Pete is just another white guy

[dsc]

Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2019, 04:57 PM - Edit history (1)

LGBT teens have suicide rate 3 times that of heterosexual ones
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/preventing-suicide/facts-about-suicide/
but he is just another white guy.

Two states just restored benefits to those who were less than honorably discharged in previous years
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/preventing-suicide/facts-about-suicide/
but he is just another white guy.

In October the Supreme Court heard a case as to whether or not LGBT people are covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and we have at best a 50/50 chance of winning meanwhile a majority of states (29) permit anti LGBT discrimination. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-transgender.html
but he is just another white guy,

Mayor Pete and most gay men can't give blood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_donation_restrictions_on_men_who_have_sex_with_men
but he is just another white guy.

Much has been made of Pete's age (and to be fair 37 is quite young) but one reason we don't have 50 something gay men running for office is because that generation of gay men were decimated by AIDS. I turn 52 in December making me 18 in 1985. That was the height of the AIDS crisis. Many men in my age cohort buried dozens of friends and lovers. And of course, many didn't see their 25th birthday let alone their 37th or 52nd.
but he is just another white guy.

When people dismiss his LGBT status by calling him just another white guy it dismisses all LGBT people. He isn't just another white guy. No one LGBT is ever just an anything and society doesn't let us forget that.

On edit and thanks to Behind the Ageis I want to add something I forgot to post originally. LGBT and hate crimes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/06/28/anti-gay-hate-crimes-rise-fbi-says-and-they-likely-undercount/1582614001/

especially: The NCVS data also suggests that a greater percentage of all hate crimes are motivated by a bias against sexual orientation than the FBI data.

Many people who experience hate crimes do not report the incidents to law enforcement, for various reasons.

“To the extent that we don’t have universal protections from discrimination on the basis of employment, housing, and public accommodations, if someone comes forward to report a hate crime, they could also be officially outing themselves as LGBTQ. In a smaller or rural community, that outing could result in an eviction or loss of a job,” said Robin Maril, Human Rights Campaign Associate Legal Director.

----

The FBI Hate crimes stats for 2018: https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2018/topic-pages/tables/table-1.xls

16.7% of hate crimes are anti-sexual orientation hate crimes.
60.7% of hate crimes committed because of sexual orientation are against gay men
10% of ALL hate crimes are committed against gay men

16.3% of victims of hate crimes are victims because of sexual orientation
59.7% of hate crimes victims because of sexual orientation are gay men
9.7% of ALL hate crimes are gay men

You can check my math at the above link.

[AlexSFCA]

1. there are two contradicting narratives

1. He is just a white guy
2. He can’t win cause he is gay

Which is it, we should ask. If it’s #2 then he is certainly not ‘just a white guy’, he is not even a black guy who we know got elected twice. So that brings us to the inevitable conclusion that gay white males still face far more discrimination than straight black males.
We don’t need to go far to know that; every gay black (female or male) will tell you that being lgbt is far more challenging than being black cause you don’t get rejected by your family for being black but you do for being lgbt, each and every day and at any age.
What’s really important is that electing a very devout christian Pete will send shock to the American xtian fundamentalism, the moment his husband moves into WH as first man. And that is worth every effort.

[aikoaiko]

2. That's fair. Very fair.

Mayor Pete is not a basic white guy.

[Chemisse]

3. I am angry that Harris compared the realities of being black and brown with being gay.

It's not a contest. People who suffer hardships should not be pitted against each other. There should not be a checklist in which one itemizes hardships of being black or hispanic or trans or gay or handicapped or even just female in a man's world.

[msongs]

4. desperate candidates lash out. nt

[Chemisse]

5. I actually started out as a Harris supporter.

But did not like the way she kept attacking Biden - not the fact of the attack, but that it was disingenuous and she knew it.

[LuvNewcastle]

6. Just imagine having someone like that in the White House.

The Oval Office would be a snake pit.

[StarfishSaver]

11. Did you hear what she actually said? She said just the opposite of what you claim

Some media outlets mischaracterized her comment, when, in fact, she made the very point that you make in your post:

"Those of us who've been involved in Civil Rights for a long time we know that it is important that we not compare our struggles. It is not productive, it is not smart and strategically it works against what we need to do which is build coalition. We know that in our ongoing fight for civil rights if any one of us starts to differentiate ourselves in a certain way and in particular what he did on the stage, it's just not productive. And I think it's a bit naïve."

She did NOT "compare the realities of being black and brown with being gay." And she did not try to elevate or denigrate anyone's experience over anyone else's. In fact, she said that we should not "compare our struggles."

What precisely do you find problematic with her comment? Do you disagree with what she actually said?

[Chemisse]

13. It appears as though she took a comment that he said, then said HE should not compare

The comment: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJ3iF9EXkAAT7st?format=jpg&name=large

did not seem to make any comparison at all, but her response, by accusing him of doing so, wound up drawing a comparison. I may be giving her too much credit, but it appeared to be a clever way for her to have people making that very comparison in their minds.

[StarfishSaver]

15. I don't think you're "giving her too much credit," but I do think you're reading way too much into

her comment. She was no more trying trick people into "drawing a comparison" than Buttigieg was trying to trick people into thinking something he wasn't really saying. Look at/listen to what she said and accept it at face value and don't try to manipulate it into something else. She was very clear. She said pretty much the same thing that you said. And she was right.

[Chemisse]

19. Yeah you're probably right.

My argument was twisted like a pretzel.

[SidDithers]

18. She said the opposite of that...

Specifically that struggles should not be compared.

Sid

[Chemisse]

20. Yes. I got the wrong impression.

I tend to skim, when I'm busy but still want to know all the news.

I'm glad I was wrong about this.

[SidDithers]

21. ...

Sid

[bobbieinok]

7. Thanks for an important reminder about our country's history

[in2herbs]

8. This is slightly off topic, but the other day I watched Second Opinion, a PBS show where a group of

doctors are given clues and they have to determine the illness. Anyway, the show was about AIDS and the panel said that there is a vaccine available that will literally wipe out AIDS. That's good news.

[dsc]

9. I think they might be a bit ahead of the game there

I know they are working towards one and there has been some promise shown but I haven't heard it being a done deal

[Baked Potato]

10. I'll have to say

Mayor Pete has really impressed me and Mrs Potato lately. I think as a gay man, he would be an outsider in DC, much like President Obama was as a black man. Outsiders are hard for the establishment to corrupt, and I like that. Zero indictments in the Obama administration is a pretty good statistic. He seems to have a wisdom and poise beyond his age.

[Alithea]

14. Let's not casually villify or sanctify people based on group identity.

Someone's color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc., shouldn't determine their worth, or the respect they deserve, or the voice they're entitled to. We've come much further than that. The civil rights movement fought for the right to be judged not by the color of one's skin (or other externalities) but by the content of one's character.

Calling someone "just another white guy" sounds like a slur, the same way that calling him "just a gay guy" or "just a black guy" would. He is being summarily categorized, judged, and generically discounted, as if his character, his talents, and his actions count for nothing. It used to be called being prejudiced. Bigotry also fits.

I'm worried by this emphasis on group identity in recent years. It assumes that people are fundamentally different, rather than essentially alike and united by our common humanity. I can't see how this fracturing can lead anywhere good.

[ehrnst]

17. This talking point sounds very familiar.

And it's not from the left of the political spectrum.

[Alithea]

22. I don't deal in talking points.

As for the implied lack of purity, I've been on the left of the political spectrum all.my.life.; from back in the day when we called ourselves "liberals", before we rebranded as "progressive" because the word 'liberal' had been used as a slur by the right for so long.

I think we forgot something important in the rebranding process. Things seem to have taken a more authoritarian and almost punitive tone.

[ehrnst]

23. Your response indicates that I was right.

[Alithea]

24. No, it doesn't; though yours indicates that you are remarkably presumptous

about people you don't know.

[ehrnst]

25. I commented on the talking points you were putting forth, not you.

Your answer reinforced my observation. Is that clearer?

That was a remarkably "persecutorial and oppressive" response, on your part wasn't it?

FYI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

[Alithea]

31. I don't think it was...

To my mind, "persecutorial and oppressive" implies the initiation of some action or accusation. I was defending against what I took to be your implied accusation that I lacked left-leaning bona fides.

Thanks for the graphic. That helps me understand where you thought I was coming from; - but I wasn't.

I'm familiar with the horseshoe model but I think it is too simple a representation of political reality. It never sat well with me, because there are fundamental differences between the left and right, even at their extremes. There are similarities, but they are not equivalent.

I had an a-ha moment when I saw this model some a years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Compass
When I say the left is becoming more authoritarian, I mean it is creeping up the vertical axis.

I like the compass representation because it disentangles two different strands of political concern, both of them legitimate. It is possible to add a third and fourth and fifth axis, (e.g. socially liberal vs socially conservative, religious vs secular, etc.) to have an even more precise representation.

Precise models are good because they get us closer to an approximation of the truth (yes, I believe there is an objective truth) and allow us to, at least conceptually, give some order to the apparent chaos, make some extrapolations from it, and have a common language so that we can discuss/debate meaningfully and without misunderstanding.

The extrapolation that I make is that there are not just two sides, there aren't even "sides". This is not a war between two tribes. There are multiple possible perspectives. It is possible for reasonable people of basic intelligence and good intentions, who desire broadly similar outcomes (e.g. "a stable, just, and prosperous society free of excessive inequality, in an environmentally sustainable world" ) to disagree on some or many policies. It doesn't make everyone who disagrees a heretic or a monster. Under normal circumstances, it means that there is a lot of common ground and opportunities for working together. I grant you that today's hyper-polarized time is not "normal circumstances". And that's the problem.

It's fair to say that the extremes of ANY axis are, almost by definition, characterized by a fundamentalist ideology and the use of extreme means to achieve it. That violence can be of an authoritarian type (aiming to impose an order that accords with one's beliefs; eg. Pol Pot, Hitler) or libertarian type (aiming to disrupt an order that one perceives to be tyrannical; e.g. Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh).

Liberal democracy is a delicate balance of these two inclinations. It provides order and stability, but with an essential purpose of preserving a margin of individual freedoms and forming a bulwark against tyranny. Seen in the overall scope of recorded human history; which was a state of almost constant violence, or tyranny, or both; this and the peace that it has brought has been a remarkable achievement; so much so that we have forgotten the horrors that can arise without it.

BUT - indisputably, the economic driver of liberal democracies (capitalism) has resulted in too much inequality in the post-Soviet era and the ship needs to be righted; substantially and urgently. But I think it's a ship that needs saving instead of chopping up as firewood. Anyway, it's the best ship we've got. I don't know of a better system. Do you?? If we jettison civilization and its institutions the only thing left is the abyss. Violent revolutions are lethal, extremely unpredictable, and potentially catastrophic. They can cause untold misery and create far more problems than they solve.

To be clear, I don't consider someone like Bernie Sanders to be a torch-the-system-down revolutionary. He has a lot of good ideas. When I worry about revolution, I'm imagining something far more extreme: marauding hordes in the streets, gun-humpers fighting the gub'mint with AK-47s, race-wars, the rounding up of journalists and other "enemies of the people", the abandonment of the Constitution by the extreme left or extreme right, and the bombing of government institutions. When I advocate for moderation in tone - plus substantial reform - this is this kind of epic disaster I imagine and want to avoid.

[ehrnst]

34. Overly defensive, then.

But "persecutorial and oppressive" was how you were characterizing posts on DU that were not "harmonious."

[MrsCoffee]

30. We only know what you've shown.

So you're right. We don't know you. But we know those talking points.

[Alithea]

32. Fair enough

In answering the previous comment, I got on a roll and wrote more than I intended. It got so long that I was going to send it as a PM rather than bore other readers with it, but since you point out that I'm still an unknown quantity here (true dat), I posted it so you can get a sense of where I'm coming from. At least the length proves I'm not a bot or a plant.

[dsc]

16. a bump due to a needed edit

[brewens]

26. I see the link about the blood donation ban completely leaves out one of the main reasons

why anyone considered to be high risk for blood born pathogens is not allowed to donate blood. Yes the blood is tested for the various dangerous pathogens, but it has to be drawn first. The blood center staff are almost always just phlebotomists, not doctors or nurses, and accidents like accidental needle sticks and spills happen. They have to weed out anyone considered high risk before they get that far in the process. If an accident happens like a needle stick or possible splash in the eye, the staff member is automatically deferred from donating for a year. We always get a couple of those every year.

[dsc]

27. with all due respect that is absurd

that would be like saying someone is only a first baseman but not a manager so he isn't an expert on hitting and fielding. It is literally the job of a phlebotomist to draw blood. It is nothing short of absurd to say they don't know how to deal with the ramifications of doing so.

[brewens]

28. I've seen it happen. Donors are given a little foam squeezer to work to help the flow. If the get

too enthusiastic they can pop the needle out of their arm and blood squirts everywhere. If the staff gets in their eyes or a scratch or anything on exposed skin, it's considered a possible contamination, even for an eligible donor that has answered no on all relevant questions in the screening. That staff member is then disqualified from donating for one year.

The phlebotomists know all the safety procedures, have all the safety equipment, but it still manages to happen.

Anyway, tell it to the FDA. Those are the rules.

[SKKY]

29. Mayor Pete would be in a run-a-way right now if he didn't have the issues with...

...African-American voters. I hope he finds the magic potion to overcome that because I genuinely feel that he is a generational politician who would make an exceptional president.

[The Mouth]

33. We should call out *ALL* homophobia and all homophobes

I don't care what other group they belong to, anyone who wouldn't vote for someone because they are gay is vile and should be treated *EXACTLY* as any POC would wish an 'N-word' dropping racist would be treated, or the way any feminist would wish a person joking about wife beating to be treated: public condemnation.

The day any of us tolerates anyone who would condone discrimination against LGBT people is the day it is no longer worth being a democrat. Pauper or billionaire, preacher or atheist, homophobia should be called out and the person shamed.