1. okay, let's be consistent? that "someone" snitched because he or she felt excluded.
2. this reminds me of a recent case of two lesbians probably (likely) deliberately ordering a wedding cake from a christian-own bakery, who has since either bankrupted or closed, i don't remember which, or moved - anyway, it is clear to me and my goldfish that their trying to order their wedding desert there was a case of provocation, probably lovingly thought-out as a marriage gift to each other.
3. it also reminds me of a much older case where a certain hard-core feminist kept trying to crash into Ivy club, an all-male exclusive affair. she was rebuffed refused and even thrown out, but kept trying. about 10 years later the club started accepting women, but i doubt that was because of Sally Frank's actions.
4. that reminds me of of anti-segregation actions of southern blacks, sitting in the front of the bus, going to a "white" restaurant, etc.
we celebrate some of those actions and deplore others, depending on where we stand on the issue.
a consistent thinker would say - either all of those actions are good, rocking a bad boat - or that all of those actions are bad, rocking a working boat they did not have to get on.
but we are not consistent thinkers, right? we have sympathy for some rockers and occupiers but not for otehrs? we are hypocrites, partisan or not. the editorial WE may or may not incude you, i don't know if you are willing to either accept or reject all 1 2 3 4 actions. for me first 3 are toxic and unnecessary provcaitons, but 4 is fine though it is essentially the same action.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-02-21 05:08 pm (UTC)2. this reminds me of a recent case of two lesbians probably (likely) deliberately ordering a wedding cake from a christian-own bakery, who has since either bankrupted or closed, i don't remember which, or moved - anyway, it is clear to me and my goldfish that their trying to order their wedding desert there was a case of provocation, probably lovingly thought-out as a marriage gift to each other.
3. it also reminds me of a much older case where a certain hard-core feminist kept trying to crash into Ivy club, an all-male exclusive affair. she was rebuffed refused and even thrown out, but kept trying. about 10 years later the club started accepting women, but i doubt that was because of Sally Frank's actions.
4. that reminds me of of anti-segregation actions of southern blacks, sitting in the front of the bus, going to a "white" restaurant, etc.
we celebrate some of those actions and deplore others, depending on where we stand on the issue.
a consistent thinker would say - either all of those actions are good, rocking a bad boat - or that all of those actions are bad, rocking a working boat they did not have to get on.
but we are not consistent thinkers, right? we have sympathy for some rockers and occupiers but not for otehrs?
we are hypocrites, partisan or not. the editorial WE may or may not incude you, i don't know if you are willing to either accept or reject all 1 2 3 4 actions. for me first 3 are toxic and unnecessary provcaitons, but 4 is fine though it is essentially the same action.