SHARE
TWEET

Untitled

a guest Apr 21st, 2019 88 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. # Finals Notes
  2.  
  3. ## A1
  4.  
  5. 1. Setup
  6. - Platforming intersection of queer community and religious community
  7. - Does NOT look like partnering with the church necessarily, more like validating queer identities in religious communities etc.
  8. - Obviously still reasonable to call out the church
  9. -
  10. 2. Why queer religious folks ought be cared about
  11. - They experience unique oppression
  12. - They experience oppression for both queerness and religion
  13. - Intersectional harm is the queerphobia within religious communities
  14. - e.g. invalidation by conservative religious doctrine
  15. - Narratives of religious and queer communities operate opppsitionally leading to erasure
  16. - Conclusion: group is uniquely oppressed and erase and therefore is one we ought care about especially
  17.  
  18. 3. Helping queer religious individuals come to terms
  19. - Identity is represented in unique ways and validated
  20. - Closeted people now see people they can talk about which validates their jntersectional identity
  21. - Platforming makes role models for the vulnerable stakeholders identified above that is particularly beneficial
  22. - Younger members especially are empowered
  23. - Normalizing identity among members of the religious community
  24. - If one comes out the rest will here because of how it normalizes
  25. - C: Help and empower intersection
  26.  
  27. 4. Benefits discourse
  28. - The harm of conservative religious members is symmetric
  29. - Also we don't give a fuck about the Westboro Baptist Church
  30. - Discourse looks like raising points about the queer religious community not otherwise heard
  31. - Opens opportunities to care about this particularly vulnerable stakeholder
  32. - Likely to sway moderate religious voices who are open to persuasion because of increased exposure
  33.  
  34. ## N1
  35.  
  36. R. Wrong conception of the model
  37. - Leads to erasure
  38.  
  39. 1. Characterization
  40. - Organized religion repeatedly subjugates the queer movement
  41. - Queer people would be discomfited with their oppressors being included
  42. - e.g. Catholic Church, Islam theology
  43. - Most important context is that it requires leadership from these religious movements
  44. - Not enough to pick the least cancellable queer religious folks
  45.  
  46. 2. Messaging
  47. - Messaging of inviting institutions to be leaders is inherently problematic
  48. - Act of embracement looks like platforming religious people and therefore deplatforming queer people despite the inherently contradictory goals
  49. - Religiosity is inherently contradictory for some queer people because of the baggage associated with it
  50. - Once religious queers get in power under this model religion comes in more
  51.  
  52. 3. Why does this change the community for the worse?
  53. - Leadership characterization
  54. - You get to set the agenda!
  55. - Even if you get allies they are particularly superficial with regards to how they view the queer spectrum
  56. - See difference between love is love and trans people
  57. - Tone, sensitivity and funding
  58. - Queer movement is nowhere near done, see also the developing world
  59. - Needs to be as broad and ideologically pure as possible
  60. - This impacts it adversely and we cannot therefore stand for it
  61. - Leadership sets the tone of mainstream coverage
  62. - Cannot stand by criticism when you actively platform religious leaders
  63.  
  64. 4. Why are religious leaders particularly bad
  65. - Take positions of prominence away from queer people
  66. - Subconscious biases lead to people seeing them as Very Good allies even when they are less than perfect
  67. - Appear hypocritical
  68. - Still have some career interests in a queerphobic institution
  69. - R: Analysis on young people
  70. - "Now churches will be accepting" AND "Conservatives can't change" wot????
  71.  
  72. ## A2
  73.  
  74. R: fuckin sick burn on the opposition
  75. - It is a valid fiat of the topic to characrerize these leaders as done at first
  76.  
  77. 1. Religious + queers are compatible
  78. - Characterization and impact of young queer religious people goes unresponded to
  79. - Difficult to change because you get born into religion in a large number of cases
  80. - Since religion comes before queerness often you get conflict
  81. - Harms bought to you at first: alienation from your community, harms of erasure, spiritual harms of abandonment of God
  82.  
  83. 2. Why is critique not a good thing
  84. - Embracing religion is more likely to reveal the hypocrisy
  85. - Denying the existence of the intersection of religious people and queer people is very very silly
  86. - Creates the harms which they gave at first to begin with
  87.  
  88. 3. Change the movement for the better
  89. - These individuals were likely to be queer so Neg's point contingent on characterization fell
  90. - News coverage was not the main thing: the main benefit was a small scale benefit to a previously underrepresented and erased intersectional group
  91. - The existence of these leaders makes you feel valid in having your cake both ways
  92. - Can't criticize allies? wot
  93. - I can pick and choose parts of theology that I disagree with
  94. - People harmed by religious institutions were most important stakeholders, harmed by this model: Issue here is that queer religious people were NOT the oppressors, they were some of the only people who could understand it
  95. - Still bought you plenty of benefit because neither identity erased each other
  96. - Facilitated healing because you resolved that internal conflict
  97.  
  98. ## Studix
  99.  
  100. I: Queer religious people have preferenced the religious institutions
  101. - This necessarily informs their priorities and how they construct their identity
  102. - Do not require them to be platformed
  103.  
  104. 1. Is there any positive reform of organized religion
  105. - Interests of queer movement are not sufficiently compelling to these people: pick and choose queerness
  106. - Giving over to religion indicates that they were unlikely to agitate for change
  107. - No reciprocity from organized religion because it isn't enforced, nor is it something they believe in or something they will be convinced of
  108. - Capable of stifling discussion and stultifying
  109. - Can't pick and choose benefits because of aff mechanisms
  110. - Credibility lended by leaders, appearance of hypocrisy afforded by about face turn on religion
  111. - No evidence they would be focussing on the queer aspects of their identity
  112. - Additionally religious conceptions of surrender of your self are opposed to queer selfdeterminism
  113. - Necessarily ties you to religious organizations that drive wedges into a queer community which could otherwise be united + crushes it
  114.  
  115. 2. Queers harmed vs. benefited
  116. - Lends credibility to narratives about the jntersection of these identities which religious institutions abuse to leverage against them
  117. - Do not need the entrenchment of predominately religious interests in a predominately queer movement
  118.  
  119. ## A3
  120.  
  121. I: Continued banter holy shit dog
  122. - We have the fiat dude
  123. - Let it fucking go
  124. - Opposition case is contingent on imperfect characterization
  125. - Rhetoric about deprioritizing queer or religious identities is EXACTLY the harm in this debate
  126. - Not good enough to not deny their existence
  127.  
  128. 1. How does this impact the movement as a whole
  129. - *Strips opportunity from other queers to lead this movement:* These people are also queer, falls the fuck out or is a unique harm we address
  130. - People you DO lock out still have some degree of power because of secondary position
  131. - *Harmful to queers oppressed by the religious community:* A harm that gets negated entirely because you can connect with those people, acknowledge those harms and begin to redress them
  132. - *Unlikely to represent the queer community:* Fiat lets us pick the best leaders
  133. - Clearly they must EXIST at least, denial of this denies existence of intersection
  134. - *Shifts direction of movement:* We didn't have to replace everyone BUT we could put LITERALLY ANYONE at the head of the movement
  135. - *Right wing people will weaponize this:* Capable of nuancing around this because it's consistent with narratives of acceptance but criticism
  136.  
  137. 2. How does this impact discourse and young queers
  138. - Gives people role models
  139. - Contact theory: can swing moderates by persuading them of the social utility
  140. - *Benefit is marginal because you can't convince conservatives:* Symmetric
  141. - FAR harder to get traction when you do have religious queers in the movement
  142. - EVEN IF none of these benefits stand you are likely to get more challenges to queerphobic powers
  143. - Unquestioned: Hard to prop narratives of religious intolerance when you prove it is possible to exist outside them
  144. - Did not need McFucking Quid Pro Quo for the benefit to stand because it is dependent on the queer movement platforming them not religion
  145. - *Entrenches dominant religion:* Fiat multiple religions
  146. - At the worst case we get a good degree of rep
  147.  
  148. ## N3
  149.  
  150. I: Gotcha about institutional involvement
  151. - A1 concession showed this flaw
  152.  
  153. 1. How does the motion affect the queer movement
  154. - Characterization must be more than aff claims
  155. - Soliciting the approval of religious institutions and placement of religious queers at the top of the movement
  156. - Motion does not affect preexisting religious queer movements, meaning the people bought in prioritize religion
  157. - Even if this wasn't true the messaging was particularly adverse re: priorities
  158. - Leadership has a very powerful effect because of their power over it
  159. - Dilutes purity of movement
  160. - Poor economics
  161. - Acts of embracement makes criticism difficult
  162. - etc.
  163. - Difficult to criticize your own leaders
  164. - Necessary to compromise on fundamental tenets to do so which is really fucking bad
  165. - Ostracize and invalidate people hurt by religious communities
  166. - *People who take this leadership are uniquely oppressed* so is everyone else bitch
  167. - Failed to prove they were especially important
  168. - Unengaged: Material about how the subservience of religion clashes with individuality
  169. - C: Helping the intersection is not worth these harms
  170.  
  171. 2. How does it affect the intersection
  172. - Minimization of their own model minimized their benefits too
  173. - We thought role nodels were fine but leadership was not
  174. - Well-spoken queers would not talk you out of religious beliefs because you think it is God telling you otherwise
  175. - Want religious institutions to bow to us, not other way around
  176. - No unique benefits under opp
  177. - Scale
  178. - Religious organizations have small queer populations because of how bad they are
RAW Paste Data
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy. OK, I Understand
 
Top