LiveJournal Rebellion

[dawn_felagund]

Well, we're all very active and idealistic on ye olde LJ today, aren't we? I logged in to find my friends' page overrun with posts about various causes. I'm not complaining. I've been known to do a bit of idealistic ranting myself some days. :)

Anyway, probably the most prevalent post today is the "Gay Rights" post. Because I agree with and like the quote, I am going to post it here as well, though everyone has doubtlessly seen it by now.

"Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?"
- Ernest Gaines

Most people have pasted the accompanying part about posting it to show your support or ignoring it to show your lack, but since this has caused problems on the journals of well-meaning people who inadvertantly offended those not prone to post-spam of this sort, I'm going to refrain from that. I don't think that there are any homophobics on my flist anyway. I can't imagine that they'd stay around long, what with me posting slash on a regular basis.

If posting the quote makes you feel as though you are making a positive difference, though, by all means, please post it! I certainly don't mind seeing it around more.

But I'd sooner hear people stop using "gay" as an insult, sooner see people make an effort to become more aware of how they stereotype others not alike to them, and sooner see people have the guts to speak up when some idiot starts their BS about gay people being somehow less of human beings because of their orientation. Perhaps this would lessen the perception that homophobia is okay.

Or maybe posting a thought-provoking quote is a place to start. :)

On a more frivolous--though equally heated--note, there is a petition on LJ to convince LJ not to allow companies to purchase "sponsored accounts" that would allow them to promote their products on LJ. I gave the debate on lj_biz a quick scan, and there seems to be a lot of questions and concerns over this. People fear the power of the Almighty Dollar trumping the rights and wishes of LiveJournal customers.

Having read all of the posts made by the LJ folks and a handful of comments by disgruntled LJ members, I do get the distinct impression that LJ was trying to slide something past us, dressing it up as something that will benefit us as users while really trying to ease past LJ's longstanding commitment to "no ads anywhere!" A commitment that was somewhat broken by instituting the "Plus" accounts that show ads. I know for a fact that sponsored communities were showing up on the front page of LJ for paid users because scienceofsleep showed up on mine for a couple of days as a "Sponsored Community," then disappeared. I remember seeing it and thinking, "Huh. What's this? So now I can get silwritersguild on the front page by handing over some bucks?" Never mind that 99.9% of LJ users won't give a damn about silwritersguild, but money talks more than customer interest, otherwise we would talk to real live people when we call our banks, Internet providers, and credit card companies and our IT concerns would be handled by people who at least spoke our language.

Of course, when the paid users began to complain that they paid not to see adverts--and this includes adverts cloaked as communities--scienceofsleep mysteriously disappeared from my front page. And suddenly, "No, no, no! Paid users won't see this at all unless they choose to see it!" and admission to poor choice of wording on the part of LJ staff (who did, in fact, say that paid users would not be able to avoid seeing sponsored communities listed). However, I saw it for several days, enough to wonder over it, so this makes me immediately skeptical of their honesty on this issue.

Slippery slopes are a dangerous place, but I think that a valid point is made by the folks pointing out the insidious introduction of advertisement onto LiveJournal. First the Plus accounts, now the "sponsored communities"...frankly, I am sick of advertisement, period. I am sick of not being able to go to "Ravens Stadium" but having to go to "M&T Bank Stadium." No, it's not the fucking bank that plays there, it's my damned favorite football team, the Ravens. Or the Republicans who wanted to open national parks to corporate advertisements on the sides of park buildings and buses so that Exxon can dump oil into the sea with one hand and pander to environmentalists with the other. Is there any place left to go where some eejit isn't trying to hawk something at me? I pay $9.25 for a movie ticket (well, really $8.00 since I still have my old UMBC ID card) to sit for the half-hour before the movie starts watching disgusting Sprite commercials of sumo wrestlers smashing a guy's head between their bellies and advert after advert for TV shows where the same startled-looking yuppies somehow go missing. Meh. Let them stay missing, I say.

Advertisement is a necessary evil; I am not so dumb to think otherwise. But as it fills the world more and more, it becomes more and more obnoxious to draw your eye from That Guy's ad to Our Ad. I won't even listen to the radio anymore because I can't stand the blaring, strident ads designed at getting my attention.

So anyway, I signed the petition because LJ, for me, is a community for sharing my thoughts and writing and striking up conversation with like-minded folks and keeping in touch with friends. It is not where I go to watch movie trailers or get free deals, and I think that a good point is made by the folks who bring up that LJ had proclaimed relatively few restrictions for these "sponsored accounts" until a shitstorm was made over the idea that didn't go over quite as well as planned. When companies start throwing big money into a service, those of us who pay our paltry 20 buckaroos per year start to feel understandably nervous of how our rights as customers will shake out next to theirs, and as someone with a fan fiction community, say "Children of Hurin" was made into a movie. Would silwritersguild be made to shut down to give monopoly to the childrenofhurin sponsored community? Surely, they can outbid me.

Anyhoo, those who agree with me or want to read further, check out the petition. And thanks to ithilwen for calling my attention to it! Additionally, the lj_biz community has the posts that have been made about this move and the literally thousands of comments mostly against it.

Comments

[rhapsodythebard.livejournal.com]

If you don't, you will ignore. As someone who rarely returns or posts "forwards" in either email or LJ, I can understand how some people were made uncomfortable by this.

I know, but I see it coming back and it made me wonder if I did something wrong.

It's the idea that people of the same gender might be extended the same rights to marry as hetero couples. Really?

And therefore 'threatening' a corner stone or basic foundation as a society... to their beliefs. Don't forget that politicians will twitch and turn to follow trends. Just a nice example:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich “This bill is everything we don't believe in.” No Republican spinmeister could have put it better.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060928/1041359.asp

Spinmeister is the correct term here.

We see it here now too with the upcoming elections because the reign of this cabinet has caused a lot of misery. Anyhow. It is brought as a threat, it looks like a threat so it must be a threat? I don't think so. What is wrong with people loving each other? What's next, mixed marriages based on race? I think, honestly, that this reign of fear must end. Because when you look at it from the outside, it is a reign of fear. The new terrorism act is there because as 'Bush says: "We do anything to protect America." The emergency rule or constitual order has become a rule & norm in life and I do think this administration will do anything to stretch the presidents power or even go beyond that. Separation of church and state? Is it there honestly?I think when a state wants to approve gay marriage, then they should allow it but not act from the presidential office because personally the president doesn't like it.

Montesquie and Locke had reasons to come up with that, because: "the separation of powers constrains rulers (be they constitutional monarchs or elected executives) and thereby guarantees, according to Montesquieu, the "tranquillity" that is the political liberty of the individual; the second is secured thanks to the first."

Let good parenting (whether they are gay, straight, bisexual, signle, married, divorced) be the cornerstone/foundation of society. Parents who are happy, content, upbeat and such just make good parents. An economy will thrive if people are optimistic and not when they feel opressed by the 'own' commander in chief. But in order to achieve that, give people the right to do what they believe in and do not set a norm based on your own standards. Being a moral leader of a free country... I think Mr Bush report card will have a 1 regarding that.

My own country remains a nation trying to legalize bigotry.

Which makes it so sad, you know. Dr Martin Luther King would turn around in his grave.
{edit: LJ thinks I am rambling]

[dawn_felagund]

What's next, mixed marriages based on race?

Actually, not so long ago, this battle was fought in the US much along the same lines as the same-sex marriage battle now. Mixed-race marriages were illegal in many states, and the same fundamentalists who oppose same-sex marriage were protesting mixed-race marriage using the same tired rhetoric from the Bible.

So GLBT activists have likened this fight to the fight to legalize mixed-race marriages not so long ago.

The new terrorism act is there because as 'Bush says: "We do anything to protect America."

I get so sick when I think of this, when I read articles like the one you linked. I get so sick to think that people in this country actually approve of this. And what's worse, this slander aimed at opposition that--in the same vein as what this administration has been saying all along--"if you disapprove of this, you're against national security."

Okay. What the fuck.

There is no one in this country who cares more about national security than I do. I live within a half-hour of DC, and a large enough attack could threaten my home. Furthermore, my husband goes to work everyday in an office where he can see the White House from his window. Don't think that the thought of a dirty bomb in the streets of DC and where Bobby will be when that happens doesn't cross my mind every damned day that he goes to work.

But this administration says one thing and does another. While they are berating the Democrats for being "weak on national security," then they are cutting funding to Customs, law enforcement, and first responders. A terrorist cell was found in my hometown of Baltimore. I ask you, who would have had a better chance of finding that cell? A beat cop who noticed unusual activity in the neighborhood, kept an eye on it, and had the appropriate channels to have it investigated? A Customs agent who noticed a strange pattern or got a tip from an agent in the field? Or an aircraft carrier? Yep. So why do we provide unlimited funding for the latter, i.e. the military, and our intelligence and law enforcement communities are starving?

And because I believe in a fair trial does not mean that I am against national security. Putting innocent people in jail or detaining innocent people solves nothing. I honestly believe that these idiots think that the number of brown-skinned people they have in prison in an indicator of how well they are doing in the "war on terror." It's not. It creates a false sense of security while the bad guys roam free, and it means more reason why Moslems have to be pissed off at us. Which fuels the propaganda that Islamic extremists use when recruiting the next set of hijackers or suicide bombers. Which means more terrorists. And nothing is solved.

Separation of church and state? Is it there honestly?I think when a state wants to approve gay marriage, then they should allow it

Yeah, it exists in theory, but when half of the elected representatives are in the pockets of the Christian Coalition, then it does not hold for long.

And Republicans, again...a bunch of hypocrites. There are certain things that are supposed to be managed by the states and certain things by the feds. Marriage has always been one of them. Every state has different marriage laws. And Republicans are supposedly founded on protecting the rights of states to make their own decisions. When it comes to abortion or gun control, feds are told, "Hands off!" But now when a national law would benefit them, suddenly they no longer care about the rights of states to make their own decisions.

And it should be a state decision. States have always presided over marriage except in instances (like mixed-race marriage) where denying marriage violates the Constitution. In terms of same-sex marriage, that's a fight for another day, but in the meanwhile, this crap about how states shouldn't be allowed to decide this issue...it's just wrong.