WickedEye's Quotient

3/26/2015 at 23:25

Psychopath-Blindness

My friend Drew commented on the "Sodomite Suppression Act" ballot initiative, which proposes to legalize the murder of LGBT people in California—how terrifying the detached rhetoric surrounding it was; how people were ignoring its violent insanity. This was my response.
_______________________________________________

I really do get how you feel about this, Drew, because I lived through 9/11 in the South looking as I do, and at the time was married to a dark-skinned 'furriner' with a perceptible accent on top of it. The idea that people all around you hate you and want to kill you for something you can't help—hearing, for example, a whole grocery store go quiet as you and your husband walk in, and talk restart in whispers all around you, and enduring this again and again and again, everywhere—the idea that the people around you are only barely restrained from violence by the law, is terrifying on a visceral level. It was also inescapable. There was no getting around it, day or night, and nowhere safe to go.

In the face of that kind of hatred, the "let cooler heads prevail" attitude gets me hot under the collar too. "Cooler heads"? Is this some kind of 21st-century idiom for "sane people"? 

After having read the proposal, I used the word 'psychotic' advisedly—this homicidal cretin is a full-bore, rubber-room-renting, delusional psychopath, and he and his psychotic Sodom and Gomorrah fantasies belong in an institution which also houses people who (to quote Lewis Black) are crocheting something that isn't there.

We as a society are lucky he raised red flags with this paperwork, instead of simply (!) turning into a serial killer.

And to be clear, I think the same thing of all of the people you just described who stopped and thought about this before deciding it "went too far." They may not be actively psychotic, but they are delusional or stupid or unbalanced or (probably) all three. Countenancing, even for an instant, the idea of serial murder of people because you don't like them makes you creepy and not fit for decent society and not sharing the same reality as the rest of us...and that's not really a hard diagnosis to make. 

What concerns me is that, because this man expressed his sociopathy through a religious ballot proposal, people fail to see how terrifyingly insane it is. Then again, people with a milder flavor of the same sociopathy are now protected in Indiana; instead of being barred from behavior that is antisocial and irrational, their antisocial, delusional behavior is being actively encouraged. 

It's all part of the same mindset—and it's terrifying that sane people across the country are failing so utterly to see insanity when it's shrieking, spittle flying, into their faces.

Labels: , , , , , ,

2/15/2014 at 02:06

Congratulations, Ms. Page. Now, about your next role...?

The appropriate response—for everyone barring LGBT teens and their teachers/counselors—to Ellen Page's coming-out:
1) Congratulations on being so comfortable with that.
2) So, your next role...?

For those reflexively outraged that I should do less than rave with joy: Ms. Page's journey is relevant to a segment of the public—LGBT kids—as well as to her own private life; but the latter is what precludes the idea that anyone should ever stay closeted.

It's not that Ms. Page's journey shouldn't be honored...by those whom it affects: Her romantic partners, the LGBT kids she's trying to help, her friends and family, and possibly others who've endured the same struggle.

Others who comment on Ms. Page's sexuality have:
A) the manners of barnyard animals (just because it's common doesn't mean it's polite, ya'll), and/or
B) a supreme indifference to the distinction between public and private, and/or
C) pretensions towards being artistic or cultural analysts of some kind, and/or
D) a severe excess of free time/no social life of their own.
A, B, and D are the choices that apply to everyone who isn't a film critic, a Ph.D. in some branch of social science, or a fellow artist.

Ms. Page's sexuality is her own business. Full stop.

I know about this sort of barnyard nosiness because I've been asked, in both law and medical school, if I'm lesbian or bisexual—I headed the group for LGBT law students and their supporters for a time, and was bluntly unconcerned with dating. I don't decline to answer because I have something to hide; those I love will love me no matter what my answer.

I decline to answer questions about my sexuality because answering them means that the person asking has a right to ask.

If a public figure chooses to generously disregard her own privacy in order to help others suffering from the incredible bigotry and ignorance that afflict our society, it is an act of generosity. No one has a right to that information but her lover(s). Making revealed information about someone's sexuality—rather than that person's compassion and concern for others—into a huge news story does nothing but reinforce all the barnyard-mannered impertinence of the general public who think questions about sexuality are appropriate.

And as an added disadvantage, it perpetuates the idea that when thinking of someone who's LGBT, the very first thing that should leap to mind is her sexuality...in Ms. Page's case, bypassing the incredible talent that gave us Hayley Stark, Juno, and Ariadne.

Labels: , , , , ,

2/07/2014 at 08:30

Olympics-Sponsored State + State-Sponsored Violence = Olympics-Sponsored Violence

Russian art, literary and otherwise, is a vast vein of platinum-webbed gold--but the coal-mine poverty of Russian human-rights practices seems eternal.

Russia's treatment of LGBT people isn't merely hostile: Its 'propaganda' ban is the glossier side of a state-condoned lynch-mob mentality that smiles at indiscriminate violence against LGBT human beings...and human dignity as a whole.

The Olympic coming-together of the world to celebrate human potential is a high point of living in the modern age. But by that very fact, holding the Olympics in Sochi, Russia--flying the Olympian banner, however temporarily, over the kind of oppression that the Olympic Games are supposed, by their very existence, to oppose--makes a mockery of the Olympic ideal.

Hosting the Olympics is enormously politically profitable for the host country's ruling regime (see this article in The Economist on why countries undertake such massive expenditures). Hosting the Olympics constitutes, in fact, an endorsement from the International Olympic Committee of the host country's ruling regime. (It's also an Olympic sponsorship of the money-stripping apparatus through which athletic organizations and tourists are fed at each Olympic Games.)

Did the International Olympic Committee permit the Winter Olympics to be held in a country with such appalling ongoing human-rights violations because of Russia's economic and political clout? It's certainly possible. The IOC has denied lesser powers--Istanbul's Olympic bids have failed for more than a decade because of Turkey's state-sponsored violence against dissidents. Certainly the Committee is politically savvy enough to have recognized that Russia's 'propaganda ban' is merely boilerplate--palliating language that allows the Russian government to at best turn a blind eye, and at worst contribute, to a culture of horrific violence against LGBT people.

Why else, other than state sponsorship, would perpetrators of such violence feel free to post, en masse, tens of videos of organized assaults? (Be warned: Some of this video content is graphic, and unsuitable for minors or the workplace.)

Russia's 'official treatment' of LGBT citizens is detailed in this Human Rights Watch report: Government officials--including Putin--publicly term LGBT people “perverts” and “abnormal,” while equating homosexuality with pedophilia. A director of a government-controlled TV-and-radio outlet goes so far as proposing to “burn or bury” the hearts of LGBT organ donors rather than use them for transplants because they are “unfit to continue anyone’s life.”

This is the regime that the IOC chose to host the Olympic ideal--the Games that celebrate humanity's potential.

Whatever regrets the IOC may have about their decision--and IOC President Thomas Bach's statement that he's willing to consider including language on sexual orientation in the Olympic Charter's ban on discrimination does read, at least partly, as a statement of regret--cannot change my refusal to support that decision.

I wouldn't patronize a company that lent its prestige or contributed money, directly or indirectly, to the Klu Klux Klan or the Aryan Nations, or any other sponsor of violent bigotry.

I fail to see why flying an Olympic flag over a place that does the same is any different.

Labels: , , ,



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs2.5 License.