Information icon.svg The 2019 RMF board election is about to end!
We are electing 3 board members for the 2019-2021 term.
Vote here and read their campaign slogans here!

Talk:Socialist Workers Party (US)

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

No sources, questionable phrasing[edit]

I haven't done any research on this group so I have no idea how accurate the contents are, however it looks like most of it was written by the same unregistered IP. This could be over-PC on my end, but the use of phrases such as "radical gay activists", "gay issues", "radical gay pastures", etc, strikes some discord when compared to the modern concern over the lack of GLBT rights around most of the world. I replaced most of the occurrences of "x gay y" with "x gay-rights y".

Now, this statement... :

"David Thorstad, one of the gays who joined the SWP then left for more radical gay pastures in the 1970s, went on to found the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)."

I'm guessing that this person was also involved in other random organizations, so I'm not sure implying that NAMBLA was formed specifically as a split from SWP by "one of the gays" is a fair or accurate statement. The language surrounding the fact that he was gay seems cavalier.

Also, wtf does this article have to do with anything on mission? It reads like a biography of a baseball player who did nothing but constantly get traded.

ROPChain (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It is important to distinguish between gay rights activists and the radical "gay left" fringe, which developed some weird ideas that gained currency during that period. That would include radical lesbian separatists and various "gay revolutionary" tendencies. Simply referring to them as gay rights activists is not accurate. Changes not accepted.

I think the story of the SWP is illustrative of the dilemmas faced by the left in trying to incorporate all of the movements that mushroomed in the late '60s through the '70s. They entered into a tragicomic dance with the radical feminist and radical gay fringe, which was one factor isolating them and driving them into irrelevance. 03:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)03:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)~~

Alright, thanks for replying. If this is the case, you should specify the distinction at the start of the block of text you wrote, and perhaps use the terms (some of which have articles on this wiki) for said "radical gay" groups. What is a "gay revolutionist"? A gay person who demands the same rights freely given to others? Separatist feminists, again, have an article here, and you should specify these things instead of using the vague term "radical gay activists". ROPChain (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
" What is a "gay revolutionist"? A gay person who demands the same rights freely given to others?" Short answer, no. They're a fringe tendency that sees social revolution based on gender issues (and a wonderful straw man for the religious right, BTW). That is quite different from mainstream gay rights activists who just want to live their lives. You seem to get needlessly defensive over reference to the loopy, divisive fringe of gay activists. The distinction between "radical gay" and "gay rights" activists seems sufficient.08:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)08:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)08:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)~
I have no idea what "radical gay" means. Taking it without context or further elaboration, in my view, inherently implies some negative aspect about either the personal lifestyle of said radical gays, or suggests that they are too aggressively seeking equal protection (impossible). Now, if you mean a group that wants to see their values applied, without real consent, to the rest of the country, or something like that, that is not where I jump when I read "radical gay activists/groups". You certainly spent enough time and energy writing long additions to several articles on groups from back then, if you take the time to make this distinction, it not only helps readers understand why these "radical gays" contributed to the downfall of the acceptability of the SCP, but also doesn't needlessly piss people off by, in their mind, implying criticism of the haste at which gays sought equal protection, or their lifestyle. ROPChain (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The article has been edited to make the distinction between gay rights and radical gay more explicit.75.111.20.66 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)