You're talking hurt, in my world 'hurt' is something negative, something wrong, a fault. By arguing that the "emotional harm inflicted is cyclical" and by showing similarities (as in your first post) you do insinuate both parties have an equal share in the wrong that is being done. Which they clearly do not.
You spun my words pretty far.
To say that the group identity is to blame is preposterous, siding with a group is the best way to engage in an argument in this society - otherwise we'd just be individuals doing one on one discussions; which wouldn't get us anywhere.
It does make things decidedly difficult, as once the group phenomena is in place, the entirety of the group takes on an individual's pain, which tends to complicate and blow things out of proportion. You're right, it is the best way to argue, but I'm not so convinced it's the best way to solve problems, and in particular the emotional grievances that each individual carries (which makes up the group), which is ultimately the culprit in acts of emotional violence.
No its not. As I noted above, joining a group of people who have the same or a similar standpoint as you, will make debate more efficient and more powerful. You seem to be of the impression that neither side is supposed to win this debate, but that wouldn't bode well for the future of mankind if none was to prevail. There clearly is a side which has it right and the other side therefore has it wrong or didn't know what it was talking about to begin with.
The idea that one side can "win" something, is pure delusion. As long as the reactive patterns are in place, the "fight" WILL continue. And continue. I find it preferable for both sides to attempt to transcend their "victim/perpetrator" positions.
Your argument is offensive because you equate the oppressed's fight for equality with the evil that is organized wilful ignorance. You put the victim and the aggressor on the same level, that is what doesn't sit well with me, because it is such a misrepresentation of reality.
No, not quite. We can achieve our social goals without fighting anyone. In theory, non-reactivity has the effect of backlashing the perpetrator. In effect, the aggressor "sees" the self-harm in their aggressive behavior, because they have nothing to justify that behavior anymore. It is a powerful thing, if done right, and in the past, has ended wars.
What emotional grievances exist on the side of the fundamentalists?
It is ironic, I know, but 'they' feel threatened. 'They' feel that GBLT behavior hurts others. It is ludicrous, but only from the standpoint of ignorance. If we can understand why a given person behaves in a certain way, why they uphold such a perspective, it can go a long way to dissolving the lingering pain from the past that keeps such things alive. It is a desire to have one's feelings recognized. In essence, that is what they want, and that is what GBLT want, no?
Are they being prevented from exercising full equality in the secular world? Are they being prevented from serving in the military? Are they being fired from their jobs because of wedding announcements? Are they being harassed to the point of suicide in schools? Do hospitals keep them from visiting dying loved ones? Do hospitals keep them from making medical decisions for their incapacitated loved ones? Are they called "intrinsically disordered" or threats to human society by major world leaders? What exactly is done to fundamentalists by LGBT people that causes "emotional violence"?
These are merely effects of much deeper emotional resentment. If you only try to fix the political aspects, you are only bandaging a wound that gets reopened over and over and over. The emotional violence that is done to fundamentals is in keeping their reactive behavior alive simply by refusing to recognize their emotional conditioning. They didn't start the pattern, but it's kept alive. Why else would one cause pain to another if not for pain inside themselves?
This delightful question gave me so many openings I couldn't choose just one.
Option 1: Don't you know that when a woman dances with another woman, it's
a direct attack on heterosexual men?
Option 2: By tempting them into having hot man on man sex. Obviously, if there were not gay men, the Ted Haggards of this world would be forced to stay home with their wives.
Option 3: By being gay. Duh!
Yes, of course. When they venture forth into the secular world, they may be forced to treat perverts and sinners with respect and even equality, and that violates their religious freedom. Obviously, they may be forced to sleep in the same barracks as a homosexual, and that violates their right not to have to associate with sinners and perverts. They can be fired for refusing to treat sinners and perverts as though they deserve the sanctity of marriage. etc. you get the idea.
Ha ha. As pathetic as it sounds, yes, that kind of stuff does upset some fundamentalists. Should we give in to irrational demands? Of course not. But lets continue with my previous line of reasoning. Why would someone hold such a world view? What would be the best way to dissolve such an
individual's insecurity? What compels someone to inflict pain on others, if not pain in themselves? The disillusioning aspect of this is that it IS a tough job to change people's minds because they are empowered by obscure emotional engines. But fighting them and thereby solidifying that world view just doesn't work in the long run.
Address emotional grievances. That's really all I'm saying. We're all human here, and have suffered enough without having to place blame for that suffering.
