Stonewall – evil or stupid?

[MsGrumpytrousers]

Just looking at the completely idiotic tweets Stonewall have made about the 'gay cake' case, where they've managed to completely misunderstand the implications.

"Today’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights is a backwards step for equality. Human rights belong to people, not businesses.
No business should discriminate against their customers, and no discriminatory behaviour should be held up by equality law. Today’s decision leaves the door open for legal uncertainty across the UK and causes continued unease for our communities.
Our thoughts are with Gareth Lee [they know he hasn't DIED, right? He just had to walk to a different bakery to get his cake iced?], who deserved more support from the European Courts after seven years of working towards equality.
At Stonewall, we will continue to work with our partners, the TRPNI, to address the implications of this judgement for all lesbian, gay, bi, trans and queer communities.

They've got about two hundred replies pointing out that the ruling isn't about refusing to serve a gay man, it's about refusing to ice a cake with a slogan that goes against your beliefs, and it's exactly the same as if Gareth was a baker and someone had asked him to ice a cake to say "Gay men are perverts".

So is it that Stonewall are stupid? They've done so much harm that I assumed they must be evil. Or are they just so misguided they can't think straight?

They're a charity in search of a cause

@LigandBrigand

One could say

Narcissistically selfish, vengefully annihilative, desperately manipulative, delusionally driven = deliberately, accidentally and casually doing evil

…and utterly lacking in basic empathy, emotional or rational intelligence and psychological insight = nihilistic and stupid.

Absolutely this - with Nancy Kelley as Dolores Umbridge as the vile cherry on top.

Well she's certainly got the tinkly laugh down pat @CompleteGinasaur

you see that the final result (for their own ostensible foundational ethos, before we even get to the Trans Rights debate) is to take an organisation founded to foster and protect not just the rights but the dignity of the Lesbian and Gay communities, and see that their rhetoric has turned us from Pride to the worst simpering perpetual victim figures

This! And changing a movement that shouted we were Good As You to a movement where people (not me!) shout that we are damaged, suicidal and must be handled with kid gloves.

What happened to all the "normie gays"? Have we all been drowned out by the spicy straights and their various kinks and pronoun requirements?

But yes, the notion that Stonewall lacks dignity and fails to defend our collective dignity resonates with me deeply.

"Stonewall are evil."

IMO if anyone is really thinking or asking this, then maybe it's time to consider if you're getting a little carried away.

@MargaritaPie

"Stonewall are evil."

IMO if anyone is really thinking or asking this, then maybe it's time to consider if you're getting a little carried away.

Oh ok thanks for that. Good to know.

What is a normie gay?

I've not heard that term before

Googled and results all memes, urban slang, and used in insults.

I'll look a bit more different search terms

Oink you used this term for yourself, was it used pretty much between gay people iyswim?

No it's an internet thing, you will only find memes and in-jokes. It's used disparagingly by people who aren't actually gay and is reclaimed affectionately by some of us who are.

It basically refers to people who happen to be homosexual but who don't make it the main focus of their entire life and who own clothing without rainbows on. (There is a scary amount of merch available these days and someone's got to be buying it)

Stonewall reminds me of something they talk about in the Eastern Orthodox Church - prelest, which means spiritual delusion.

It's when someone who is a very good and pious person catches hold of an evil idea which they are convinced, in their hubris, is actually good. And because of their zeal, and their evident goodness, they are able to enact great evil.

They believe the Devil particularly loves to see this kind of thing, not only because it can lead to lots of other badness, but because he delights on taking such a holy person, unknowingly, step by step down the road to Hell.

I think for many of them, they are so blinded by their own hubris and self-satisfaction that they are utterly blind to the fact that they are on the road to Hell.

And then there is the organizational tendency you see in all organizations to become a sort of cancerous growth, getting bigger and more powerful. And that attracts the people infected with greed.

What really strikes me though is the extent to which organizations like this claim to represent a group of people, but they really, really don't.

We don't have SW where I live, Pride fills pretty much the same role. They are constantly making demands and lobbying on behalf of the gay community. None of the gay people I know support much of that, though. So who are they representing, and why should those people get a seat at the table more than any other random group with an opinion?

Thanks for explaining oink!

Santa interesting comparison and made me have another thought.

Could also be related to the current way things are discussed, esp on social media.

In this case around-

The way it's generally not discuss etc.
But pick a side. Ignore any parts you might not be sure about. And take your place as a combative in a fight.
All that matters is winning.
If anything said by opposition that means any little doubt. Dig in deeper. Fight harder. Advance more aggressively. Any weakening in resolve, any niggles about the total justness of the fight. Ignore. Focus on the win. You can't desert your fellow combatants.

There must be plenty people who are caught up like that. At this point CAN'T do anything to cause dissent in ranks, weaken the resolve to win at all costs.

I would say that the people that run Stonewall are greedy and immoral. As such they no longer care about society and the harms that their lobbying is causing. They only care about profit. It seems the majority of those that genuinely wanted to make a difference have left the organisation. I would think that there are a few who remain but are too scared to speak out.

It’s very sad that this has happened.

I am rather astounded by the lack of wisdom that comes from Stonewall. From their legal advisors, their CEO who lacks clarity of thought at all, to their social media people.

It is like they never take the time to fully consider their statements. And yes, they constantly paint the people they represent as victims as the default in all situations.

The result to them is their membership then relies more heavily on them to deliver righteous justice.

This cake debacle is an excellent example. But every month there is a new example.

But then, I am constantly astounded at the lack of wisdom behind the reliance on the hyperbolic and overtly emotional manipulation that trans activists rely on. And horrified when I see people agree and even then try to use it on others.

@PastMyBestBeforeDate

They're a charity in search of a cause

This pretty much nails it.

Also deliberately misquoting legislation isn’t stupidity.

This is just the banality of evil though, isn't it? It's not that someone is sitting on a throne, cackling and stroking a cat evilly. It's just that a whole bunch of incentives pile up so that people go down the wrong path.

There's a famous phrase summing this dynamic up: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."

(Apparently the original precise quote from Eric Hoffer was "Up to now, America has not been a good milieu for the rise of a mass movement. What starts out here as a mass movement ends up as a racket, a cult, or a corporation.", which I think is even more on point.)

Colin Wright was expounding on the same theme on Twitter yesterday.

You must watch out for industries that begin for good reasons but have financial incentives to persist long past their expiration dates.

We are seeing this with many LGBT rights and antiracism orgs. They need homophobia, transphobia, and racism to exist, otherwise they wouldn't.

It's good to have organizations that stand up for human rights, but when financial incentives prevent an organization from acknowledging their own victories and success, we have a problem.

This doesn't just stall progress, but eventually actively reverses it.

There's a similar thing happening with COVID. COVID was & is a serious problem worth addressing, but COVID panic will outlast its expiration date because of the incentives for doing so.

I don't know the solution other than pointing out the phenomenon & staying vigilant about it.

Human rights organizations and institutions are structured in ways that assumes continuous growth, like any company. But this model is incompatible with human rights organizations because their mission is to destroy the justification for their continued existence.

And so the most successful and effective human rights organizations necessarily turn harmful when they're eventually forced to manufacture outrage for their continued existence.

Good post Necessary

I think you folks are being very unfair. Try to be a little more empathetic, Gareth Lee walked into a cake shop with the intention of causing trouble - but the evil cake shop were nothing but cruel in offering a range of alternatives for him, just not the one thing he knew they had a religious objection to.

The cake shop owners falling over themselves to find a mutually agreeable solution was clearly totally not in the spirit of what Gareth Lee wanted. I don't blame him for being so distressed he ran to the courts.

Stonewall is right here - people thought of as bigots MUST behave exactly as the comic book villains Stonewall & supporters sees them as.

IANAL. Something I have in common with whoever drafted SW's tweets on that case.

Colin Wright has hit the nail on the head, there.

The blindness of zealotry and zeal. Think scribes and pharisees. Shouting their purity and superiority of belief while actually.....

Bunch of Mr Murdstones.

Here's Maya Forstater on Stonewall's lack of grassrootedness. Randomly thinking of the contrast with say a nature organisation like RSPB that probably answers mainly to a contributing membership base of interested enthusiasts who like thinking about in this case birds and if yhey disagree, will say so or swap to a different organisation. But most of SWs contributors as it now operates, pay because they don't want to have to be bothered thinking about the issues SW deals with.

I think this may have allowed SW to become untethered?