Black Lives Matter and Gay Pride Parades

[laughing dog]

Normal meaning of coercion and its moral equivalents certainly do include what BLM did which is use the threat of physically stopping the procession of the parade and causing a conflict guaranteed to derail both the event and its intended purpose and likely to cause a volatile confrontation. ..

No. A vocal threat is not coercion.

There no moral difference or difference in the erosion of individual liberties between government banning something and a private entity physically preventing another private entity from engaging in its desired personal activity and creating a likely riotous situation unless they get their demand met that the second entity ban a particular group of people from the activity.

There is logical, moral and actual difference. It is irrational to claim otherwise. I am not defending the BLM demand but there is no need to engage in hyperbole and irrationality in order to advance a position.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am not defending the BLM

BLM is not the problem here

BLM Is the root problem here. Pride bowing to BLM's threat is a secondary problem.

What you are saying is like saying that the mob isn't the problem, and that the people who they threaten into paying them "protection" money are.

 

[laughing dog]

BLM is not the problem here

BLM Is the root problem here. Pride bowing to BLM's threat is a secondary problem.

I think Pride complying with the BLM demand is the primary problem. The BLM demand is the secondary problem.

What you are saying is like saying that the mob isn't the problem, and that the people who they threaten into paying them "protection" money are.

No, it isn't.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No. A vocal threat is not coercion.

You make an interesting distinction. BLM said they would use force, but at no time did they use force. Critics of BLM might say they didn't use force because they got what they wanted.

So if a mugger says "give me your money or I will shoot you" he is not using coercion because at this point he is only using words. It is a voiced threat.

How thinner can you split that hair?

 

[Derec]

No. A vocal threat is not coercion.

You are wrong, as usual.

 

[laughing dog]

No. A vocal threat is not coercion.

You make an interesting distinction. BLM said they would use force, but at no time did they use force.

Right. Pride could have said no and reported this to the police in order to have a police presence to avoid the threat. By giving in, not only did BLM get what they wanted, but it tells the BLM that their tactics work (i.e. it will happen again).

Critics of BLM might say they didn't use force because they got what they wanted.

Not only critics but apologists. They did get what they wanted. But to call that coercion when it is easily counteracted is absurd.

So if a mugger says "give me your money or I will shoot you" he is not using coercion because at this point he is only using words. It is a voiced threat.

A threat to shoot is a lethal one that is not easily counter acted compared to a threat to disrupt a parade. So your example is inapt and inept.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

A threat to shoot is a lethal one that is not easily counter acted

So? You said

No. A vocal threat is not coercion.

Apparently you are disagreeing with yourself again. That's twice on one page.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

They did get what they wanted. But to call that coercion when it is easily counteracted is absurd.

Sure, Pride could have brought in lot of police and created a clash between the police and the BLM people, possibly erupting in violence, and definitely bringing the focus of their even off of what it is supposed to be about. So in submitting to the threats of BLM, in an attempt to keep their event as on message as they can, Pride is the problem? And BLM should be treated like a group of petulant children, not expected to behave themselves?

And you whine at me when I criticize BLM ever so slightly more than Pride? Seriously?

And is that it, or do you have more of a point to make?

 

[laughing dog]

So? You said

No. A vocal threat is not coercion.

Apparently you are disagreeing with yourself again. That's twice on one page.

In order to successfully use pedantry to make a point, you need to read with comprehension or at least not take a quote of context. You did not.

Sure, Pride could have brought in lot of police and created a clash between the police and the BLM people, possibly erupting in violence, and definitely bringing the focus of their even off of what it is supposed to be about.....

Or the nothing might have happened or the clash is quickly subdued.

So in submitting to the threats of BLM, in an attempt to keep their event as on message as they can, Pride is the problem? And BLM should be treated like a group of petulant children, not expected to behave themselves?

Anyone who read
I think Pride complying with the BLM demand is the primary problem. The BLM demand is the secondary problem. with a modicum of reading comprehension would quickly see that your questions were answered.

And you whine at me when I criticize BLM ever so slightly more than Pride? Seriously?

Ever so slightly? Wow.

And is that it, or do you have more of a point to make?

No.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And you whine at me when I criticize BLM ever so slightly more than Pride? Seriously?

Ever so slightly? Wow.

Yes... ever so slightly. You realized that initially, and apparently you now don't.

And is that it, or do you have more of a point to make?

No.

Well congratulations on your pointless whiny derail then. We'll try to take you less seriously in the future.

 

[laughing dog]

Ever so slightly? Wow.

Yes... ever so slightly. You realized that initially, and apparently you now don't.

Wrong on both counts

Well congratulations on your pointless whiny derail then.

Asking you to think about something is not whining. Nor is it a derail. You misread the meaning of the no (you asked an or question). So wrong on the whiny, derail and your interpretation of the no. Congratulations - zero for five.

We'll try to take you less seriously in the future.

I think that is an excellent strategy given your demonstrated inability to comprehend posts or to construct reasoned arguments while taking posts more seriously.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes... ever so slightly. You realized that initially, and apparently you now don't.

Wrong on both counts

So you didn't realize it initially, and now you do. Aren't you fun.

Asking you to think about something is not whining. Nor is it a derail.

Its a total derail. You took us away from the topic with some snarky and meaningless muck without making any sort of point.

You misread the meaning of the no (you asked an or question).

Yeah you responded to an or question with "no". Your terse and ambiguous language is not my problem. We're not here to play guess what laughing dog is trying to say. Such a game would be a further derail by you. And apparently you had no point, as you never made one.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Some correction is necessary here. Our only source on this is right-wing newspaper and that doesn't say police are banned, it implies police in uniform are banned from marching. Wearing the uniform is some kind of statement on behalf of the police and the purpose of the parade is not necessarily to allow the police to make political statements, it's instead "gay pride." This is especially the case of police because of historical relation and current "errors in judgment"--to say it mildly.

So, putting this in proper context, a different analogy: should a Boy Scout Parade also allow Catholic priests in uniform not associated to the Boy Scouts of America in any way to march in full Catholic priest garb? The Catholic priest garb has nothing to do with Boy Scouts of America. If I frame it like: Catholic priests are getting somewhat better at not being pedophiles, does that make it right? Now if members of the Catholic Priest Victims of America And Their Families, Inc comes along, some of whom were marching in the parade because they are Boy Scouts or Leaders, and they say "ummm...individual catholic priests who are associated with the Boy Scouts can certainly march in the parade, but not in uniform because that's making a PR statement that masks how the Church continues victimization, and if they do, we'll put up a stank," then I bet there wouldn't be as much opposition in this forum to the whole idea...

I mean, there's some anti-Church sentiment here but there's also some anti-BLM and anti-black bs. But let's at least deal with the actual details of the story, that it's about uniforms and politics, not bad black thugs who are alleged to be irrational and violent, like the mafia.

 

[laughing dog]

Wrong on both counts

So you didn't realize it initially, and now you do. Aren't you fun.

No. It is not "ever so slightly". Your entire analysis is based on a false premise. But thanks for yet another condescending reply.

Its a total derail. You took us away from the topic with some snarky and meaningless muck without making any sort of point.

No, I did not. I asked a question on topic.

Yeah you responded to an or question with "no". Your terse and ambiguous language is not my problem. We're not here to play guess what laughing dog is trying to say.

My answer was not ambiguous. You asked “And is that it, or do you have more of a point to make?”. Obviously, my answer No applies to both parts of the question. So, it is No to “And is that it”, and it is No to Do you have more of a point to make?” No guessing is needed to determine the meaning, just clear thinking.

And apparently you had no point, as you never made one.

I made my point – that you had not thought about why you focused on the BLM’s demand instead of the Pride’s compliance.

Interestingly, in a response you posted
And BLM should be treated like a group of petulant children, not expected to behave themselves?

Let’s assume the premise of the question is true – that BLM is like a group of petulant children.
Petulant children continue their misbehavior as long as it is successful– as anyone who has reared children knows. The primary problem with petulant children is their caregiver who rewards their behavior via his or her compliance. Pride clearly expected BLM to misbehave if BLM's demand was not met, so Pride complied. By complying (for the 2nd consecutive year) with BLM’s demand, Pride did treat BLM like a group of petulant children. If BLM is like a group of petulant children, there is no reason to expect BLM to change its behavior.

Of course, that analysis assumes that Pride disagreed with BLM’s demands. It is possible that Pride does not really disagree with BLM’s position but is perfectly happy to make BLM the scapegoat in order to avoid scrutiny.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Does anyone even have the primary source of correspondence between BLM and the gay pride organizers, not that these are necessarily mutually exclusive? As in my post before, I don't think that saying police should not march in uniform or we'll protest you is necessarily like acting like "petulant children," especially if such correspondence is well-reasoned. We're already on page#4 here and we haven't been presented with what was actually stated, not to mention it was about wearing uniforms while marching, not about not marching at all...or at least that is implied from the little information we have.

A critique of the right-wing article we were presented with is found here. You can see that the author of the Toronto Sun article has some biases and her and/or fellow Sun author engage in some lying and contradictions. In any case, see this section:

...she interviewed two self-described longtime parade attendees who claimed they would not be going this year due to Pride accommodating Black Lives Matter’s demands to exclude uniformed police officers from marching in the parade...

Emphasis added. So again, individual police could march without uniforms to make a political statement it would seem. Likewise, police could do their jobs outside the parade by being uniformed, protecting civilians etc etc. I will add that when I was in the military we were told we couldn't attend non-military events (such as political protests) in our uniforms. The uniforms are issued by the government for government purposes.

Enough about uniforms yet?

Okay, how about a discussion about the homophobic pastor who attended the pride parade?

But the real question is why didn't the Dyke Marchers make the homophobic pastor feel more included and welcomed?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hi Don,

Thanks for raising some interesting points. Yes, the wearing of the uniform does send a message, and the police could attend as anonymous individuals not showing affiliation with the police (though I wouldn't put it passed BLM to still object if they found out). I also agree that had Pride without being coerced and bullied by BLM decided to exclude police marching in the parade, that would be understandable though regrettable. They do have a horrid history.

Having marched in this parade for years as a bisexual man in Toronto, I can personally tell you firsthand that Pride has always been inclusive, and has invited one and all to attend. The whole idea is to gain exposure and normalcy and acceptance by the community at large, and we've come a long way in doing so. This started as a daring taboo picnic event, and has now transitioned into a huge parade celebrated by pretty much everybody in the city. The police, attending in uniform, has been part of this for a while now, and they have been invited for good reason - to have the police publicly display that they are on our side.

I would also like to point out that though black people have always been a part of Pride, they didn't "build it" as BLM is claiming. They were actually not very active in it until now, and black LGBT people were more hesitant than most in coming out of the closet, for fear of reaction of their own families and communities. I don't know if Toronto's black people are more homophobic than others in Toronto, but I do know that a lot of gay black people think so. So I strongly encourage the "Gay includes black" message, and as I wrote in the OP, I was very happy to see it. I was afraid that after last year's shenanigans by BLM, decent right minded black people would give up this message for fear of looking like BLM assholes. When I saw this message presented by somebody from BLM itself, I was especially pleased and thought they'd learned to behave and channel themselves towards something praiseworthy. I hadn't been following the demands of BLM and surrender of Pride organizers to them. That's why I started this thread by praising BLM. Of course, now we see I was mistaken.

I don't appreciate BLM trying to ride the coat tails of Pride, shut Pride down, or take Pride over or attempt to change Pride's message of inclusivity by pushing the race card in a divisive manner. This year they refused to register (which includes paying a fee), but appeared anyway and stated they don't have to register because they "built it". That is a complete revision of history. I further don't appreciate BLM interrupting and hijacking last year's public apology from the Toronto Police to the gay community. Apparently BLM felt they were losing the oppression olympics and had to butt in. I can't even imagine Pride or any group of LGBT people shutting down or holding up Caribana, though come to think of it that'd be quite a shock given how homophobic many in the communities that celebrate Caribana are.

In the OP I linked to a conservative review of this issue involving Pride, BLM and the Toronto Police. Here is a liberal review of the same by the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/black-lives-matter-toronto-pride-2017-1.4177554

And lastly, I commend the Toronto Police for not letting this stop them from showing their support for the LGBT community. They both raised the rainbow flag at police headquarters and did their own event in support of Pride, inviting all first responders: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/first-responders-pride-unity-festival-1.4177264

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hi Again Don,

Also as you requested, here is another article from CBC showing what actually happened in the voting to make this happen: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pride-board-member-response-1.3947820

The vote regarding the police was a last minute addition to a meeting that is typically about sharing financial statements and electing some new board members.

So apparently, BLM not only played the race card and acted coercively (with their antics holding things up last year; something nobody in Pride wants to happen again), but they also snuck in this unplanned vote with no notice, and also didn't register (and pay) to march in the parade but showed up anyway, and also claimed they "built it" (which they demonstrably did not).

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Here is an opinion piece I also found at the CBC, of a black gay man who opposes what BLM is doing:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/blm-pride-toronto-1.4153736

I, like many people who make up what is likely the silent majority, believe that the Toronto police should be allowed to participate in the gay Pride parade in their uniforms. For one thing, more uniformed officers would mean help would be easier to find if someone is in distress and immediately needs assistance.

But beyond that, the Toronto police has worked hard to build bridges with the gay community — by formally apologizing for the 1981 bathhouse raids, by regularly participating in Pride parades, by raising a rainbow flag outside headquarters for the first time and so forth. Not allowing them to wear their uniforms at Pride is a step backwards for the relationship.

What's more, Pride Toronto has worked hard to create safe spaces for gay LGBTQ people of colour. For instance, for the last near-20 years, Pride has hosted "Blockorama" during the weekend of the parade — an area specifically for black artists, musicians, writers, singers, dancers and regular folk to celebrate black and African cultures. By contrast, there has never been an official program for LGBTQ people during the Toronto Caribbean Carnival, formerly (and colloquially) known as "Caribana."

Indeed, I can honestly say I feel uncomfortable at Caribana due to black homophobia, which Black Lives Matter casually ignores. I am constantly looking over my shoulder in fear of being attacked, simply because I am a gay man. In recent years, I have stayed away entirely. Yet there is virtually no dialogue about anti-LGBTQ prejudice within the black community.

 

[blastula]

I don't see what excluding the uniforms is supposed to accomplish. How is that helping? Does this BLM chapter do anything good otherwise?