I really don’t know what you’re on about here. I don’t know if you’re making an incredibly bad-faith summary of what I wrote, or if you just had a stroke and kicked into politics repeat mode.
I exemplified the optics politicians use to buy our faith.
The “regular people” opted their power and rights to the few. We are here, precisely because “regular” people do want to be radicalized by the rich.
None of what you wrote addresses anything about what I wrote. I pointed out that historically we absolutely have had to care about optics and appealing to the mainstream. You just responded, “well, there’s tons of shitty stuff the mainstream likes.”
Who gives a fuck? We’re talking about strategies to get rights and what’s worked historically. Bitching about the bad takes of the mainstream didn’t win gay rights. Appealing to the interests of the mainstream did.
And “read theory” is thought-terminating cliche at this point.
You can’t give rights to yourself. You only have rights if society recognizes those rights. That’s why we appeal to the mainstream. The Civil Rights movement didn’t break the back of Jim Crow by saying, “we should only focus inward on celebrating black voices and culture. Why bother appealing to the white mainstream? They’re the ones that are mistreating us!”
Society right now, recognizes that rights are only for the rich, not you and I. Appealing to the rich is what you’re asking us to continue.
In talking about back breaks, why do the rich continue to break ours?
I really don’t know what you’re on about here. I don’t know if you’re making an incredibly bad-faith summary of what I wrote, or if you just had a stroke and kicked into politics repeat mode.
I exemplified the optics politicians use to buy our faith.
The “regular people” opted their power and rights to the few. We are here, precisely because “regular” people do want to be radicalized by the rich.
Yeah. Sorry. I have no idea what you’re trying to do here. Try to actually respond to people’s posts and comments.
Further explaining the optics of politics?
How much theory & history do you read?
None of what you wrote addresses anything about what I wrote. I pointed out that historically we absolutely have had to care about optics and appealing to the mainstream. You just responded, “well, there’s tons of shitty stuff the mainstream likes.”
Who gives a fuck? We’re talking about strategies to get rights and what’s worked historically. Bitching about the bad takes of the mainstream didn’t win gay rights. Appealing to the interests of the mainstream did.
And “read theory” is thought-terminating cliche at this point.
Rights that we gave ourselves, or pleaded to a mainstream? Why are we appealing to a mainstream that mainstreams our genocide?
You can’t give rights to yourself. You only have rights if society recognizes those rights. That’s why we appeal to the mainstream. The Civil Rights movement didn’t break the back of Jim Crow by saying, “we should only focus inward on celebrating black voices and culture. Why bother appealing to the white mainstream? They’re the ones that are mistreating us!”
Society right now, recognizes that rights are only for the rich, not you and I. Appealing to the rich is what you’re asking us to continue.
In talking about back breaks, why do the rich continue to break ours?
And yet, if our ancestors had had your attitude, none of the civil rights victories of the last century would have happened. It’s self-defeating.
Gay marriage was only won a little over a decade ago. That was not in any way a belief that only the rich deserve rights.
Put away the Marxist crack pipe. I’m pretty leftist myself, but leftists often get way too myopically focused on just economic issues.