• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Too straight, white and corporate: why some queer people are skipping SF Pride

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
4,458
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
“Pride really should be for queer folks,” said Amy Sueyoshi, a lifelong San Francisco resident, who identifies as genderqueer. “It’s not for straight people to demonstrate their queer-friendliness. I’d like that they do that in their daily lives.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/25/san-francisco-gay-pride-corporate-orlando-shooting


I've actually heard quite a bit of this kind of hate speech. Such bigotry, such intolerance, such racism... Some people can't accept acceptance I guess.

Oh wait! But then that means you're no longer unique, that you're no longer able to identify yourself as a member of a persecuted group. The meaning you found in victimhood now rings hollow. Leaving a void. You can't believe that those who haven't suffered as you've suffered, who haven't fought as you fought, who haven't cried as you've cried, these people are now joining in on "your thing". How dare they!


I guess hypocrisy comes in a rainbow of varieties...
 
Last edited:
If some people don't perpetuate the problems, they'd have to join society and stop being an outsider when society welcomes them in and says, "We apologize, you're right, we were wrong / You Win." This is similar to the demand for a "Safe Area" on campuses for certain groups to be able to segregate themselves from others so they can be safe from the oppression of segregationist policies.
 
I actually agree with her. It seems kind of like invading their event for straight people and corporations to show up.
 
If some people don't perpetuate the problems, they'd have to join society and stop being an outsider when society welcomes them in and says, "We apologize, you're right, we were wrong / You Win." This is similar to the demand for a "Safe Area" on campuses for certain groups to be able to segregate themselves from others so they can be safe from the oppression of segregationist policies.

This is not a safe space issue, but invitation issue. Straights and corporations are apparently not invited and not welcome to the event. Just because someone is having an event doesn't mean you can show up and act all invited, sorry.
 
Quite frankly, so the hell what?

It's not 'hate speech' to any rational adult; it's just someone expressing dissatisfaction with what the event has bcome.

You're trying to make this into something it isn't, esp given the fact the article also says..." some said the San Francisco parade has become too corporate, straight and white to feel like an appropriate setting to show LGBT solidarity. "

Weaksauce.
 
I actually agree with her. It seems kind of like invading their event for straight people and corporations to show up.

Yep, they should just send their money and stay away. ;)

from the OP link:

SF Pride officials said that corporate sponsors are critical to offsetting the costs of the massive event that attracts people from all over the world.

Note the absence of GLBT in that sentence.
 
Last edited:
This is not a safe space issue, but invitation issue. Straights and corporations are apparently not invited and not welcome to the event. Just because someone is having an event doesn't mean you can show up and act all invited, sorry.

I a private area, sure. However, in a public area, it's a public event. As an example, you want to have a gay pride parade, everyone can attend. Invited or not, sorry. In that way, which is the way I mentioned it, it's the same, sorry.
 
I a private area, sure. However, in a public area, it's a public event. As an example, you want to have a gay pride parade, everyone can attend. Invited or not, sorry. In that way, which is the way I mentioned it, it's the same, sorry.

If you know the event is not for you and you attend anyway you're being rude. You can sit there and say it's a public event all day, but if it's obvious you're not welcome you should leave.
 
What? and miss out a public fisting gang bangs?
 
If you know the event is not for you and you attend anyway you're being rude. You can sit there and say it's a public event all day, but if it's obvious you're not welcome you should leave.

Moving the goal posts just a little there. You went from, someone having an event that you're not invited to, doesn't mean you can show up and act all invited.. to, it's rude to show up?

Does that mean that since I'm of Scottish heritage and not Irish that I can't show up and act all invited to a Saint Patrick's Day parade, or go to the MLK Holiday parade since I'm not black or wasn't a protestor beside MLK in the 1960's, or since I'm straight that I can't attend the Charlotte Pride parade coming up on August 21st of this year??? Or, because I'm on a diet and do not live within the Charlotte city limits that I can't attend the festival called Taste of Charlotte was a 3 day festival held June 10th - 12th featuring over 100 samples from area restaurants along with Live Music and Entertainment, Interactive Children’s Activities, Cooking Demos, Street Performances, Unique Shopping and a large variety of local, regional and national partners interacting with festival goers, providing information, coupons and free stuff!?!?!?!?

If so, then I'm in serious trouble, because I've gone to all of the above, and didn't tell anyone that I was different and shouldn't have been there.
 
Hmm... You know, I read the article totally prepared for this to be some kind of hipster-ism. But I gotta say, looking at those pictures, that doesn't look anything like the Pride we had in London. It does look... well, really, corporate, straight, and white. Almost totally uniformly.

It wasn't, here. There was some corporate sponsorship, and there were straight/cis people there (and I don't think most LGBT people have a fundamental problem with them attending as a rule). But nothing like this. This just looks like wall-to-wall advertising.

I can't help but notice how homogeneous the crowd looks in those pictures of San Fran Pride, compared to what we had in London. It reminds me of what my suburban high school town looked like: very Stepford and aggressively normative, and over 95% white. It's almost unrecognisable as Pride, to me. It could just as easily be a parade for some sort of pageant, if it weren't for the tiny rainbow flags everyone has -- and all the exact same one. I'm guessing they got them at the door.

I mean, San Francisco is only 50% white, and yet I see nothing but white people in any of those pictures. San Francisco has a lot of poverty, and I see nothing but people with $100 sunglasses. The advertising is so aggressive that the fact that it's Pride is almost like an afterthought. And when you put it into the perspective of the economic problems the area is having, I'd be willing to guess it's because a lot of the native folks can't really afford to attend. As the article says, people are coming from other places.

It's not unfair for people to complain that their event, which is partly about economic inequality, has now been taken over by the entities that created the very inequality they're against. That's a tough pill to swallow.

And the organizers don't really seem to care. They seem to just want to get as much money in as they can, which is amazingly tone-deaf to what San Francisco is going through.

It's not "hate speech" for the local population to complain about being gentrified out their own event.
 
I don't see why they let companies buy floats. Seems like they should have let advocacy groups retain a sizable presence.

Either way, this just seems like not all people are interested in going to the SF pride parade. I don't see any problem with that.
 
i agree with getting corporate sponsors out of there. If corporates want to show support, they can do it in meaningful ways that don't suffocate the parade or come across as self-serving, like pulling out of north carolina or donating to a youth shelter

this event was the first in the country, in the 1970s. I'm certain back then they didn't need so much corporate sponsors and probably could find none, so that excuse is bullocks

i do not mind at all, and to an extent it's appreciated, if heterosexuals (yes, even white ones) participate but they have to be PEOPLE, not advertisements
 
To me it depends on the event. If it is a parade down the public streets then, sorry, anyone can watch that. My guess ismost gay people don't care who shows up as long as they aren't jerks.
 
I think it's not a bad thing being considered part of the larger community. With homosexuality becoming more and more accepted the gay events are becoming more diluted.

Why do we need to be balkanized?
 
I think it's not a bad thing being considered part of the larger community. With homosexuality becoming more and more accepted the gay events are becoming more diluted.

Why do we need to be balkanized?

Good question.
 
If you know the event is not for you and you attend anyway you're being rude. You can sit there and say it's a public event all day, but if it's obvious you're not welcome you should leave.

That's what I say about certain opposing football teams' fans. ;)
 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/25/san-francisco-gay-pride-corporate-orlando-shooting


I've actually heard quite a bit of this kind of hate speech. Such bigotry, such intolerance, such racism... Some people can't accept acceptance I guess.

Oh wait! But then that means you're no longer unique, that you're no longer able to identify yourself as a member of a persecuted group. The meaning you found in victimhood now rings hollow. Leaving a void. You can't believe that those who haven't suffered as you've suffered, who haven't fought as you fought, who haven't cried as you've cried, these people are now joining in on "your thing". How dare they!


I guess hypocrisy comes in a rainbow of varieties...

For a group that pursues inclusiveness this sure seems pretty exclusive. This attitude is what a lot of people dislike about homosexuals - that they want to be accepted, yet so many of them seem to actively pursue staying outside of the rest of society. I have a co-worker who is homosexual and unless he told you he was, you'd never know it. He doesn't hide it, but he also doesn't "carry on" as so many homosexuals do (that's his term for how a lot of homosexuals act). Just go on about your life and stop going out of your way to draw attention to yourselves and you'll do far more to get rid of the stigma than all the "Pride" parades in the world.
 
Quite frankly, so the hell what?

It's not 'hate speech' to any rational adult; it's just someone expressing dissatisfaction with what the event has bcome.

You're trying to make this into something it isn't, esp given the fact the article also says..." some said the San Francisco parade has become too corporate, straight and white to feel like an appropriate setting to show LGBT solidarity. "

Weaksauce.

What does corporate and white have to do with a "Pride" parade or homosexuality in general?? Are there no homosexual working for or even owning corporations?? Are there no white homosexuals?? Why are they being targeted???
 
This is not a safe space issue, but invitation issue. Straights and corporations are apparently not invited and not welcome to the event. Just because someone is having an event doesn't mean you can show up and act all invited, sorry.

So then you were in support of the people who didn't want a homosexual Pride group in their St. Patrick's Day parade?
 
Hmm... You know, I read the article totally prepared for this to be some kind of hipster-ism. But I gotta say, looking at those pictures, that doesn't look anything like the Pride we had in London. It does look... well, really, corporate, straight, and white. Almost totally uniformly.

It wasn't, here. There was some corporate sponsorship, and there were straight/cis people there (and I don't think most LGBT people have a fundamental problem with them attending as a rule). But nothing like this. This just looks like wall-to-wall advertising.

I can't help but notice how homogeneous the crowd looks in those pictures of San Fran Pride, compared to what we had in London. It reminds me of what my suburban high school town looked like: very Stepford and aggressively normative, and over 95% white. It's almost unrecognisable as Pride, to me. It could just as easily be a parade for some sort of pageant, if it weren't for the tiny rainbow flags everyone has -- and all the exact same one. I'm guessing they got them at the door.

I mean, San Francisco is only 50% white, and yet I see nothing but white people in any of those pictures. San Francisco has a lot of poverty, and I see nothing but people with $100 sunglasses. The advertising is so aggressive that the fact that it's Pride is almost like an afterthought. And when you put it into the perspective of the economic problems the area is having, I'd be willing to guess it's because a lot of the native folks can't really afford to attend. As the article says, people are coming from other places.

It's not unfair for people to complain that their event, which is partly about economic inequality, has now been taken over by the entities that created the very inequality they're against. That's a tough pill to swallow.

And the organizers don't really seem to care. They seem to just want to get as much money in as they can, which is amazingly tone-deaf to what San Francisco is going through.

It's not "hate speech" for the local population to complain about being gentrified out their own event.

Maybe only rich white hipsters are homosexual enough to be in the parade..... :mrgreen:
 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/25/san-francisco-gay-pride-corporate-orlando-shooting

I've actually heard quite a bit of this kind of hate speech. Such bigotry, such intolerance, such racism... Some people can't accept acceptance I guess.

Oh wait! But then that means you're no longer unique, that you're no longer able to identify yourself as a member of a persecuted group. The meaning you found in victimhood now rings hollow. Leaving a void. You can't believe that those who haven't suffered as you've suffered, who haven't fought as you fought, who haven't cried as you've cried, these people are now joining in on "your thing". How dare they!

I guess hypocrisy comes in a rainbow of varieties...

There isn't any "identity" that is insulated from sins such as that of hypocrisy.

You found one idiot. There are plenty around.




Such bigotry, such intolerance, such racism... Some people can't accept acceptance I guess.

Racism? Bigotry? Do you even know what those words mean?

The line you choose to quote was merely this harmless bit of idiocy: “Pride really should be for queer folks,” said Amy Sueyoshi, a lifelong San Francisco resident, who identifies as genderqueer. “It’s not for straight people to demonstrate their queer-friendliness. I’d like that they do that in their daily lives.”

So you found an idiot (and/or hypocrite) who doesn't understand that you don't hold a public parade if you don't want people to attend or participate. How in the precise **** did you land on "racism"?
 
If some people don't perpetuate the problems, they'd have to join society and stop being an outsider when society welcomes them in and says, "We apologize, you're right, we were wrong / You Win." This is similar to the demand for a "Safe Area" on campuses for certain groups to be able to segregate themselves from others so they can be safe from the oppression of segregationist policies.

It wasn't, here. There was some corporate sponsorship, and there were straight/cis people there (and I don't think most LGBT people have a fundamental problem with them attending as a rule). But nothing like this. This just looks like wall-to-wall advertising.

Quite frankly, so the hell what?

Imagine you go to your nearest 4th of July parade this weekend and there's 100 floats of which 70 of them are large corporations who have slapped a logo and a flag onto a pickup and trailer, and bused in a bunch of employees there only to sit and wave at you and maybe hand out pencils with the logo on it.
KPMG, Hyatt, Tyson, TD Ameritrade, GAP, JP-Morgan Chase, Comcast, Walgreens, Aon, ORBITZ, Boeing ...

That's what nearly all Pride Parades have become. Painfully boring. A giant two hour long commercial. Totally unrelated to the point of the parade.
Everything else that's interesting has been condensed into a few couple floats: LGBT veterans, marching bands, Dykes on Bikes, drag queens. You blink and you miss them.

It's so not worth it.

(* And actually, the 4th of July parades are having this problem too.)
 
Imagine you go to your nearest 4th of July parade this weekend and there's 100 floats of which 70 of them are large corporations who have slapped a logo and a flag onto a pickup and trailer, and bused in a bunch of employees there only to sit and wave at you and maybe hand out pencils with the logo on it.
KPMG, Hyatt, Tyson, TD Ameritrade, GAP, JP-Morgan Chase, Comcast, Walgreens, Aon, ORBITZ, Boeing ...

That's what nearly all Pride Parades have become. Painfully boring. A giant two hour long commercial. Totally unrelated to the point of the parade.
Everything else that's interesting has been condensed into a few couple floats: LGBT veterans, marching bands, Dykes on Bikes, drag queens. You blink and you miss them.

It's so not worth it.

(* And actually, the 4th of July parades are having this problem too.)

Yup. Pretty much happens everywhere.

Even threatening things like Burning Man.
 
There isn't any "identity" that is insulated from sins such as that of hypocrisy.

You found one idiot. There are plenty around.

Racism? Bigotry? Do you even know what those words mean?

The line you choose to quote was merely this harmless bit of idiocy: “Pride really should be for queer folks,” said Amy Sueyoshi, a lifelong San Francisco resident, who identifies as genderqueer. “It’s not for straight people to demonstrate their queer-friendliness. I’d like that they do that in their daily lives.”

So you found an idiot (and/or hypocrite) who doesn't understand that you don't hold a public parade if you don't want people to attend or participate. How in the precise **** did you land on "racism"?

Now you've walked a couple feet in another's shoes. Though your attempt at minimizing is duly noted.

To answer your two questions directly:

Yes. I am well aware of what they mean.

I landed where I did when a race was used to identify a group of people in a disparaging manner.

Let us not show your hypocrisy by saying that if the narrative went "Too black, too hispanic, too asian too arabic (or wrongly identified Muslim)" that that isn't what the charge would be.
 
Back
Top Bottom