Today, I did a recording session, creating two videos about my 3 DADT books and the ideas behind them.
The first video is an autobiography, and the second is a summary of ideas.
Here is an outline of my remarks:
History – sissy boy, artistic, liked attention for intellect, music
Put down for leaving risk taking to others
WM expulsion (“tribunal” problem)
NIH – schizoid – Cuban Missile Crisis
KU- assistant instructor, deferements
Army service – special training company
Fort Eustis transfer – top secret security clearance
Career – only one layoff until end took responsibility
Sometimes being unmarried was an issue
Need to move to NYC to come out again.
Ninth Street Center
May 10 and move to Texas
MCC, Cuban Refugees
AIDS. DDAA. DGA. OLCC, Bill Nelson
Return to VA
Bill Clinton lift the ban
Why DADT was a central issue; SLDN and Outserve
Decide to enter debate
Conflict of interest
Move to MN
Mother’s heart disease
Blogging and passive marketing
COPA (Internet censorship) litigation sponsored by EFF
I call attention to issues major media misses and that evade “identity politics” like power grid, filial responsibility, downstream liability on Internet (Section 230, etc.).
Emphasis: individualist view of “augmented personal responsibility”
My thing had been the right to be left alone, not to be driven by the demands of my group to function in place.
Equality is an abstraction – implications in practice have many paradoxes (childlessness)
Racial groups are not the same as behavioral or cultural groups (identity politics)
When there are external threats. Some “behaviors” or avoidances jeopardize the group
People seem concerned about how my sexual capacity connected to other needs in the family
There is an impression of “sacrifice” that is meaningful if everyone else has to do it.
Paradox: my sexual response implies that competitiveness and “maleness” are virtues and can be lost.
Yet, you are not a “man” if you don’t do your part and take your turn and “play ball”
Aloofness, privilege, and visibility can increase the risk of instability
The need for ego so that there is incentive for standard of living
But the people who consume your work need to “matter” and my sexuality implies some of them don’t
So a dangerous paradox can promote instability
Hatred happens because people know they can be forced to deal with someone personally and support them in a pinch when otherwise they would have avoided them, changing “meaning”.
No victims, it starts with you, yet you need to belong, and, yes, we have to protect “civilization”.
The “I told you so” canard and out.
The “playing ball with us” problem, and the “no spectators” rule
“Radical hospitality” and “radical solidarity” compared to individualism
While I wait for these to be posted on Vimeo by a third party, I’ll add a recap now (video just above).
Update: July 26
See related posting Nov. 30, 2015.
Update: Sunday, July 30, 3 PM EDT
One more afterthought: “Augmented personal responsibility”, or the idea that people who are different need to think through their own moral compass and do their own “rightsizing” voluntarily if freedom from authoritarians is to be maintained:
(Posted: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 8:45 PM)