareness" is not a good thing on a personal scale, at least not in the blunt manner it often happens, with posters, pamphlets and marches. It doesn't mean you shouldn't be open about your sexuality, but, don't let it define you. Let other people see you as a person, before they see you as LGBT. It'll inevitably spread around, communities work like that, but if you don't make a big deal out of it, odds are it won't blow out of proportion and people will live and let live, and eventually, they will realise on their own that they were wrong in their preconceptions. (Communal integration of foreigners works on a similar basis, btw. A lot of townships here put one or two foreign families in largely German neighbourhoods, which forces them to socialise with Germans and integrate properly; ghettos, like in our north, though, are something that stalls acceptance massively).

On a political scale, by actively lobbying, it's different, but that's something you'll have to ask someone else for advice on. I only know what works on a face-to-face scale and, as far as America is concerned, I truly cannot give any political aid or advice there. Perhaps an angle could be made over the industry? Maybe that's worth exploring. I think it's unfortunate that federalism is exploited in such a manner in the USA, and something should be done about it, but I wonder, how you can change the mind of a politician who will only be in office for so long, as opposed to changing the minds of your community, and thus, possibly even, who they vote for. But that is pure speculation on my part. It worked here . That much I can say with confidence.

In closing, I do not think all reactions to bigotry are helpful. They are certainly valid, and especially anger and striking back (verbally, physically or otherwise) is understandable, can even be cathartic, but, it is not helpful to any cause.

Just a quick note (I haven't caught up people's responses, yet), but I got a response back from the forum team and they have decided to uncensor the word 'gay'. This, I believe, is a very positive thing. It puts the responsibility on the community - i.e. all of us - to discourage use of the word as an insult, but I believe that the FFG community is generally mature and respectful. And I strongly believed that censoring someone's sexuality looked and felt a little bit off (even though I fully understood their good intent). I know at least a few others in this thread had expressed the same opinion.

Wanted to let people know.

EDIT: I've just reached DeathByGrot's second paragraph of their post and the mod team's unbanning of the word seems to make a nice thematic accompaniment to DBG's point. (I'm just going to shorten that from now on, if that's okay.)

That's pretty cool.

Oh, I've faced plenty, but never because of sexuality or gender choice, be it myself or friends of mine who decided one day they would rather live as women.

This, right here, is disturbing. This is why I find it completely offensive that there is a notion of anything resembling a community. There isn't.

There's a bunch of privileged guys who only face oppression if they step outside the expected behaviour of being a dude or if they show public displays of affection. Then there is an enormous group of people who are crushed underneath their boot as they continue to express, promote, and actively support misogyny and oh my god SO much transmisogyny.

So these rainbow swaddled dude bros fight the notion that being gay is a choice, but then turn right around and in that statement above suggest that transwomen is a lifestyle choice and you're just "one day" choosing that you'd "rather live as a woman."

This is completely disturbing. Thanks for continuing the negative contribution to this thread, that was initially about applauding the inclusion of an LGBT character and discussing it, and has now degraded to a series of rants by a privileged guy. It sickens me that people are clicking like on any of your posts.

i agree with your strategic approach of fighting bigotry in society. i say that despite the fact that i am extremely antagonistic towards racists, homophobes, misogynists or any other kinds of bigots. while there are plenty of people for whom your methods work, but there are also plenty where you won't get anywhere. i guess that must have been some pretty chill clansmen to accept a black man. to me your example is flawed, because if the kkk accepts a poc, the clansmen involved have already realised they were wrong.

Assuming we're talking about the same fellow - Daryl Davis - his book about him and his relationship with the Klan is a fascinating read. Meeting a Grand Wizard and marching with the Klan? Man, that takes Balls of goddamned Titanium - but his method worked. He got many high ranking klansmen to renounce his ways. He even has a collection of robes that he's been given over the years from friends who have left the order.

His book is out of print with an updated version coming this year (or so his page says), so it's a pain to find - but it's well worth it!

http://www.amazon.com/Klan-Destine-Relationships-Black-Mans-Odyssey/dp/0882822691/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8

Really? We can use "gay" now? That's great - I'm so proud of our little corner of the internet, where we can be mature and not (too terribly) insulting. Good on FFG for being so progressive!

His book is amazing, yes. It was an eye opener and an inspiration. I gave my copy to my local library.

the problem is not that my goverment is behind the european status quo, the problem is that the majority of voters support parties that actively oppose equality. openly opposing equality is no problem here. everyday racism and misogyny is rampant here. any article dealing with immigration in a neutral way is flooded by rightwing trolls. as is any article about gender issues. let's not talk about countries like russia or hungary, where problems are much worse. when i think about the usa and racism i am lost for words.

to me the situation is not as well as you seem to perceive it.

i hope you are correct with your assessment. if you are, that means that those fighting for equality have already won. i wish that was true, but i remain doubtful. i have one major objection to your views. the progress that has been made in the past was made by fighting. every movement of emancipation has to start by openly adressing injustice. have we reached a point where further fighting is not necessary, even harmful? i am unable to answer that question. the way reactionary forces are aggressively working at opposing equality makes me believe we haven't reached that point yet. you seem to believe that backlash is cause by "being too aggressive". i think that backlash is caused by "being too successful". what was gained can also be lost again. like you said, tolerance is a new concept. i am not convinced it's here to stay yet.

if one openly gay character in star wars is "overemphasising", if the national hymn of my country being changed to include "great daughters" in addition to sons is "too aggressive", if openly supporting a law that restricts a discotheque from refusing entry to people of color is "escalating things", then i am going to keep on being wrong.

ps: reading your post i couldn't help snickering about how you seem to imagine someone i am not. i am as cis/white/hetero as they come and i guess i am a bit older than you believe me to be. i also know a little bit about conflict resolution. i just have a hard time acting according to what i know all the time. avoiding a conflict can also be a problem though, as i'm sure you are aware of.

ps: heh, that took a few rewrites.

His book is amazing, yes. It was an eye opener and an inspiration. I gave my copy to my local library.

going to get that asap.

That was a beautiful post, DBG.

I think there IS a time for the more confrontational marches and leaflets and such. They're needed to show solidarity, unity and that it isn't some few odd individuals but a whole group of people and that they're not ashamed of who they are. But those are defensive tactics for times when prejudice is sanctioned and the plight of victims is not generally known. It's a demonstration of political will and within that remit, it can accomplish its goals. But it is less effective as a means of winning friends or persuading people. It's more of a "Back-off, we're here and we're not going away!" That's not to say it can't persuade people, only that it is not the most effective measure. After that, comes the process of explanation. This is where society is brought to realize all the little (and big) ways that prejudice is enshrined in society. People get called out for prejudiced words, it's pointed out where people lack legal protection or lack the same rights. That phase too, is necessary - because society largely isn't aware of the ways it is prejudiced. Most people had never even considered, for example, the different standards in medical consent given to married couples and gay couples. And so they don't even think about such things when asked about civil unions or marriage. So you get the big explosion into awareness, followed by the shockwaves of that running through society as people consider and learn and try to integrate the change.

But after all that, there must still come actual acceptance and normalization. Societies, like people who've been arguing, need to know that there is a status quo again. It's like a new kid in a household. Everyone has to move around a little bit, they grumble, there's shouting and eventually, you hope, you all become a solid family again and everyone gets used to the way things are now.

That's what I think DBG's beautiful post portrays. Settling down, normalizing things, everyone part of the same family just like everybody else. An elimination of seeing some group as "others". And it's why there is concern about "backlash". When you feel this process happening around you and you're feeling pretty good about it further argument just feels a bit... like re-opening things again?

Don't get me wrong, there's obviously more to do. And this is a perspective that could not be applied in, for example, Pakistan. But the gentle give it time approach works far better by this point. IMO, at least. If you have won an argument and the other party is mostly okay with it but still a little touchy, hounding them further on it will just make them hate you. Friendliness and simply being there normally, allows people to move on. Societies are a little like that.

Of course, as I said earlier, it's a progression and people or cultures at different points on that progression will think each other's actions odd if they do not recognize that each is in a different environment. All that said, I began by siding with DBG on this matter (so much as there are sides) and I'm going to end on that too. Not because I don't recognize my own words about different actions at different stages, but because I come across people who can't or wont move on even when it's becoming destructive. They have their cause and they just keep on pushing at people. I think in Europe we're in a good place. Even in Austria the rights and protections afforded to gay people are more than most people could have dreamed of a few decades ago. It hasn't recognized gay marriage yet but most of the rights and protections are in place now and from what I read, in 2014 in Austria, 73% support same-sex marriage (48% fully support, 25% tend to support, 9% tend to oppose and 15% fully oppose, while 3% did not answer). Support is higher among women and younger people according to the same poll. What that tells me is times are chaning and time is on our side.

This will sound to some like I'm saying "give up on the bits that are still a problem, tip-toe to avoid backlash, and just accept things as they are". It's not, it's saying from a position like this, the most constructive thing is exactly what DBG is talking about. Make friends, dismantle barriers. We should be at the point now where we don't hit people over the head if they say something off, but rather ask them not to because we're all pretty much the same.

Anyway, I am (probably) done now.

Peace.

Oh, I've faced plenty, but never because of sexuality or gender choice, be it myself or friends of mine who decided one day they would rather live as women.

This, right here, is disturbing. This is why I find it completely offensive that there is a notion of anything resembling a community. There isn't.

There's a bunch of privileged guys who only face oppression if they step outside the expected behaviour of being a dude or if they show public displays of affection. Then there is an enormous group of people who are crushed underneath their boot as they continue to express, promote, and actively support misogyny and oh my god SO much transmisogyny.

So these rainbow swaddled dude bros fight the notion that being gay is a choice, but then turn right around and in that statement above suggest that transwomen is a lifestyle choice and you're just "one day" choosing that you'd "rather live as a woman."

This is completely disturbing. Thanks for continuing the negative contribution to this thread, that was initially about applauding the inclusion of an LGBT character and discussing it, and has now degraded to a series of rants by a privileged guy. It sickens me that people are clicking like on any of your posts.

i think this is much more a problem of sloppy wording than intentional dismissal. i hope deathbygroz will adress this,i doubt he intended his post the way you read it.

ps: reading your post i couldn't help snickering about how you seem to imagine someone i am not. i am as cis/white/hetero as they come and i guess i am a bit older than you believe me to be. i also know a little bit about conflict resolution. i just have a hard time acting according to what i know all the time. avoiding a conflict can also be a problem though, as i'm sure you are aware of.

ps: heh, that took a few rewrites.

It's probably more bad English on my part than anything else. I was trying to keep things both informal and neutral in tone so it wouldn't sound like a dissertation. My own beef with overempahsis isn't even with the material per se, it's with how media tends to blow things out of proportion. Small changes in words, something just being added like it's normal, and such. I like that. Have a trans protagonist? As long as it's well-written and a good story, awesome. I certainly don't think it's "too much" and apologise if I gave the impression. My main concern here is the media coverage. I have yet to read the book, but odds are, I'll probably like how the authour handled it. I don't like what the journalist who wrote about it did, though, for reasons already stated.

wir hätten einfach die anderen ignorieren sollen und auf deutsch plaudern.

Naja, wär' a weng fies erna geg'nüber

As far as bobpomei's post is concerned, I have no real clue how to address it, beyond stating that I sincerely apologise for any problems my inadvertedly unfortunate phrasing may have caused. I do wish them the best, and hope they find happiness with whatever they do.

tolerance is a new concept. i am not convinced it's here to stay yet.

I said I was done and then I see the half-dozen posts that appear in the time it took me to write mine! Just when I thought I was out...

I don't think anyone is taking it for granted though looking back at the way I wrote about battles being won I sound like I am. I think the disagreement is about the best ways to cement tolerance and keep it from being lost, rather than assuming nothing gained can be lost. But I really do believe that we can get past all this prejudice and the end goal to me is not about making sure all sides have parity of power, but about moving on from thinking in terms of sides. You brought up two examples that are interesting to me:

if one openly gay character in star wars is "overemphasising", if the national hymn of my country being changed to include "great daughters" in addition to sons is "too aggressive", if openly supporting a law that restricts a discotheque from refusing entry to people of color is "escalating things", then i am going to keep on being wrong.

The changing of a national hymn is a good example of the sort of thing that I think provokes unnecessary backlash. I agree (without knowing the song in question) that changing it sounds positive and I wouldn't oppose it. However, I not want to push for it aggressively per se because it's exactly the sort of thing that makes people angry that they can't say what they want to say, that things are being needlessly change for political correctness, etc. etc. Anyway, I'm putting things from the other perspective. What it comes down to, and I think this is possibly the most important point I'm going to make in this discussion, is it makes people feel not that equality has been reached, but that the others are now in charge.

That is the real problem and what "being too aggressive" means. Your example of a club barring people on racial grounds is atrocious and I would think that is already illegal in the EU and any attempt to repeal that would be doomed. Or else I don't know the circumstances we're talking about and there's something very much more to that story. But the change to the national anthem? People can be and will be okay with something like allowing civil unions because ultimately, if they see the push back is hard enough they'll leave others alone. It's like a bully deciding they wont pick on someone who just gave them a really good kick. The bully will eventually back off. And maybe, like DBG shows, they can eventually learn to be your friend. But going on to insist on re-writing everything, etc. feels like someone else is in charge of them. It feels to the bully not like they've leaving you alone and it's done, but that you're now over in their face pushing them around. And they don't like it. And you might be right or you might be wrong, but it's aggressive and it undermines the normalization that could otherwise be achieved. As often enough, if something isn't that important, someone will just give it to you if you get on well and they know it's an issue for you. But try to take it by force and things just escalate again.

That's pretty much where I'm coming from. I see this prejudice in the UK also. In day to day life, almost never. On the comments section of a newspaper? Routinely. I find such people sad, to be honest. But the risk is that the "aggression" gives ammunition and fuel to such people. If here in the UK there was a club that didn't let in Black people, the overwhelming majority of the UK would condemn that club and have no problem with you pushing to change that. If you said you wanted to rewrite the national anthem you'd find you were pushing people who have very little inherent prejudice into an opposing camp to you. And is it worth that?

Again, I'm going to go back to that point because I think it sums up how I think it is seen very well. If people see you are prepared to fight for equality they will eventually give you that because most people don't like fighting and only do it to establish dominance. If that doesn't work, they give up and establish a new status quo. If people see what you're doing as a bid for power, they will fight and keep fighting and more people will join them because nobody likes to see a power-bid except the people making it.

Anyway, I'm done. Again. For the second time. I'm sorry if the above sounds strident, I should take my own advice sometimes.

What it comes down to, and I think this is possibly the most important point I'm going to make in this discussion, is it makes people feel not that equality has been reached, but that the others are now in charge.

That is the real problem and what "being too aggressive" means.

That's a problem, but it's not the responsibility of the oppressed to have to cater to it. Yes, in practical terms at a macro level it might be prudent to approach a problem slowly, but sometimes speed won't matter. Never mind that it's somewhat arrogant to tell an oppressed group to "suck it up just a little longer".

The unavoidable issue is that a high proportion of those who are in a politically dominant group will often view a more equitable balance of political power as a loss and an affront, no matter how slowly and reasonably the subject is broached. They either take their past position for granted and simply don't see the imbalance, and so now feel that "others are in charge"; or they don't really want to lose the imbalance, but couch this in coded "dog-whistle" terms, like calling black people "uppity" or railing against "political correctness". I can't help how the latter people feel, and I can't protect the former from their ignorance. If they feel put upon because they don't want to think about or don't care about oppressed minorities, the rest of society doesn't have to give time for these people to get over it.

Okay I read the book before reading the post and I completely missed the characters orientation as a big deal. It was very casually laced into an enjoyable read for me, but prior to seeing this thread that information didn't "stick" with me at all. It was like oh yeah they did mention that while I was reading. Honestly if some one had asked me about orientations in the book before reading this I would have been like "gee I don't know. There wasn't a lot of romance at all. It really was more about the Free Ryloth movement and the relationship between Vader and the Emperor.

As far as message undertones I feel there was much more in there about the struggle between being a terrorist and freedom fighter which in today's time I thought would be more controversial.

Too many references in this thread scream, "Don't google that, Haley."

I guess I am the only one opposed to this addition.

You're entitled to your own opinion. But personally I'm glad that it's getting so much support.

Star Wars adds its first LGBT character . Don't know if the book is any good, but I can at least appreciate that.

It is progress, I will not deny that. However when I saw the news drop I instantly knew that it would be the "safe" lesbian coupling. Unfortunately we still live in an age where girl-girl getting it on is just there for a Man's Pleasure. Two men in love is an abomination against God.

Still waiting on the Star Wars equivalent of this fellow:

(subtitle: that's the daring and loveable omnisexual rouge Captain Jack Harkness from Doctor Who/Torchwood)

here's a question: traditionally, racis, homophobia, and sexism tend to go hand in hand, as far as governmental policies are concerned. so is it believable that a lesbian woman would rise to the rank of a moff? (I just read it)

edit: even in the mmovies, all commanding officers, and imperials period, are men.

See, if I have an issue anywhere with this - it would be this point. The Empire doesn't strike me as the most socially progressive organization. The gays cant get ahead in the Empire, but neither can the blacks, the women or pretty much anyone other than Old White Men with English Accents.

The rebels? Go nuts! But the Empire, not so much.

Absolutely. Yes on all accounts. Especially the first.

here's a question: traditionally, racis, homophobia, and sexism tend to go hand in hand, as far as governmental policies are concerned. so is it believable that a lesbian woman would rise to the rank of a moff? (I just read it)

edit: even in the mmovies, all commanding officers, and imperials period, are men.

Ciena Ree from Lost Stars