September 11, 2015

Gaming the Jury

Reaching under my desk and rootling around to find my 'Original DUer' ball cap... brushing off the dust and an old Milk Dud... punching it back into shape.... putting it on...::

....approaching soapbox doubtfully....

....testing a little before climbing on.... giving a little test bounce....

....leaning into the mic.... tapping it... jumping back from the feedback squeal and just barely not falling off soapbox... ("Hey, Elad! Can you adjust this thing? Test... test..... OK, that's better.&quot

....clearing throat....

Howdy.

I see as how the time's come to trot out some Institutional Memory, and throw in a little Rousing of the Rabble.

So lemme start with a disclaimer:

No, I have never seen anything quite like the level of appalling that live-stalking a DUer through the actual paper US Mail, with DU references and claims of membership, etc., manages to reach.

That's a new low.

Congratulations, whoever came up with that one, you're doing your job superbly well and I hope that whichever higher-up-in-the-food-chain helot of our Beloved Oligarchs you report to rewards you suitably. You've been remarkably effective at sowing pain, chaos, and dissension.

But you have not shut down this website.

You have not even materially impaired its operations or function.

The Admins of this website have eaten more serious threats than your vile, puerile action for lunch without a burp, and triumphed, and this website and the discourse it enables has survived and thrived anyway.

And I hope you get a chance to think about that while you and the cheesy legal counsel your bosses accord you (if any-- they tend to cheapass stuff like that, yanno-- ) are strategizing how to respond to the US Postal Inspection Service's enquiries. My money is on "you get thrown under the bus" as the ultimate strategy, by the way. It's how your kind of 'organization' rolls.

End of disclaimer. You, Sir or Ma'am, and your employers and co-conspirators, do not get mentioned again, you are not worth my time.

I'd like to talk to some people care about, now. People who are important to me, and to a community I love. People who believe in making the world a better place, and who put their passion and their time into discussing ideas and processes and decisions and policies, and how they affect us all.

My fellow DUers, in fact.

Hey, y'all.

Gettin' a little rugged, here, lately.

Seems to happen on DU, at intervals, when two things converge in time:

Thing one is what I think of as "an evolutionary consciousness crisis." We're all here evolving together toward awareness and valuing one anothers' humanity, and building political, cultural, social, and economic systems that support equity and justice.

DU is a very big tent, just as the Democratic Party has historically been in my lifetime. (And yeah, it's a longish time and you kids stay off my lawn, okay?)

Part of what that means is that while we all share some ideals and goals about equity and justice, we're a very diverse group and we come from many levels of experience with injustice and oppression, with many beliefs about our own privilege or lack thereof. We have widely varying ways of defining the same terms, and when others' definitions and experiences don't match ours, the cognitive dissonance results in a lot of churning.

And mostly, that churning happens around the experiences of oppression and privilege that divide us. It can create frustration, passion, and sometimes conflict. It can pull us in, absorb our awareness and focus, and it should.

Because we learn from it. We grow. We evolve.

But it's not a comfortable process and sometimes it involves pain. Just ask DU's LGBTQ members. And our black members. And those of us with vaginas. The intersectionality of privileges and oppressions is rife, here. I enjoy some kinds of privilege, you enjoy other kinds. You can't understand the particulars of my experience of oppression and I can't understand yours, until we share and validate them for one another.

These are old, hard knots of injustice woven into the fabric of our culture by patriarchy and the oligarchy it created millenia ago. To keep us divided, to keep us apart, to sucker us into doing their work of keeping us oppressing each other for them.

When those issues rise up, there are usually two things happening, one of which is a genuine, organic process of examination and testing among ourselves, finding the fault lines and examining attitudes and beliefs that can divide and conquer us, and trying to grow beyond them.

The other thing happening is the deliberate shit-stirring focused on keeping us from doing exactly that.

Sometimes they look a lot alike. Neither will go away, they're part of the process.

Thing two is the calculated exploitation of a technical vulnerability in how the process of discourse is facilitated here on DU.

::...reaching up to adjust my 'Original DUer' ball cap slightly::

We've been here a while. There is a reason this is a popular political discussion platform. All you have to do to perceive why is go and look at some of the other examples out there. Echo chambers for various Oligarchic agendas, moshpits for the low-information end of the spectrum, circle jerks of hate, and well-intentioned failures abound.

::...tipping the ball cap briefly::

Our Admins actually put a lot of work into this site, not just because they make money from it but because they care about it stands for and what it facilitates, and they, too, are committed to making a better experience of politics, economics, and culture for their children and their children's children.

Part of what that means is, they're constantly having to adjust how conflict is managed here. A certain level of conflict is desirable and baked into the site DNA. We're not an echo chamber and we're not expected to agree alla time.

On the other hand, too much conflict, the wrong kind of conflict, drives people away and impairs the site's ability to do what it's supposed to do.

And, yes, there are people who want this site to fail, to go away, to be silenced, to become a mockery and/or an echo chamber. To be ineffective. To be negligible. There are people who want that, a LOT.

And they are not averse, as individuals and/or organized groups, to getting in here and trying to make it fail. Trolling. Gaming. Finding ways to disrupt the process.

They've been trying for fifteen years.

They've tried to game the process. They've tried to exploit design flaws. They've worked hard, and sometimes they've even succeeded, in short term goals. And the Admins track those efforts, and constantly refine the process and tweak the software design to deal with those efforts.

The jury system evolved because of efforts to game the old moderation/alert system.

It's not a perfect solution.

Some of the flaws are emerging now, as those who'd like DU to go away hammer at it.

And I have great confidence that our Admins will do what's needed to refine the process and the software, once again, to deal with it.

Which takes time.

And in the mean time, we have the convergence: A painful evolution in consciousness around racism and privilege and their effects among us, and a dedicated, vigorous hammering at the infrastructure of our discussion.

So, yeah, it's a little rugged right now.

But I am here to tell you two things:

First, DU's lived through this before and we'll live through it again and we do it BY GETTING BETTER AT WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO.

And second, I'm doing my damndest to check my white privilege at the keyboard. Feel free to call me on it when you see it. Black DUers matter, and they matter especially NOW, when we are dealing with a culture-wide awareness and revolution that has the possibility to evolve our culture to the next level.

So, thank you to all the black DUers who've been part of that.

Stick with us.

We DO evolve.

We will.

And thank you.

::... steps off the soapbox, takes off the hat, waves it cheerfully, and wanders off to make dinner...::

lovingly,
Bright

August 15, 2015

A Few Simple Rules for #BlackLivesMatter

Because I am a lifelong Caucasian who thinks black people are okay and considers herself highly knowledgeable about the black experience of life in America based on the number of black friends I have and more than three months on a mostly black dorm wing during my college years a few decades back, I feel free to let all you #BlackLivesMatter folks know that you're doing it wrong.

In the spirit of helpful, allied cooperation, because, really, your agenda is my agenda, we totally want the same things: Police need to stop feeling free to kill black people. It reflects REALLY BADLY on America, on America's communities, and on everybody who lives in them including us white folks, so it should really stop.

See? I'm on your side.

So I know you'll take this constructive criticism in the helpful spirit it is given.

Oh, and by the way, if I need to present any more credentials about why I'm the right person to be telling y'all how to run your movement, keep in mind that in addition to being well-intentioned and knowing a lot about the black experience, I'm kinda old and I've been around and seen, like the Civil Rights movement and stuff. I even marched with SNCC and did some heavy-duty sign-making back then, so you know I know what I'm talking about, okay?

Alrighty, then.

See, here's the deal: Y'all are defeating your own ends, going about this thing all wrong. We all want you to succeed, so if you just adhere to these few simple rules, it'll all work out, jiggety-split. And no, that was NOT a racial epithet, STOP BEING SO SENSITIVE, OKAY? That's, like, rule one:

1. When someone not-black tells you they're not a racist, BELIEVE them and totally give them the benefit of the doubt if they inadvertently or accidentally exhibit racist behaviors or privileged assumptions. You hurt their feelings when you call them on it, and is driving away your allies any way to win? Of course not.

2. Don't scare anyone. Really, when you get all loud and assertive and show up in numbers with grim expressions on your faces and make demands, what do you think that says about how you're going to act if you get what you want? You're just turning people off, being scary. Try being nice, instead. Sit down strikes or something like that, especially with smiles on your faces and maybe flowers and few waves for the camera will totally work better. And signs. Really creative signs. They're good, too.

3. Don't make ANY mistakes. Seriously, y'all. Take some time to plot and strategize and get your acts together and establish clear lines of authority and recognized spokespeople so that you never do anything that's not one hundred percent perfectly timed, with all the most effective language and only the right kind of actions taken at the best possible places. The only civil rights movements that ever worked were completely mistake-free, so get it together and never fuck up AT ALL, or this is just toast and there'll be no way at all to stop the slaughter.

See? Only three rules, and they're REAL EASY. You can do this. And I'm totally behind you, and isn't that what really matters? My approval?

helpfully,
Bright

Anyone who doesn't recognize the here, please check in at Irony Central for a new meter.

August 10, 2015

If I were Karl Rove...

...and thank fate and any/all deities I'm not! But still, if I were...

Him or some other GOPpie weasel helot of our Beloved Oligarchs... I imagine this fantasy scenario:

Oligarchs' Bagman: Karl, yer letting us down.

Karl: It's not MY fault we got sixteen losers all fighting for a piece of the action. Why don't you guys send someone around to, uh, 'talk' to a dozen or so?

OB: Seventeen. And yeah, that's what we'd do, if there was only six or eight, yanno? Send along some fixers, buy 'em out or, uh... 'adjust' things. But seventeen? Too big a rat, people would smell, if they started dropping like flies. Even Roger couldn't spin that one. You know we can't blow it now. People still think this is a democracy, and we gotta go along. For another few years, anyway.

Karl: OK, I lost count. So sue me. But whadda you expect me to do, if you and your fixers can't take care of it? I mean, I got a little dirt on Marco and Rickie, but, seriously... like anyone would NOTICE?

OB: We EXPECT you to do what you do best, Blossom-boy. Take out the opposition. Then it won't matter who ends up with the nod.

Karl: Think about it, willya? We have been throwing everything we got, real or imagined, at Hillary, for better than twenty YEARS now. Unless she gets caught on camera biting off kittens' heads while getting a muff job from a Kardashian, we haven't got much to work with at this point.

OB: Hillary's not the only problem. That commie Sanders is pulling major crowds. Better to solve that problem while it's small and solvable, we think.

Karl: Socialist. Sort of. If you're talking about Bernie. I thought we were gonna let NetanYahoo spring a surprise on him at the right time?

OB: Whatever. Bennie's losing steam, though. He turned the screws on Chuckie too hard, too soon, the idiot.

Karl: Well, I toldja he wasn't controllable.

OB: We never thought he was. Useful, though. Up to a point. Back to the matter at hand. We need to keep Bernie from gathering any more momentum, too. YOU need to do it, that is.

Karl: (rolling eyes) Of course. That'll be easy, because he's got so many dust bunnies under his bed.... NOT. Any ideas? He taken any big bank cash? Done any water-carrying for Big Pharma? Backed out on any spankings for libbie crusaders? ANYTHING you can hand me to work with?

OB: That's your problem. You're the weasel.

Karl: Yeah, right. The only one. Sheesh.

OB: You want us to find someone else to get creative and end up with this Cayman account?

Karl: No, no... I'll take care of it. Relax. I'll need some front money.

OB: Already transferred.

The bagman leaves, and Karl calls in some minions.

Karl: All right, you guys. Larry, you work on the Hillary problem. Curly, you work on the Bernie problem. Moe... (Karl fumbles at his zipper.)

Moe: Hey, boss... howabout we take out both problems with one solution?

Karl: (pauses) Elegant. I like it. How, genius?

Moe: Can we get Hillary to do the dirty on Bernie?

Larry: She can play hardball, everybody knows that. Maybe we offer some bait for her to work with?

They all look at Curly

Curly: I got nothin'! I mean, okay, the guy did a little horsetrading here and there, but nothing that'll stick with the lefty base, not without WAY more inflation that we could get away with. Or Hillary could get away with.

Karl: She's too wily to go there. Okay Moe, it was a good idea, but... (Karl unbuttons his waistband)

Moe: No, wait, wait! Boss, this could work! You've done it before....!

Karl: (clearly skeptical) How so?

Moe: Boss, how many times have you said "It doesn't matter what they DO, it matters what the morons THINK they did"?

Karl: hmmmm..... Lemme think about this. Get outta here, you guys.

An hour later, the minions are in his office again.

Karl: Here's the deal. Larry, you gotta get me a coupla tame schwartzes.

Larry pulls out a little black (of course) book and starts thumbing through it.

Larry: What kinda? We got homophobes, we got the ones who voted for Watts...

Karl: Nah, they're all too old. We need some youngsters. They gotta pass for beelims.

Curly: Beelims, boss?

Karl: Yeah, the ones makin' all the noise now about a few bad apples in the law enforcement community.

Moe: My god, boss, YOU'RE the genius!

Karl: I know. Now explain it to these two numbskulls.

Moe: Oh, man... it's a thing of beauty. Seriously beautiful, boss.

Karl: We can get to that later. Enlighten your friends.

Moe: Don't you get it, guys? We use some of our ops to be these beelim-types. And they make a big public stinkeroonie on Commie boy. SO big, and SO public, that everybody's positive it's gotta be a put-up job. And who'll get blamed?

Larry: Jesus. Of course! Hillary! Two problems, one solution. You ARE a genius, boss.

Curly: Man, I'd-a never thought of anything that smart!

The others roll their eyes.

Anyway, that's what I imagine.

speculatively,
Bright

August 6, 2015

The Penny Drops...

I admit, sometimes it takes me a while to figure things out. I do not doubt that many folks are already way ahead of me on this one, but I do get there eventually.

See, the thing is, I want a Democrat to win the next Presidential election. I haven't made up my mind which one yet-- there are things I like and dislike about most of them. But every one of them is so exponentially better than anyone running for the GOP nomination that I'm fairly sure they'd do a lot better as President.

So I look at the records of each Dem candidate, try to plow through the hype and the spin, look at what others like and dislike, and try to make up my mind how to order my preferences and express my support. And the thing that kept baffling me was not the people pointing out the manifold excellencies of their own preferred candidates. Nor was it those who compared their preferred candidates to other Dem candidates in explaining why they liked them better. That's pretty standard primary fare, and while it's not always helpful, it's generally not doing any harm in terms of the most important thing: Keep the White House out of GOPie hands for another 4-8 years.

No, the thing that kept baffling me was the folks who, rather than explaining why they like their preferred candidate, or even why they prefer them over other candidates, seem to focus primarily on slagging off other Dem candidates.

Finally, the penny dropped: They don't have the same agenda I do.

They don't see the need to keep the White House, with all its associated Supreme Court nominations, Cabinet posts, Federal budget preparation responsibilities, diplomatic responsibilities, and other functions, out of the hands of wackjob puppets for selfish, mindlessly destructive Oligarchs. At least, that's not the most critical priority, to them.

They're focused, rather, on the short-term, myopic, desperately imporant battle to be CORRECT about their very specific policy agendas. And while those agendas actually do overlap greatly with my own, their individual, micro-level focus places so much more importance on those specific policy positions than on the broader goal of keeping the White House out of GOPpie control, they're willing to damage that broader goal in the pursuit of short-term victory.

Short-term victory for policy positions I generally agree with.

So, why does it disturb me so much?

Maybe it's because I've seen a good many electoral cycles during my life. And because I've got a keen interest in history and the evolution of social policy and human progress. And so I've seen, far too many times, the price paid by short-term victory for profound policy changes, as they're subjected to distortion and conflict and pushback and subversion from within. All this, while structural and institutional tools are quietly subsumed into the Oligarchic machine and painfully-achieved progress is rolled back using the unspectacular levers and wires embedded in the machine.

So I've come to a tentative working hypothesis about those who concentrate on slagging off "the other" candidates. They're either idealistic but in fundamental disagreement with me about methodology, or they're actively and knowingly working to damage my key goal of keeping the White House out of GOPpie hands from 2017-2021 or 2025.

And if you're someone who falls in the first category, may I respectfully ask you to perform a thought experiment?

Because if you are in that first category, you're my friend, you're someone I agree with on many things, and we have a common overarching goal to advance human evolution and social progress. So, please, consider this thought experiment:

You carry on slagging off any candidate that isn't yours. And, because you're such a vigorous and effective advocate, and you find and/or frame the information you're using as negatively and damagingly as possible, a lot of it *sticks* to those other, no-good, very bad, horrible not-your-candidates who are, let's face it, tools of Bad People and not in any way as good as your candidate. You damage them.

But-- you still do not manage to get your Highly Superior Candidate nominated.

In fact, one of those now-damaged candidates gets nominated, dragging the mud you and everyone else who's seen them for The Scum They Are has tied to them, into the ring with them, to face the GOP's best shot. A best shot that's so much lower and scummier than they are, it seems impossible that anyone could look at them without retching. But.... they have the Six-Headed Big Media Hydra behind them. And the Oligarch's unlimited spending purse. And the traditional GOPpie willingness to fight dirtier than anyone else.

What are the GOPpie operatives going to reach for, first?

Whadda you think?

Because I think that what the GOPpie operatives are gonna reach for first, is the damage already inflicted, during the primary, by other Democrats. "Hey, look! Even the libtards know what a vile tool this candidate is!"

So, here's the pitch: I'm not asking anyone to refrain from pointing out what they disagree with on any candidate. You think Candidate A's vote on this particular issue was terrible and reflects different priorities than you embrace? Don't be shy about that. It's well within the latitude of primary contention.

But... passing on sleazy rumors? Using "alleged" dirt dug up and distributed by GOPpie operatives? Personal attacks about who you assume anyone's in metaphorical policy debt to? Please, just think twice, or three times, before going there, okay?

Yes, it's fine to point out that Candidate B has a whole lotta campaign contributions from people you dislike or disagree with. But don't automatically assume that means that Candidate B is the willing shilling tool of scum, because if there's any truth at all about electoral politics in America, it's that NO ONE stays bought all the time and forever. It's ALL horse trading, no one is simon-pure and every elected official must make hard compromises on some policy positions to achieve larger agendas.

Please consider my agenda, too: Whichever candidate we send to the ring against the clown who's managed to push the others outta the car, let's try to ensure they arrive with a strong, viable reservoir of popular support as well as money from the Oligarchs who will be hedging their bets, as always. Because yes, we want whoever it is to be indebted to popular support as much as possible.

beseechingly,
Bright

July 27, 2015

"The Face of Rape Culture"

Yeah, I know that's just a red flag term "rape culture," simply ASKING to start a big fat semantic debate and bring the MRA wackjobs out from under their rocks.

Nevertheless, I want to share this quote from a commentin John Scalzi's blog:

Bill Cosby is a serial rapist. He’s raped dozens of women over his life. And at the center of that, by his own words? Bill Cosby doesn’t think he raped anyone.

We persist, in America, to think of rape as strangers in bushes with knives or guns. But Bill Cosby is the face of the most common rape in America — someone you know, armed only with pressure tactics and some sedatives (booze is a common choice). A guy who believes, until the end, that he just talked you into it. That he ‘set the mood’. That he did nothing wrong.

That’s the culture, the beliefs that feed into the most common forms of rape. The fact that he used pills rather than booze, that he was ‘famous’ and ‘connected’ somehow makes it easier to see than if he was just a guy you were on a date with, who kept pushing drinks on you and wouldn’t leave until you gave in.

Bill Cosby is the face of rape culture. A woman who was raped, and a man who thinks he didn’t do anything wrong.

And good lord, how do you stop THAT? If the criminal literally never thinks what he’s doing is a crime — what reason does he have to stop?

Because this validates my own rape survival and I think it does so for way too many other women as well.

And that's more important to me- that validation- than yet another tedious argument about semantics and legalities.

One more quote, also referred to in the post that comment is from:

"One of the most radical things you can do is believe women when they talk about their experiences."

And way, way, WAY too many of us experience living in a rape culture.

Deal with it.

assertively,
Bright

July 20, 2015

The Post I Haven't Really Wanted to Make About BLM

I'm torn between two important bits of awareness.

The first is that affirming #BlackLivesMatter TO ME, is part of a process that's been somewhat-useful in the evolutionary process of social change, through the ages. That is, when you qualify as "mainstream" or "majority" or (quite frankly) "part of the problem," and you acknowledge the problem, take ownership of your share-by-default, and add your voice to the demands for change, you might-- just might-- raise the awareness of, and empower others like yourself, to make way for change.

And that's largely a good thing. So, there's that.

But here's the other awareness:

IT'S NOT ABOUT ME.

And trying to insert myself into the discussion as though what I say matters, perpetuates the whole "part of the problem" issue.

The voices that we need to be listening to, resonating to, responding to are not voices like mine.

Honestly, if I were a candidate-- caucasian middle-aged me? I'm not at all sure what kind of useful response I could make to a flash group of activists using the spotlight directed at me to get their message across.

A very important message.

A message I agree with.

A message I don't really want to dilute with well-intentioned platitudes, endorsements, affirmations, etc.

Because even though as a candidate, my voice would have some relevance, it could never begin to match the power of those speaking for themselves, their family members, friends, loved ones.

What would I say?

I don't know, I'm not a candidate, I haven't been in that situation. I might say something stupid, clueless, tone-deaf.

That wouldn't change the reality and the passion of my belief that those who are speaking need to be listened to, and that we need to change.

uncertainly,
Bright

July 10, 2015

Damn' Straight, I Shouldn't Have to Work "Hard(er!)"

I posted this initially in September, 2010, but it seems like the right time to re-post it, in response to, well... you know.

Damn' straight, I shouldn't have to work "hard!"

Not when "hard" is defined by people who think that your ass is lazy if you're not gasping in misery at the end of the 10-hour work day.

Not when "hard" means standing on my feet on hard concrete surfaces without a break for hours, with a bare few minutes for lunch and bathroom breaks, and hot, smelly air choking me until the migraine is so bad I can hardly find my locker to pick up my purse at the end of the day.

Not when "hard" means that my "exempt" job "exempts" me from being paid overtime for the extra ten hours a week I routinely have to put in at a flickering computer monitor in an ergonomic nightmare of a chair, with sleazy supervisors telling me how lazy I am and denying me raises because the company's profit margin isn't inflated enough.

Not when "hard" means bending over in the hot sun, muscling a heavy piece of equipment intended to be operated by two people all on my own.

Not when "hard" means accepting shitty pay and constant disrespect, suspicion, and superior attitudes from people whose only "qualification" for the job is that their brother-in-law is a company Vice President.

Not when "hard" means getting a theoretical two weeks' vacation I never get to take because if I do, my job will have been disappeared by the time I get back, "re-organized" so that two even worse-paid part-time employees take over the work.

Not when "hard" means no benefits and barely enough pay to eat on and three months behind in the rent and no money to pay for the medication I need to keep breathing without wheezing constantly, but I'm still expected to be on-the-bounce, cheerful, willing to stay late and arrive early and take over the extra work required when a co-worker is out sick.

No, you fuckers, you're right. I DON'T want to "work hard," you piece-of-crap smug sleazy empty suited heartless amoral assholes. I DON'T want to "work hard" so that you can keep making payments on your Lexus and sneer at me because I'm behind on my mortgage and "not making good financial decisions."

I want to WORK.

I want to work with DIGNITY.

I want to work for a LIVING WAGE.

I want to work for the feeling that what I do is IMPORTANT and APPRECIATED and DECENTLY COMPENSATED.

THAT'S how I want to work.

That's what UNIONS used to be for: To keep you slimy, self-righteous, greedy, arrogant shitheels from being able to take advantage of my need for a job, my need to support myself and my family and feel like I'm pulling my own weight in the world by regarding me as a disposable commodity that can be pushed around, treated like crap, and ditched whenever your fucking profit margin drops below two hundred percent and your bonus or your stock options are in jeopardy.

And then you can justify your smarmy, hypocritical, vicious, parasitical behavior by sniffing superciliously about how I "don't want to work hard."

Damn'.

Fucking.

STRAIGHT!

furiously,
Bright

July 8, 2015

The Polyamorous Neighbors You Don't Know

The topic of plural marriage is heating up around here, and the ripples are slopping in predictable directions.

I've already said what I have to say on the topic in general, so I'm not gonna rehash the Bigger Picture.

But one issue I DO want to address is the numerous iterations of this argument that popped up in that thread and continue to pop up in other threads on the topic (Le Taz Hot's deeply-felt post on the difference between rape and polygamy, among others):

"There's a lot of exploitive, rapey, evil, misogynist polygyny out there. And I, personally, don't see a whole lot of healthy, wholesome, consensual polyamory out there. Therefore I must conclude that the exploitive, rapey, evil polygyny is a fair representation of "polygamy" and what would happen if plural marriage were legitimated and I DON'T WANT THAT."

Well, I don't want the positive sanction and proliferation of nasty exploitive rapey polygyny, EITHER, so can we at least start out with that as common ground?

Here's what I'm picking out of that argument that bothers me, though: The "I don't see a lot of healthy, wholesome, consensual polyamory out there, therefore there must not be much, therefore there wouldn't be much if plural marriage were legitimated," train of reasoning.

Consensual, thoughtful, intentional, shared polyamorous orientation and even commitment are pretty invisible for a damn' good reason. A reason very similar to why BDSM was relatively invisible until recently, and somewhat similar to why the "closet" was the primary habitat for LBGT folk until during my lifetime:

It's strongly, overwhelmingly, and near-universally misunderstood and negatively-sanctioned in our culture. (Yeah, one from the "duh" file, but it appears to need stating and re-stating, ad infinitum.)

Most polyamorists are STILL IN THE CLOSET, in other words.

Some "beard" as "swingers." (Not to be confused with the real thing-- monogamists who enjoy a little mutually-consensual variety in their sex lives.) Many live apparently monogamist lifestyles with one partner, just because it's easier.

Ethical polyamorous individuals sometimes accept a monogamous relationship because it's easier, too.

But some work out a clear prior understanding with their monogamous partner: There's no need for the monogamous partner to participate, but the polyamorous individual may have other, consensual, loving sexual relationships with other partners. In some cases, those other partners are welcome, albeit necessarily not permanent, members of the household. In some cases, the "household" the polyamorous person lives in, is spread over multiple dwellings.

These are not optimal arrangements, but they are required, because, remember that reaction you just viscerally had when I wrote about the "clear prior understanding with their monogamous partner?" Somewhere deep inside you hollered "bullshit! They just want permission to CHEAT, the selfish barstids!" didn't you?

The kind of people who are driven to pursue creepy exploitive nonconsensual polygyny usually associate themselves with whole subcultures of other sickos like themselves, and they're really not interested in living in the same culture as the rest of us, because, well, they know the whole "nonconsensual exploitation" thing is at the heart of why they do it, and it's a pretty big stretch to expect the rest of the world to backpedal into that swamp.

The kind of people who are ethically, thoughtfully, naturally polyamorous don't necessarily want to go live in a teeny little subculture with one another where they can be marginalized, stigmatized, prosecuted now and then, and generally made to pay a hellish price for the consensual expression of their sexuality with other adults.

So, you don't know them. But there are more of them than you think.

But they might live next door to you.

patiently,
Bright

July 6, 2015

Plural marriage and its challenges

"Plural marriage" is a generic term for when more than two people decide they wish to form a family, create a lasting household together for mutual support and love, and obtain social recognition of their commitment to one another.

If you stop there, it's just possible to see the horizon where this is another Great Civil Rights fight, queuing up to change American consciousness and society.

And if you stop there, its easy to see why those who regard plural marriage as such get offended when various forms of plural marriage are equated to nonconsensual exploitation, cruelty, and/or criminal behavior. As in, the assumption that advocating the legalization of polygamy-- a form of plural marriage-- is being used to discredit same-sex marriage.

This is the same school of thought that wants to turn "You throw like a GIRL" from an insult into a badge of pride. (see: "Davis, Mo'ne&quot Fuck you people, you think assigning onus to a reference can MAKE it onerous? We'll show you.

I get this.

Partly because I think that sometime down the road, we'll achieve a redefinition of marriage big enough to include the triads, foursomes, even fivesomes-- who knows? More? Individuals who perceive the bond of love as the basis of creating a home and family, a unit of support and comfort, a growth medium for children and adults alike, independent of past assumptions about the "roles" inherent in one-to-one marriage.

I think we'll get there.

Maybe not soon, though.

Because for now, there are problems, inherent not in the present or the future, but in the ugly past of a particular variety of plural marriage.

Let's be clear: Polyandry has never been a problem. Partnerships that involve more than one member of more than one gender are such a vanishingly small percentage that they haven't even cracked the phenomenonological perception barrier.

Polygamy, however, has a very long, and very repulsive history as a tool of the patriarchy for the control of women. And in the case of some of our more fetid doctrinal interpretations of Guy God-dom, it remains exactly that tool.

How do we legitimate plural marriage, without enabling that vile practice?

I'm open to suggestion.

I think that discussion might be a more productive approach to the challenge than simply name-calling and/or demanding that we accept each others' points of view without acknowledging the problems inherent in both sides.

But... I recognize that here and now probably isn't the most likely place for such a discussion to emerge.

wistfully,
Bright

May 4, 2015

Can We Stop Saying "Pam Geller Has Free Speech?"

What she has, is Constitutionally protected speech.

Hate speech carries a heavy, terrible, sometimes generations-long, price tag.

It is not, and never has been "free."

Someone always pays for it.

Usually innocents.

Constitutionally-protected speech, used to urge the denial of life, rights, and equity to others, has nothing to do with "freedom," so it's not "free" that way, either.

I'm willing to concede hate speech its Constitutional protection.

I am not willing to miscall it "free" in any way.

That is all.

obstinately,
Bright