From my Message 150 of "Harm in Homosexuality?":
That is right, they should have reached out to the people that agreed with them rather than alienating them, which allowed another extremist group to open up a space and let them in.
For those unclear "they" refers to gay marriage activists. I am uncertain how it can refer to all gays, or just the gays among those activists.
Same message:
It looks to me that gay activism got a little bit too excited and did not look at how to achieve ends realistically. Its human, but it was a mistake. In the end they turned potential victories into defeats by alienating potential supporters.
For those who are unclear, the phrase above is gay activism, not gay activists. It is referring to people of all orientations who worked for gay rights, and given the context of this thread and that post: gay marriage rights. I suppose I should make clear that it was not mean to mean all those working for gay marriage rights, just the section which did things which were counterproductive.
There should be no question at this point what my position is. I was not singling out gays for criticism.
Let me repeat the possible failures of diplomacy
1) One can be shrill and so unable to be listened to in the first place,
This means that bridges cannot be built to members of the opposition group, or to those ignorant of what is under discussion. It is not an active alienation, but a preservation of an alienated state, with the possibility of increasing the chance one will not be listened to in the future.
2) one can be annoying and so likely to be ignored even if one can be listened to,
This is similar to number one. The distinction is that the first does not even convey a message to those being talked to. In this case what is under discussion may be understood, but further talk regarding solutions is tainted with disinterest because the messenger is doing something which turns listeners off.
3) one can make unnecessary offensive statements about the very people one is trying to rally to a cause,
This means that ad hominem and hyperbolic language is used which ends up turning off the target audience in a direct way. This is directly alienating. An example would be activist crowds or representatives saying the Xians are homophobes and they need to prove they are not by voting a certain way. Even if the underpinning logic of the argument has a grain of truth, it is lost in the mounds of garbage piled on top.
4) one can in a state of hubris pretend to be everything that one's enemy makes one out to be,
This is another direct alienation. For example an anti-gay group could say that gays are trying to take over the US and force their worldview on Xians. In response, certain activists can gather together and say those anti-gay groups are right and that gays will take over the US, like it or not. Even in jest this does not help. An undecided or ignorant person will here a message which is not good, and the other side agree. And even if they get it is a joke it can make people disinterested in helping such an immature group.
5) one can lie or in some other way act hypocritically and so make one's sincerity suspect.
This is another form of direct alienation. An example would be asking for the rule of law for protection, while at the same time saying if the law will not answer to your terms, it will be broken... and then breaking the law. That is hypocrisy. It may be an understandable act of frustration, but it does not help one's case. There are other failures in addition to lying and hypocrisy which can cause sincerity to be suspect.
It is always possible to lose followers for the best positions.
Yes. And what's important for diplomacy is realizing that ones future followers may start within the ranks of the enemy, the undecided, the apathetic, and the ignorant.
This means that diplomacy does not just operate on the notion of shoring up one's base, but expanding that base as well. The idea that people, even members of the opposition, do not change sides with good diplomatic work is to disregard the history of diplomacy. The idea that everyone on one's own side cannot be lost is ignorance of history altogether. The idea that everyone actually knows which side they are on on any issue, is overestimating the situation.
A person may suggest that that means those who left weren't really dedicated followers, but that is sour grapes.
Indeed that is a very good point that I made. When one has lost ground, and then insists that it could be for no other reason that those that abandoned one's position must never have been there in the first place, is just avoiding the pain of admitting possible errors.
In the case of the US, there are many undecideds, apathetic, and ignorant individuals. They can be swayed from side to side and have been. What's more there are people who are personally against homosexuality but willing to look past that in order to grant equal rights. They are also easily swayed back to full opposition. And this is what happened.
The world is not us and them, neither is the US. Voting is when people have to come down on one side or the other, which is why it is important to make sure to approach people, the diverse audience which is the american public, carefully. Thankfully one election result does not last forever.
As soon as one believes "they are with us or against us" and nothing can change that fact, one is already commited to a needless war against one's friends.
Yes, this is also an interesting point. Some may think that in this "friends" refers to people one is approaching for help on policy solutions. But that is not fully correct.
What I was trying to get at is that with an attitude of with us or against us, one will end up needlessly finding or defining real friends as enemies as the walls close in. After all if it is with us or against us, then all us must agree 100% on everything, and that simply is not a realistic expectation.
Friends don't discriminate against friends, until they decide that friends don't ever disagree with friends.
It is wiser to approach the matter with the attitude that friends can be found in the most unlikely places, and not striking out just because there are a few glitches, or that results are not immediate.
In some cases friends may not even realize they are causing pain to another group, and view it instead as the other group trying to harm them. Ignorant? Yes. Solvable? Hopefully. With an us or them attitude? Never.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2