farsj

[farsj]

[farsj]

[farsj]

Original

[farsj]

Words of Love

I would like to dig into the idea of "love" a little bit. This word gets bandied about quite a bit and I fear we all mean something different.

Part 1: Anita

After the oranges but before the cream pie to the face, Anita Bryant (an infamous anti-gay advocate in Dade County Florida) gave us these delightful words: "I love homosexuals. Its the sin of homosexuality that I hate" and "I don't hate homosexuals. I love them enough to tell them the truth: that God puts them in the category with other sinners".

Anita's "love" for the LGBTQ+ community prompted her to advocate against their basic human rights to employment and housing without discrimination in the 1970s. And her "Save the children" campaign was largely successful--at least in Dade County. Her influence can still be felt today in a lot of right wing canards (you can even see her shadow in the 2024 LDS policy of exclusion).

There is something compelling about Anita's version of "love". She loves the "sinner" enough to tell them the truth, to teach them, to coerce them back to righteousness. She loves them enough to hand them the tough realities of life.

Anita could probably point to scriptures and religious thinkers to support her brand of love. Sinners don't fare well according to the bible, so wouldn't our "love" motivate us to try and save them? Wouldn't you want to spare a loved one or even a stranger the horrors of eternal damnation and suffering?

Parents intercede for their children to keep them out of harms way. Isn't it loving to tell kids that cigarettes are harmful? Isn't it loving to remind children of the dangers of drinking and driving? Don't parents owe it to their children to protect them from harm from external or internal sources?

A cogent reader might be able to spot the difference here. There is a difference between loving someone by "informing of harm" and advocating for a removal of rights. Further more, this "love" is being conflated for control (however well intentioned), and learning to love without controlling is probably the most challenging part of parenting. But even more, our positions on cigarettes have shifted as science has provided more insights into their harm, similarly, as evidence has mounted showing the positive impacts of living authentically as an LGBTQ+ person, so to have publicly held stigmas and misunderstanding changed.

But, crucially, to Anita, she would maintain that she loves gay people and was motivated by love. It is not her problem that you may not agree with her definitions.

Part 2: Joanne

Before the Cyber bullying lawsuit and after the wild success of Harry Potter, JK Rowling published her attempt at "explaining" the maelstrom of social media debate that had sprung up around her. In the halcyon days of the early pandemic, JK Rowling tweeted almost-compassionate sentiments towards trans people such as: "I respect the right of every transgender person to live life in a way that makes them feel authentic and comfortable with themselves. I would march with you if you were discriminated against because you are transgender."

And in her "essay" published in July of 2020 (which was at one point entitled "TERF Wars" I'm almost certain, but has since been renamed), she specifically cites a transgender acquaintance whom Joanne calls "wonderful". And yet all this lip service to "respect" and "wonderfulness" has yielded some rather caustic twitter discourses, significant contributions to a increasingly transphobic political culture, and even some good old holocaust denialism.

Joanne's "love" (or she would call it "respect") seems to come if she deems it earned. My read is that for Joanne, transitioning should take a long time, require extreme levels of vetting (both internally and externally), and will only be achieved adequately by a relatively small number of people. Besides, if this population is so tiny, then we shouldn't have to accommodate them at the expense of everyone else's comfort. Love, it would seem, is a numbers game.

I do think Joanne's point about knowing a transwoman personally, should not go unremarked. She herself admits that she has met young trans people who she finds "adorable". And yet, even as we cheer for Brene Brown's "it's hard to hate someone up close", Joanne's behavior seems to suggest otherwise. She does know and respect the wonderful and adorable trans people in her circles, but that does not mean that they should have space to exist comfortably.

Joanne shows us that loving someone on a personal level is not the same thing as loving the group they represent. Furthermore, we all love someone close to us but don't agree with every thing they do. We question clothing choices, food preferences, parenting techniques, movies watched, books read, time wasted. To Joanne loving someone does not mean you need to advocate for then.

To Joanne, love is a limited resource and so who is loved and how they are loved must be chosen carefully. Joanne believes to make space for trans people comes at the expense of woman and girls, and don't woman and girls need to be loved too? There are more cis woman and girls than trans people. When love is scarce, than it follows that certain groups must be dismissed and harassed, I suppose.

Part 3: Dallin

Before his inevitable ascent to become the next prophet and after worriedly writing in the 1980's that "one generation of homosexual "marriages" would depopulate a nation...Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide", Dallin H Oaks gave a rather love-focused address in the most recent general conference (Oct 2024, Saturday morning session). He urged for us to remember the first two commandments and to avoid political contention by being peacemakers, despite the fact that he was involved, at least in part, with the recent transphobic policy put in place by the Church a few weeks ago.

My fear here is Dallin, lawyer that he is, has left a lot of words to be defined by the listener. What does it mean to be a peacemaker? What does it mean to avoid contention? And what does it mean to love?

From talks given in the past, Dallin's position seems similar to Anita and Joanne. Dallin's concern is getting people to the celestial kingdom which means that certain people need to be reminded that the way they are will not be compatible with that place. This is a thought birthed from love--he loves people enough to tell them what God expects from them! He's also keenly aware that there is a gulf forming in society and he's got to choose which one to protect because love is scarce, and given the voices he chooses to amplify (see the letter he reads in this young adult fireside), he stands with his more conservative base.

Dallin's love may be short sighted and biased, but he probably doesn't think so. He thinks his motivations are on the side of the angels and who am I to disagree, arguably he knows heaven better than I do.

But you may not find Dallin's version of love very uplifting or meaningful. You may find it motivated more from fear or bias, and perhaps your version of love has space for inclusion and multiple paths, but here is the kicker: your definitions and positions on love have limited reach.

Dallin's love is amplified in multiple languages all over the world every six months at least. When he speaks, people listen and to some degree internalize what he's saying. Dallin knows gay and trans people, he has a grandson that is openly gay, and still he shows his love this way.

Dallin has power and influence in this community and so his version of love gets elevated and replicated. Every six months we get the privilege of grappling with his love and decide what to do with it. Dallin's love comforts a certain subset of the audience while alienating others. His influence will eventually fade, but then we will need to move on to someone else's version of love and that is always a gamble.

Part 4: You

In queer spaces the individuals I have mentioned are often heavily criticized. And from my perspective rightfully so. Their actions and words have costs and inflicted damages our community routinely has to bear. But we need to be aware that our criticism that they should be more "loving" might not land where we would hope it does. They do, in their own definition, act out of love.

Their definitions certainly don't align with most of ours, but we don't often take the time define what we mean by love. And in writing this, I have come to realise that love contains multitudes: both good and bad--and holding people to my definitions just leads to unmet expectations.

What I have learned from this review is to acknowledge the differences in what love can be--I am less interested in love now but motivation and impact. Much of what I do in "love" is actually more motivated by a desire for "safety", "acceptance" or "belonging", which can have mixed results. I need to demonstrate, not to Anita, Joanne or Dallin, but to those in my life that the outcomes of certain "love" can be damaging and negative for me. I now know to avoid or be skeptical of the outcomes of Anita's, Joanne's and Dallin's love, but I also know that they don't think themselves unloving, so trying to convince them to "love" more is a fruitless exercise.

Perhaps, we become peacemakers when we hear the heartbreak of our neighbors and find ways to partner with them to build solutions. But ultimately, all of these words are up to you and how you wield them is your choice--but the fruits of your love will be decided by those who stumble across them and you cannot control how they will be received.

[farsj]

[farsj]

One of the most important things to unpack and unlearn when you’re part of a white supremacy saturated society (i.e. the global north) and especially if you were raised in an intensified form of it (evangelicism, right wing politics, explicit racism) is the urge to punish and take revenge.

It manifests in our lives all the time and it is inherently destructive. It makes relationships and interactions adversarial for no good reason. It undermines cooperation and good civic order. It worsens some types of crime. It creates trauma, especially in children.

Imagine approaching unexpected or unacceptable behavior from a perspective of "how can this be stopped, and prevented" instead of "you’re going to regret this!”

Imagine dealing with a problem or conflict from the perspective of “how can this be solved in a way that is just and restorative” instead of “the people who caused this are going to pay.”

How much would that change you? How much would that have changed for you?

[farsj]

[farsj]

I finally made the meme I've had in my head for over a year

[farsj]

Oh shit, Tim Walz.

“I know basic gun safety isn’t a threat to my rights. It’s about keeping our kids safe,” Walz said last month about his evolution on the issue. “I had an ‘A’ rating from the NRA. Now I get straight ‘F’s.’ And I sleep just fine.”

He was beloved by the NRA. When Parkland happened, his daughter was 17. She asked him to do more. I guess he doesn't do shit by half because not only reformed gun control, he donated all the money the NRA ever gave him to charity, and now has straight Fs. In 2016 he was a 'top 20 politician for guns' He turned it that fast.

I know this is the website of catholic guilt structures, but the idea of a politician that changes their mind, doesn't pretend it was different before, admits he was wrong, and then gets shit done? I adore that.

I did not expect him, so I have not done my learning yet, this was one of the first things I saw. And Damn.

[farsj]

Litany against anthropocentrism

[farsj]

Questions I think to myself a lot when confronted with certain kinds of Online Posting:

Do you want a better world, or do you want revenge on those you think aren’t doing enough to improve it?

Do you want a more just world, or do you want to see bad people suffer merciless punishment?

Do you want a less oppressive world, or do you want the reins of power for yourself?

Do you want to do the right thing, or do you want to feel righteous?

[farsj]

i will try very hard to be kind until i die

[farsj]

[farsj]

"A movement being righteous does not, and cannot be allowed to, make everything done in the name of that cause automatically righteous"

- C

[farsj]

“our enemy is so terrible that you have no right to criticize anything we do in response to it” is a line that can justify any atrocity, has justified any atrocity.

[farsj]

I actually love hearing about reformed people's stories. I love hearing about people who were in toxic communities or people who used to objectively be dickheads talking about how they got out of that. How they made themselves better.

I hate how most people's initial reaction to stories like that are things like:

"How could you have ever done those things?!" "Oh my god, you believed those things?!" "Well it doesn't un-do the harm you did!"

People incessantly advocate for change but then refuse to allow people who have changed the grace of being acknowledged and given opportunities and chances.

I love hearing about ex-antis talking about how they don't spend their days being angry and sending death threats anymore.

I love hearing about ex-homophobes who realized there's no magic law about what is "natural."

I love reformed bullies talking about how they made amends with their victims and spend their days being considerate of others.

You can't scream about wanting people to change but then expect them to spend the rest of their lives stuck in the past and on who they used to be. You can't expect people to spend the entire rest of their lives grovelling and apologizing and demeaning themselves.

Instead of clinging to who they were, latch onto who they are.

Ask how they got out of it. Commend them on changing. Enjoy that there's one less cause of harm in the world.

[farsj]

reminder that disinformation is bad even when it furthers your narrative. if an organization is bad, you don't have to make up lies about it being bad. it's already bad literally just utilize the facts that are available to you