Black Lives Matter and Gay Pride Parades

[Jolly_Penguin]

I would like to applaud Black Lives Matter for not hijacking the gay pride parade this year in Toronto. Or if they did, it was more low key and I haven't heard of it yet.

There were a few from BLM marching with signs merely saying "reminder that queer includes black" etc, but nothing held anything up from what I can tell. It all seemed positive.

 

[repoman]

Fuck, just make sure that district attorneys that don't treat cops like other citizens aren't invited. That is where real problem lies.

If it is shown that a DA seriously half stepped on a grand jury for a police involved shooting, disinvite and make a major stink about it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I spoke too soon

PM Selfie had already said something suitably vacuous about “celebrating inclusivity” and “respect for each other,” clearly not caring how silly he sounded given that banning all Toronto police and all forces around the province from marching — courtesy of Black Lives Matter-Toronto (BLM-Toronto) — isn’t what I’d call inclusive or respectful.

It had become obvious as I trekked down Yonge St. that the attendance was way down this year, no doubt due to the taint created by the police ban. The crowd had gaps in many places and the sidewalks were not nearly as crowded as I’d seen in years gone by when I marched with the Kulanu and LGBTory groups

(Mind you, I can predict that Pride officials will claim that it was a wonderful event, well-attended and full of inclusivity, blah, blah, blah.)

So I planted myself at Yonge and Maitland beside a police officer to watch the rest of parade march by.

P.C. Joanne Bortoluss was standing inside the barricades in full regalia — uniform, gun, and neon yellow vest — and not one person appeared to be “intimidated” or “marginalized” by her.

In fact, at least three dozen marchers came up to thank her for being there and to express their regret that the police were not marching this year.

Bortoluss told me she felt “very touched” by the support.

I wasn't aware that they bowed to BLM and banned the police from marching int he parade. That's a bit pathetic.

 

[repoman]

Well if you can't go after the DAs instead of the cops, most of which are good why not have a #blaxit.



The point is that only the DAs or similar authorities can bring justice. You expect a cop who fucked up badly or who is even racist to voluntarily be punished? BLM is full of a lot well meaning dullards. Better if they were not here.

Next have an #Antifexit.

 

[Mumbles]

Well...yes.

LGBT groups have their own racial issues, that are being addressed now. There are clear reasons why black GBT groups do not want to appear alongside police groups - mostly relating to brutality and sexual assault - and since these police are being openly invited over the strong objections of black LGBT groups, well...

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Well...yes.

LGBT groups have their own racial issues, that are being addressed now. There are clear reasons why black GBT groups do not want to appear alongside police groups - mostly relating to brutality and sexual assault - and since these police are being openly invited over the strong objections of black LGBT groups, well...

The police in Toronto have a bad history with LGBT folks, and have come a long way. The police marching alongside the LGBT people in the parade is an explicit statement that the police policy is to stand in support and be inclusive of the LGBT community. The vast majority of LGBT people support this.

Why should BLM be allowed to BAN the police from marching, fo against the will of the majority and hijack the parade for their own cause?

I wonder how people would react if the roles were all reversed.

What if the government banned Muslims from participation in black history month despite most blacks wanting wide support, because some gay black people objected to Islam's bigotry towards homosexuality?

For that matter, what if Trump banned Muslims from entering the USA because some of them are dangerous bad people so some Americans oppose them being there? You know, despite that most of them aren't. Isn't that similar to BLM wanting police banned from marching in the parade? Most of them aren't abusive towards blacks, right?

 

[laughing dog]

Well...yes.

LGBT groups have their own racial issues, that are being addressed now. There are clear reasons why black GBT groups do not want to appear alongside police groups - mostly relating to brutality and sexual assault - and since these police are being openly invited over the strong objections of black LGBT groups, well...

The police in Toronto have a bad history with LGBT folks, and have come a long way. The police marching alongside the LGBT people in the parade is an explicit statement that the police policy is to stand in support and be inclusive of the LGBT community. The vast majority of LGBT people support this.

Why should BLM be allowed to BAN the police from marching, fo against the will of the majority and hijack the parade for their own cause?

I wonder how people would react if the roles were all reversed.

What if the government banned Muslims from participation in black history month despite most blacks wanting wide support, because some gay black people objected to Islam's bigotry towards homosexuality?

For that matter, what if Trump banned Muslims from entering the USA because some of them are dangerous bad people so some Americans oppose them being there? You know, despite that most of them aren't. Isn't that similar to BLM wanting police banned from marching in the parade? Most of them aren't abusive towards blacks, right?

If you cannot differentiate between gov't action and private action, then rational discussion is not possible.

 

[Mumbles]

Well...yes.

LGBT groups have their own racial issues, that are being addressed now. There are clear reasons why black GBT groups do not want to appear alongside police groups - mostly relating to brutality and sexual assault - and since these police are being openly invited over the strong objections of black LGBT groups, well...

The police in Toronto have a bad history with LGBT folks, and have come a long way. The police marching alongside the LGBT people in the parade is an explicit statement that the police policy is to stand in support and be inclusive of the LGBT community. The vast majority of LGBT people support this.

Why should BLM be allowed to BAN the police from marching, fo against the will of the majority and hijack the parade for their own cause?

I wonder how people would react if the roles were all reversed.

What if the government banned Muslims from participation in black history month despite most blacks wanting wide support, because some gay black people objected to Islam's bigotry towards homosexuality?

For that matter, what if Trump banned Muslims from entering the USA because some of them are dangerous bad people so some Americans oppose them being there? You know, despite that most of them aren't. Isn't that similar to BLM wanting police banned from marching in the parade? Most of them aren't abusive towards blacks, right?

Well, you'll never see me endorsing Toupee Fiasco in the first place, so let's put that aside.

I don't know much about any history of racism outside of the US, so there's that. But I do know that, in thew US, cops are not friendly towards LGBT non-white folks. And I also know that the modern LGBT movement was started in large part by black LGBT groups. So when they object to these groups welcoming cops, I listen...

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why should BLM be allowed to BAN the police from marching, fo against the will of the majority and hijack the parade for their own cause?

It is part of the oppression Olympics, they want to remind everyone who is "more" oppressed.

 

[laughing dog]

Why should BLM be allowed to BAN the police from marching, fo against the will of the majority and hijack the parade for their own cause?

BLM did not ban the police from marching. They wanted the police prevented from marching, and the organizers relented. If you are going to be upset, you really ought to be more upset with the organizers. Instead, you whine about BLM. Have you given any thought why you feel the need to harp and criticize BLM to a large degree but not the organizers of the parade?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Have you given any thought why you feel the need to harp and criticize BLM to a large degree but not the organizers of the parade?

reading comprehension fail

I wasn't aware that they bowed to BLM and banned the police from marching int he parade. That's a bit pathetic.

 

[laughing dog]

reading comprehension fail

I wasn't aware that they bowed to BLM and banned the police from marching int he parade. That's a bit pathetic.

Yes, you called your response perfectly. One mention by you in this thread about the organizers. And calling it a bit pathetic is harping on the organizers.

On the otherhand, you make a snide comment on the OP about the BLM, then make an outright false claim about them banning the police in part of a longer tirade. Even though this thread is short, you've spent much more space on BLM than on the actual people who did the banning.

I take it you have not given it any thought why you feel the need to focus (which does not mean exclusively concentrate on) your criticism on the party who did not do the actual banning. You really should think about it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So, one group behaves badly to get another group to give in to a request hoping they won't continue behaving badly. And you are asking me why I criticize the first slightly more than the second. Unless the first group is one of children and the second group is one of adults, I think I've got this right.

Remember the history:

1. There is a long and ugly history in Toronto of the Police and society in general of derision and violence against LGBT people, including an infamous series of raids on gay bathhouses. LGBT people have been told for decades to be ashamed of who they are.

2. Instead of reacting with violence or hatred towards heterosexuals, some LGBT people created Pride, the opposite of shame, and decided to celebrate who they are and to march in parades, inviting all of society to join them so that all of society can show itself to be changing and to be accepting and inclusive of LGBT people. Perception is often reality, and these displays have grown over the years. The Toronto Police Force, ashamed and remorseful over its past actions towards LGBT people has come out to the parade for a number of years, as a public display that it stands with the LGBT people and that officers within it who abuse LGBT people are going against the Police Force. Pride has welcomed their attendance and the whole thing is quite a beautiful show of love, inclusion and progress.

3. Though to a lesser degree than LGBT people, or especially than native people, Black people have also endured a history in Toronto of being abused by the Police.

4. Rather than organizing their own events or parade (or maybe in addition to), BLM (which we should be mindful does not represent all blacks in Toronto), engaged in the Oppression Olympics last year by interrupting and delaying the Pride Parade. BLM then also interrupted a rather historic public apology from the Toronto Police to the LGBT community for its past abuse towards them. BLM was rightly criticized for both of these actions.

5. I attended Pride this year and noticed some people with signs connecting them to BLM that were positive and inclusive. One read "Gay includes black". I started this thread and commended these people, and I commended BLM for improving its behaviour.

6. I then learned that BLM demanded of Pride that it forbid the Toronto Police from joining in the Pride Parade, and that Pride bowed to this pressure. Follow BLM's behaviour last year it is a little understandable why Pride bowed to this demand, but it goes against the message of inclusivity that Pride has been about for the past number of years and may bolster the rift that remains between the police and the LGBT community, so I quoted an article pointing this out, and I criticized Pride.

7. You then decided to troll me by pointing out that I criticized the problem (BLM's behaviour) slightly more than Pride's enabling of it.

Do you have a point?

 

[laughing dog]

So, one group behaves badly to get another group to give in to a request hoping they won't continue behaving badly. And you are asking me why I criticize the first slightly more than the second. Unless the first group is one of children and the second group is one of adults, I think I've got this right.

Remember the history:

1. There is a long and ugly history in Toronto of the Police and society in general of derision and violence against LGBT people, including an infamous series of raids on gay bathhouses. LGBT people have been told for decades to be ashamed of who they are.

2. Instead of reacting with violence or hatred towards heterosexuals, some LGBT people created Pride, the opposite of shame, and decided to celebrate who they are and to march in parades, inviting all of society to join them so that all of society can show itself to be changing and to be accepting and inclusive of LGBT people. Perception is often reality, and these displays have grown over the years. The Toronto Police Force, ashamed and remorseful over its past actions towards LGBT people has come out to the parade for a number of years, as a public display that it stands with the LGBT people and that officers within it who abuse LGBT people are going against the Police Force. Pride has welcomed their attendance and the whole thing is quite a beautiful show of love, inclusion and progress.

3. Though to a lesser degree than LGBT people, or especially than native people, Black people have also had a bit of a history in Toronto of being abused by the Police.

4. Rather than organizing their own events or parade (or maybe in addition to), BLM (which we should be mindful does not represent all blacks in Toronto), engaged in the Oppression Olympics last year by interrupting and delaying the Pride Parade. BLM then also interrupted a rather historic public apology from the Toronto Police to the LGBT community for its past abuse towards them. BLM was rightly criticized for both of these actions.

5. I attended Pride this year and noticed some people with signs connecting them to BLM that were positive and inclusive. One read "Gay includes black". I started this thread and commended these people, and I commended BLM for improving its behaviour.

6. I then learned that BLM demanded of Pride that it forbid the Toronto Police from joining in the Pride Parade, and that Pride bowed to this pressure. Follow BLM's behaviour last year it is a little understandable why Pride bowed to this demand, but it goes against the message of inclusivity that Pride has been about for the past number of years and may bolster the rift that remains between the police and the LGBT community, so I quoted an article pointing this out, and I criticized Pride.

7. You then decided to troll me by pointing out that I criticized the problem (BLM's behaviour) slightly more than Pride's enabling of it.

Remember the history: BLM is not the problem here - it is Pride's compliance that is causing the problem. Yet you feel the need to persist in whining about BLM instead of Pride. I asked if you had given any thought why you feel the need to focus on BLM instead of the organizers. Instead of saying "No", you post a dumb response that reinforces my point and end it with a passive aggressive insult.

It is clear you feel it is unfair to ask you to actually think about why you feel the need to focus on BLM's objectionable demand rather than the organizer's compliance. Interesting.

Do you want a cookie?

Employing condescending and passive aggressive insults is a hallmark of an ass, not an intelligent high minded discussant.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Employing condescending and passive aggressive insults is a hallmark of an ass, not an intelligent high minded discussant.

You should read this quote back to yourself after 90% of the posts you write on here.

Remember the history: BLM is not the problem here - it is Pride's compliance that is causing the problem.

BLM is the root problem here. Pride, by bowing to BLM after being harassed by BLM is a secondary problem.

 

[ronburgundy]

Why should BLM be allowed to BAN the police from marching, fo against the will of the majority and hijack the parade for their own cause?

BLM did not ban the police from marching. They wanted the police prevented from marching, and the organizers relented. If you are going to be upset, you really ought to be more upset with the organizers. Instead, you whine about BLM. Have you given any thought why you feel the need to harp and criticize BLM to a large degree but not the organizers of the parade?

Because these BLMers were the one's most culpable, immoral, moronic, and destructive. They used their standard coercive tactics to send a destructive divisive message that all cops are evil and there should be no allowing anyone that happens to be a cop to show public support for the gay community. The organizers were coerced into giving into this harmful idiocy, with their only other option being to have their parade co-opted and disrupted by BLMers upping the probability of violence and property destruction.

IOW, what they did was far worse than a "ban". They used threats of disruption and conflict to coerce others to ban the cops from the parade, which does nothing but cause harm to both the LGBT cause and the causes the BLMers pretend to care about.

If you cannot differentiate between gov't action and private action, then rational discussion is not possible.

It is these BLMers who have proven their inability to engage in rational discussion or reasonable political action, due to their inability to differentiate between the individual police officers wanting to show support during the parade and police officers who they think have engaged in unjust and racist actions. Not so ironically, but very moronically, they are engaging in the exact same group-think bigotry "they are all evil" mentality at the heart of the racist ideology.

 

[laughing dog]

BLM is the root problem here. Pride, by bowing to BLM after being harassed by BLM is a secondary problem.

If Pride did not bow to BLM, I doubt there would have this thread.

 

[laughing dog]

Because these BLMers were the one's most culpable, immoral, moronic, and destructive. ...blah blah blah...

No one has to pay attention to them. Pride could say no. Groups and people make demands of others all the time that are denied. No one was coerced under the normal meaning of the term.

It is these BLMers ...

Your screed is immaterial to the actual point I made. There is a world of difference between government banning something and a private entity demanding that something be banned. It is irrational to conflate the two.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

BLM is the root problem here. Pride, by bowing to BLM after being harassed by BLM is a secondary problem.

Even Pride did not bow to BLM, there would have been no thread.

If Pride did not bow to BLM's coercion, I'm pretty sure there would still be a thread. BLM likely would have engaged in the same disruptive behaviour as last year, and a thread would have likely resulted.

Even if BLM hadn't behaved badly at all, this thread would still exist, as I started it by commending BLM for what at first appeared to be improved behaviour. I was happy to see the "Gay includes Black" signs.

 

[ronburgundy]

No one has to pay attention to them. Pride could say no. Groups and people make demands of others all the time that are denied. No one was coerced under the normal meaning of the term.

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. IT is just as coercive as if some guy corners a woman in room and physically blocks her path unless she sucks his dick. He is using no more "force" than BLMers have done and would have done this year if they demands were not met. By your logic, the women that suck the man's dick to be allowed to continue on her way made a free choice to do so and was not coerced and nothing wrong was done.

It is these BLMers ...

Your screed is immaterial to the actual point I made. There is a world of difference between government banning something and a private entity demanding that something be banned. It is irrational to conflate the two.

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.

It is irrational not to recognize this fact and dishonest to pretend that BLM didn't and has not repeatedly used physical force to coercively stop others, and in some instances (like with freeway stoppages) engaged in criminal acts equivalent to false imprisonment.