You brought up the medieval thing. I don't know what I said that implied that my question had anything to do with that. I never claimed that our view of sexual identity was universal so I also don't know what we're talking about.
Here's a summary of what just happened, in my mind:
- Question through the last pages of the thread: "how do minority movements gain power?".
- One potential answer from you :"well, in this case gay people came out and sort of neutralized the bigotry of their own family".
- My question:"but they could have done this at any time (implicit here being "since homophobia as we recognize it existed", I'm not sure why we need to talk about medieval peoples) . If we don't know why they didn't then we haven't answered the question, anymore than saying "barbarians destroyed Rome" without understanding why they utterly failed in the past doesn't explain why it fell.
- Answer: Something about medieval people.
I don't mean to be dismissive but that really was a tangent to me.
Wouldnt minority movements have to be
given power by the majority first? If we decide as a society, that it is morally okay to enslave all people from asia, what are they going to do to stop us? The only choices they have are to A) Flee, B) Fight, C) Accept their new lot, D) Attempt to change our minds. How does a minority protect itself from a tyranny of the majority? If they had the ability to enforce their will, or numbers, or political control, they would
be the majority.
Well then how do they get the majority to hand over power or enact rules that restrict the majorities activities? They have to convince the majority, or allow the majority to convince themselves, that such rules or the surrender of such power is in the majorities interests, even if such arguments stand entirely on issues of ethics and morality.
On the eve of the civil war, northerners, and abolitionists, still held attitudes of racial superiority. The only sticking point was that they found, in their efforts to strive to be a civilized and upstanding society, they found slavery to be a cruel, unnecessary, and barbaric practice. As a whole, society was convinced, or had convinced itself, that in order for them to move closer to a proper, moral, civilized society, that slavery had to go.
The only people who objected were the southern slaveholders who had economic interests in the institution of slavery.
It was this conflict of interest that led to the civil war, a war that saw the deaths of more americans then any other conflict before or since.
Yes, the North enforced its will on the south, but it took a hundred more years before laws such as jim crow were actually repealed, because the South even in its defeat rebelled both through the laws it enacted, and the society and attitudes that formed after the civil war. No one agrees that the Ku Klux Klan was a good thing, but it arose as a direct outcome of the civil war. Laws such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and outright beating up and murdering anyone who voted were put in to place with the sole purpose of suppressing the black vote, and the political and economic and social activity of the now black majority in the south.
Fifty years after the repeal and suppression of the last overt acts of segregation and oppression, we are only NOW beginning to remove the more subtle acts, such as the laws that take away the right to vote from felons, and the laws that ban the use of marijuana and other drugs. Why? Because again, the majority finds such laws to be opposite our interests, or at least a significant subset of the majority.
The civil war was the greatest act of authoritarian imposition in this nations history, for a good cause to be sure, but it resulted in the direct, violent, uprising and opposition to the federal government. It also lead to over 150 years of resistance and rebellion, and great suffering.
Even today there are examples.
The Virginia Governor repealed laws that remove felons rights to vote, because he found it to be in his interests to do so, laws that were explicitly put into place as a means to deprive black people of their rights and suppress their voice. We have only recently begun to legalize marijuana. Why? Because a growing portion of the majority, whoever or whatever they may be, finds such laws to be unethical, or immoral, and against our interests.
SB itself, The Observer drew attention to the fact that he could replace all the moderators and administrative staff with houseplants if it was his wish. Technically, he was correct, SB is a private forum, it is owned by a private individual. He can do with his property as he wishes. No one agrees that this was a smart move, and it lead directly to the foundation of SV as people became incredibly vocal in their displeasure with this statement.
@LordSquishy himself makes no bones about the same fact. SV is a private institution. For all the rules and laws we make governing the activity that occurs on this board, Lord Squishy could one day wake up in a tyrannical mood and replace the entire moderator staff with his pet pug Sam Barkington McBone the Third, Esquire. None of us could stop him, sort of setting up yet another forum. SV is his private property, it is owned by him, he is the majority, he can do as he likes.
That he sets up and obeys (Mostly, he has...adequate reasons when he doesnt but thats another tale) the rules he has made, and everyone is happy. When he acts in a unilateral manner, and violates these rules, even in a minor way, even when he has a decent reason, people lose their minds. They object, vocally.
Pardon me if I ramble a bit, im not used to writing these long winding essays, and I have no formal education on the skill.