My understanding is that you're frustrated about what you can and cannot say (or is that get away with?) here on GA politically, but the guidelines are clear enough. What's the alternative? Would you have Myr open Gay Authors to a maelstorm of political discontent?  No, you say the rules are there for a reason and rightly so. I sympathize with you, both for your feelings and your individual (and collective) plight in this world. For what it's worth, I think you're smart enough and clever enough to make your point without breaking the political comment rules -- however blurry they may seem.

Anything I say here will be used to punish me.

I agree with the feeling of uncertain self-censoring. It's difficult to know where those lines are, perhaps more so since I'm not from the US and therefore not in tune with society there. But for me, I don't have the need to express these views here. For you, it's a different situation. So the blurriness is worse. 

This blindness to what is political and not is something I've thought about quite a lot lately. How seemingly intelligent people can be ignorant to the fact that they express rather extreme political views but it's seen as mainstream and at the same time go ballistic when someone from the other side of the fence does the same. This inability to see themselves is a bit fascinating but mostly depressing. 

3 hours ago, Ron said:

My understanding is that you're frustrated about what you can and cannot say (or is that get away with?) here on GA politically, but the guidelines are clear enough. What's the alternative? Would you have Myr open Gay Authors to a maelstorm of political discontent?  No, you say the rules are there for a reason and rightly so. I sympathize with you, both for your feelings and your individual (and collective) plight in this world. For what it's worth, I think you're smart enough and clever enough to make your point without breaking the political comment rules -- however blurry they may seem.

I'm not at all asking GA to change its rules. This is a philosophical discussion more than anything else. What is political? Why do we see it that way? Who decides? And is it possible to be queer and apolitical at the same time? It's also frustrating to know (as past discussions have shown) that if you're a gay cis guy, there are more aspects of your identity deemed apolitical due to the majority on this site than if you're lesbian, bi, or trans. Because what's political is in the eye of the beholder.

42 minutes ago, droughtquake said:

Anything I say here will be used to punish me.

This is my personal blog. You can say whatever you want here. I've never gotten in trouble over political discussions in this space. We have more freedom to post about things like this on our blogs. Just be polite.

22 minutes ago, Thorn Wilde said:

…if you're a gay cis guy, there are more aspects of your identity deemed apolitical…

You’re forgetting the ethnic aspect to that as well. People of Color existing are often considered to be political. Cis white Gay men consider themselves to be apolitical even if they espouse the rhetoric of the far right.

There are times when it feels to me like those in power are not aligned with the views of the majority of LGBTQs.

I post my thoughts on Frameline LGBTQ+ film festival movies in The Pit because some of the movies are political in nature and others, which I do not see as political, are judged as political by others. It was easier to get people to view what I wrote in those Topics (the majority of which are apolitical) before they walled off The Pit and made people jump through extra hoops to access its contents.

46 minutes ago, Puppilull said:

I agree with the feeling of uncertain self-censoring. It's difficult to know where those lines are, perhaps more so since I'm not from the US and therefore not in tune with society there. But for me, I don't have the need to express these views here. For you, it's a different situation. So the blurriness is worse. 

This blindness to what is political and not is something I've thought about quite a lot lately. How seemingly intelligent people can be ignorant to the fact that they express rather extreme political views but it's seen as mainstream and at the same time go ballistic when someone from the other side of the fence does the same. This inability to see themselves is a bit fascinating but mostly depressing. 

Well put, and exactly what I'm getting at here. You see this stuff a lot in pop culture, where someone will accuse a film franchise or a TV show or a book series of becoming too political. Star Trek's an obvious example and one dude-bro Trekkies are constantly up in arms about. And the thing is, Star Trek has always been political. Gene Rodenberry was blatantly feminist, anti-fascist, and left-wing political, it's not hard to see if you're not blinded by biased fandom. The Earth part of the Federation is a socialist utopia, they literally have no money, but libertarian Trekkies argue that there's probably some equivalent of money somewhere, and so it's really a libertarian utopia. In The Next Generation, Starfleet uniforms are gender neutral; you literally see men wearing dresses in the background early on in the series (in the end they cut dresses all together because, tbh, they looked weird on everybody, male and female). Also in TNG, Rodenberry was adamant about wanting a gay character, but the network talked him out of it. And yet you have dude-bro Trekkies who will claim that there's no evidence that gayness even exists in the world of Star Trek. Which is why they got so upset about a prominent gay couple on Star Trek Discovery. 

That was a huge digression. The point is, people often don't see the politics in things until it's staring them in the face and it's too different from their own political views to ignore. And any excuse to claim that something you like has become politicised just so you can be outraged about it, whether it was political originally or not.

3 minutes ago, droughtquake said:

You’re forgetting the ethnic aspect to that as well. People of Color existing are often considered to be political. Cis white Gay men consider themselves to be apolitical even if they espouse the rhetoric of the far right.

There are times when it feels to me like those in power are not aligned with the views of the majority of LGBTQs.

I post my thoughts on Frameline LGBTQ+ film festival movies in The Pit because some of the movies are political in nature and others, which I do not see as political, are judged as political by others. It was easier to get people to view what I wrote in those Topics (the majority of which are apolitical) before they walled off The Pit and made people jump through extra hoops to access its contents.

I always thought being queer and right wing is a bit like shooting yourself in the foot, lol! I've never known a right-wing queer person who wasn't a white gay cis-dude, though I know they come in all shapes and colours. That said, like I said in my main post, the point here isn't to make a dig at GA. I'm trying to approach this issue from as philosophical a viewpoint as I can (though, as I've already pointed out, everything's political).

I do know there's a definite tendency towards racism in the mainstream gay community. Sexism as well. I once tried to make the point that homophobia is a symptom of sexism. That did not make me any friends, because that was seen as a political statement.

Relevant:

4 minutes ago, Thorn Wilde said:

Gene Rodenberry was blatantly feminist, anti-fascist, and left-wing political, it's not hard to see if you're not blinded by biased fandom.

Star Trek was controversial because of things like the not-the-first interracial kiss on US TV, the half-white/half-black aliens who hated each other because their colors were reversed, and having a multi-ethnic crew on the Bridge (even though, as Leonard Hofstadter pointed out [on Big Bang Theory], the Black lady still answered the space telephone).

There were also episodes that were anti-war at the height of the US military meddling in Southeast Asia.

3 minutes ago, Thorn Wilde said:

Relevant:

I’m getting a message that the video is unavailable – geo-blocked in the US?

11 minutes ago, Thorn Wilde said:

I do know there's a definite tendency towards racism in the mainstream gay community.

I mentioned that once here on GA and the response I got suggested that ethnic-fetish porn ‘proved’ that the Gay community is not racist!

13 minutes ago, Thorn Wilde said:

I once tried to make the point that homophobia is a symptom of sexism.

How can people deny that link? One of the most common homophobic insults is to suggest that a Gay man is a watered-down version of a woman. As if a woman is a lesser being. As if femininity is equivalent to weakness. As if emotions themselves are a weakness.

Some of the strongest people I know are women! And some of the weakest people I know are men. Very insecure straight men.

18 minutes ago, droughtquake said:

I’m getting a message that the video is unavailable – geo-blocked in the US?

That's weird. It's a song by a band called Skunk Anansie, called Yes It's Fucking Political. It's from their official channel, I think, so weird you can't see it... If you want to hear it, look it up on Youtube and maybe you'll find a different version.

2 minutes ago, Thorn Wilde said:

That's weird. It's a song by a band called Skunk Anansie, called Yes It's Fucking Political. It's from their official channel, I think, so weird you can't see it... If you want to hear it, look it up on Youtube and maybe you'll find a different version.

In Safari, I block all videos (except for the stubborn ones that evade my filters). So I opened this page in Firefox, saw the video’s still image and grabbed the link so I could download it in a utility. My current favorite utility couldn’t get the video. My old favorite had a problem and in trying its built-in workaround, I got the message that the video was unavailable – it’s possible that there’s a age-block involved. My old favorite won’t let me sign in to my Google account which has prevented me from downloading other videos.
;–)

This is what happens when you’re cheap and you can’t afford to pay for better utilities.

Okay, I just tried watching the video in Firefox and it still comes up as unavailable.
 

The one I listened to was audio plus a picture. I decided I didn’t want to look at one of the several live versions. She’s kind of angry, isn’t she?
;–)

I've often thought being far right and gay must be so confusing. It's not strange to be conservative as such, since your life is more than sex. Still, you don't have to scratch the surface very much to see the true colours of many conservatives. Far too many simply want you gone/invisible/without rights. 

Maybe it's easier here, where even our conservatives are socialist. In fact, two top candidates for the EU parliament of our right sided parties are gay and that didn't seem to stop their parties from doing really well. But Sweden is a weird place, I'm told. 

Oh, and the whole "like a girl" derogatory thing pissed me off. It's puzzles me how some people (often priding themselves on being so different) can be even harsher in the upholding of roles in society. But of course, we all live in the same society. Why should anyone be immune? 

11 minutes ago, Puppilull said:

Oh, and the whole "like a girl" derogatory thing pissed me off. It's puzzles me how some people (often priding themselves on being so different) can be even harsher in the upholding of roles in society. But of course, we all live in the same society. Why should anyone be immune? 

For some people, having the ‘right’ bits between their legs, the ‘right’ color skin, and having the ‘right’ amount of money (ie more than some small countries) trumps anything else.

15 minutes ago, Puppilull said:

But Sweden is a weird place, I'm told. 

Weird enough to be near the top of the happiest countries list along with your weird neighbors, Norway and Denmark!
;–)

23 minutes ago, droughtquake said:

The one I listened to was audio plus a picture. I decided I didn’t want to look at one of the several live versions. She’s kind of angry, isn’t she?
;–)

The version I shared was also still picture. Live versions are often not great. Not because they're not good live (I've seen them twice and they're amazing), but because the recordings are bad, lol! Anyway, yeah, she's angry. She's a black woman who grew up in South London under Thatcherism at a time when neo-Nazis were very much a threat. Of course she's angry. 

21 minutes ago, Puppilull said:

I've often thought being far right and gay must be so confusing. It's not strange to be conservative as such, since your life is more than sex. Still, you don't have to scratch the surface very much to see the true colours of many conservatives. Far too many simply want you gone/invisible/without rights. 

Maybe it's easier here, where even our conservatives are socialist. In fact, two top candidates for the EU parliament of our right sided parties are gay and that didn't seem to stop their parties from doing really well. But Sweden is a weird place, I'm told. 

Oh, and the whole "like a girl" derogatory thing pissed me off. It's puzzles me how some people (often priding themselves on being so different) can be even harsher in the upholding of roles in society. But of course, we all live in the same society. Why should anyone be immune? 

Except SD. Fucking fascists. 

9 minutes ago, Thorn Wilde said:

Except SD. Fucking fascists. 

I don't count them as conservatives. They are a mess, plain and simple. 

Quote

From Thorn's original entry:

There's no such thing as apolitical. Everything's political

I can't lay my hand on the particular book at the moment (and, even if I could, I'd probably not be able to find the actual page it was on), but I'm reminded of one of Adrian Mole's teachers in either the first or second book of his diaries (The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole... series, by Sue Townsend), saying something along the lines of "Shopping is a political statement." If I remember the storyline correctly, this was a hippy-dippy teacher who was either vegan or vegetarian, and  was quite vocal in her opinions about the injustices in the world. My memory is that she was referring to the moral dilemma she faced when clothes shopping, and trying to find items of clothing that had not been made using child labour in third world countries.

But yes, Thorn, you are absolutely correct. Everything is political.

4 minutes ago, Marty said:

…she was referring to the moral dilemma she faced when clothes shopping, and trying to find items of clothing that had not been made using child labour in third world countries.

And the difficulty finding non-animal-based (ie no leather) shoes?
;–)

If you sew your own clothes, do you know the source of the fabric and the fibers used to create it? Our economy is designed to disguise and obscure the origins of most products. Many products can legally be labeled as ‘Made in the US’ even though they’re actually made across the border in Mexico (it all has to do with the value of the components and where those components came from).

I don’t eat fish or seafood, but I keep hearing about intentional misidentification of less desirable fish species as much more expensive varieties as well as farmed fish being sold as wild-caught. I’ll just have to get my daily dose of plastic micro-pellets some other way!
;–)
 

How much of the unlabeled produce comes from China? How much comes from Mexico? How much is imported from Chile? How much is sourced in California? Is any of it local to your area?

California produces a huge percentage of the produce consumed in the US, but we still import Mexican and Chilean goods (usually clearly identified). I know that Chinese produce ends up here too (including most of the fresh garlic), but I can’t recall ever seeing any signs identifying anything as such.

1 hour ago, Marty said:

I can't lay my hand on the particular book at the moment (and, even if I could, I'd probably not be able to find the actual page it was on), but I'm reminded of one of Adrian Mole's teachers in either the first or second book of his diaries (The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole... series, by Sue Townsend), saying something along the lines of "Shopping is a political statement." If I remember the storyline correctly, this was a hippy-dippy teacher who was either vegan or vegetarian, and  was quite vocal in her opinions about the injustices in the world. My memory is that she was referring to the moral dilemma she faced when clothes shopping, and trying to find items of clothing that had not been made using child labour in third world countries.

But yes, Thorn, you are absolutely correct. Everything is political.

As a friend of mine often says, there's no such thing as ethics under capitalism.

1 hour ago, droughtquake said:

If you sew your own clothes, do you know the source of the fabric and the fibers used to create it?

Twenty five years  so back I had a dozen sheep on the smallholding that I then owned. Just to prove to myself that it was possible, one year I hand sheared them, spent many a long winter evening spinning the fleece using an antique spinning wheel I had borrowed from a neighbour, and then hand knitted a few items using wooden knitting needles borrowed from another neighbour.

It was an interesting exercise at the time. But it also involved a serious amount of time on my part. Nowadays I find it easier just to part with my money to buy the clothes I need. There's an expression "Time is money". Someone once explained that to me along the following lines: if you don't have the money then you must be willing to spend most of your own time making or growing the things that you need (or you could use a barter system with neighbours and friends); but if you do have the money, then you can pay other people for the time that they put in to producing the things you need.

The problem is, in a Capitalist society, the ones without sufficient money often finish up in extreme poverty.

4 minutes ago, Marty said:

Someone once explained that to me along the following lines: if you don't have the money then you must be willing to spend most of your own time making or growing the things that you need (or you could use a barter system with neighbours and friends); but if you do have the money, then you can pay other people for the time that they put in to producing the things you need.

Poor people spend much more time on transit trying to get from one place to another. In the US at least, drivers do not appreciate how much less traffic is on the road competing with them for space because many of us are on buses or trains. It frequently takes me two or more times as long to use the bus or train than if I still had a car because buses and trains run so infrequently.

Poor people wait in lots of lines. Rich people pay others to wait for them or they skip the lines entirely (as with online shopping). Rich people often have automatic machines for tasks that poor people have to do manually or pay to do (as in laundromats/launderettes).