How Capital City Pride discriminated against Libertarians

Generally, I am not a fan of hyperbole, especially when used as a clickbait title to an online article. Even more-so when conservative media utilizes it to build a logically unsound argument about how liberals are destroying America. While I am skeptical of most media organizations, I tend to be even more skeptical about the stories the conservative media shares. From my observations (and own experience), the conservatives realize that they are losing ground with the US population, having to resort to covering deeply exaggerated stories or what should be a mundane topic meant to send their audience into an emotional downward spiral, hence creating loyal followers.

          

In the past few days, I noticed that my friend, James Holcomb, was upset about an incident that happened during the 25^th Annual Capital City Pride in Olympia, Washington. The first post I saw from him was a photo of a sign saying, “BANNED FROM PRIDE FOR BEING A GAY LIBERTARIAN.” 

“Thank you to all the supporters who stopped to talk to me on the street after getting banned from going into pride. Capital City Pride willing violated our booth contract because some individuals not associated with us decided to open carry (which is legal). We were discriminated against because we support the 2^nd amendment and it was assumed by the event coordinators that we were together with the open carry folks, which is not true. So now the LPWA and myself personally are banned from pride “for life”. Liberty requires tolerance.

After being unable to get any of the local media to cover his experiences at Pride, TheBlaze interviewed him. If an online magazine says “liberal” in a way that is meant to be derogatory, I do my best to avoid them. Many times has The Blaze said “liberal” in a derogatory manner. Hence, I do my best to avoid them. That doesn’t mean I completely shut them out, as there are a few articles here and there that legitimately catch my interest. Despite my general distaste for TheBlaze, the coverage of James’ Capital City Pride experience is well illustrated.

As detailed on TheBlaze and by talking with James, we know that the Libertarian Party of Washington State booked and paid for a table weeks before Capital City Pride. Despite wanting to have a speaker, they were not given permission. The LPWA has been able to table at Pride for four years in a row, with no issues. James asked the chairwoman, Anna Schlecht, if members could open carry because there had been a problem at Seattle Pride – not with the LPWA, but with a demo regarding a person named Sparkles. (Interestingly enough, there is no problem with open carry at Whatcom County Pride.) He wanted to be able to tell the rule to the volunteers, just in case – “knowing the nature of libertarians.” Upon asking, James and the LPWA were asked to never return.

Neither James nor the LPWA were involved with the open carry protestors. James stood at a corner alone for five hours, protesting with his sign by himself. He attracted attention – he was called “racist” several times, but he also had productive conversations with some strangers. According to him, some who were against the open carry group came to tell him off as well, but once they heard his story, felt bad for him.

In a bit of a tangent, I am bothered by how very few other people seem to be irked by the bi-shaming experienced by the member of the open carry group. Bi/pansexuals have enough to deal with, excluding the harassment from fellow queers and “allies.”

During James’ experience and since then, my Facebook newsfeed has been filled with anger towards what happened with him and the LPWA, as well as dismay of how the people at Pride are not tolerant of the 2^nd Amendment and open carry, and why they should be. I believe that that is a completely different story. Personally, I have no problem with people (responsibly) open carrying, but I can understand how an event organizer may be uncomfortable with allowing that when attendees may become irritated or feel unsafe. Let’s face it – those kinds of crowds are mostly liberals and leftists, who believe in no or limited firearm freedom. A lot of libertarians probably agree with the protestors from the open carry group (but hopefully not their tactics and rowdiness), but I am clarifying now that this is not what I am writing about. And again, the LPWA and open carry group are unaffiliated.

No one should be able to argue that Capital City Pride had the right to not allow open carriers at their event. As a private institution, it was within their rights to turn away open carriers. You can argue if it was the right thing to do, followed by many-a-debate about whether or not the 2^nd Amendment is obsolete. Even if there was not a mix-up between the LPWA and open carry organization, could Pride not allow an organization with certain views to table? Certainly. However, if this particular view was not in display (whether through pamphlets and other educational materials or by someone open carrying) and has no bigoted background, one should question the motivation of enforcing such rules.

When I asked James why he worded the sign the way he did, he responded with, “I’m not the right kind of gay.” The gay who is pro-open carry. The gay who is Libertarian.

The fact that the LPWA was even allowed to table at Capital City Pride shows for a fact that Pride did not openly discriminate towards Libertarians. James is not entirely sure if they would have been allowed to table if the mix-up had not happened. According to him, Schechter does not like the LPWA and would not allow them to have a speaker at the event (this was weeks before the open carry fiasco). In other words, they were keen on finding an excuse to give the LPWA the boot. It still comes to question why the LPWA was allowed to table in the first place if they perceived that they are hated so much. (Revenue?) Not every aspect of this story will ever truly be clear to us.

Capital City Pride discriminated against open carriers, which means they discriminated against Libertarians. They discriminated against conservatives. They discriminated against any other group that believes in open carry. But how is discriminating against a conservative open carry advocate different from a Libertarian open carry advocate? Historically, the Libertarian Party was the first major party to announce support for gay marriage, and include it in their platform. John Hospers, who was the first presidential candidate for the Libertarian party (1972), was the first openly gay man to run for president. (He and the vice-presidential candidate, Tonie Nathan, received an electoral vote, making Nathan the first female candidate in United States history to receive one.) Pride made the choice to do away with an ally that has been supporting gay marriage for longer than the two major political parties, as well as the gay man who is a member of the Libertarian Party, who believes in 2^nd Amendment rights. They kicked out an organization that is on their side and paid money weeks beforehand for their table because of their unwillingness to have open carriers at the event, ignoring the fact that they had probably made a mix-up with the LPWA and open carry group. The event organizers, whether you agree with their decisions or not, handled the dismissal immaturely and unprofessionally. If they realized a mix-up had been made, they were probably too hateful, stubborn, or feeble-minded to make amends.

Capital City Pride discriminated against Libertarians in a way that other private entities discriminate subtly (and sometimes under-the-law). If a business does not want to hire an older person, they will look for someone “not planning to retire.” And so on. James and the LPWA were not the “right kind of gay” – the kind that shares the same views on a variety of issues – and done away with. It is something libertarians, especially progressive libertarians, have to regularly deal with.

Whether or not you agree with the wording of James’ sign and that Capital City Pride discriminated against Libertarians, you have to admit that seeing his sign was quite the conversation starter…and that the event organizers for Capital City Pride are major assholes.

Adsense's hypocrisy and puritanical shaming

On April 15th, 2015, I went onto my email to find that I received an email from Adsense saying that I violated their terms of agreement by posting a nude photo on my Blogger site (in reference to "My naked picture - six months later"), which utilized their service. A few weeks prior, Antiwar.com had a problem with Adsense when they refused to take down an article which contained graphic images that were against Adsense's policies, causing them to have to find new ways of obtaining revenue. This post is not about companies' rights to dictate how people use their services. As private entities, they do have the rights to determine those things. However, it does not mean they don't have a moral obligation to make sure their rules are fair and consistent. That is what this particular post is about.

When I thought about posting my first nude photo on here, I was mainly worried about Blogger, since this is where La Commedia Politica is hosted. I also was concerned for Facebook, since I wanted to post the photo there as well with the link to my article (and if the preview showed the picture). Even though I view my photos as being artistic, I feared that Blogger would view them as pornographic, which would make me have to make my blog 18+. This hasn't happened...as of yet. I had heard that with Facebook, it allowed artistic nudity, and according to their Community Standards, they allow "photographs of paintings, sculptures, and other art that depicts nude figures." They also say they will remove photographs "focusing in on the fully exposed buttocks." Whatever that means. No zooming in? I don't think I had ever given Adsense much thought, if any at all concerning whether or not my images violated their terms of service.

When I received the warning from Adsense, I decided to check out their standards, to see what kind of nudity they allowed (because surely they allowed artistic nudity...right?). One of the links they recommended to me was an article called "Policy Tips - Keeping the network family-safe." The first things that stands out to me from this article is this sentence: "Because the label "family-safe" is a general term that differs among all countries and cultures, we often receive questions asking for clarification on what we consider adult content." Ya know, it's really great that they recognize and acknowledge this. Nevertheless, they completely throw the understanding behind that statement out of the window when they say in the last paragraph that, "When in doubt about whether an image or text might be construed as adult content, our rule of thumb is this: if you wouldn't want a child to see the content or if you would be embarrassed to view the page in front of colleagues, then it's probably not family-safe and you shouldn't place Adsense code on it." In other words, if you don't think a close-minded,  prudish American wuss can handle it, don't use Adsense.

Seriously, what you "wouldn't want a child to see" or "be embarrassed to view in front of colleagues" not only differs from country to country, but is such a white, middle-class way of trying to make a point. For all we know, someone from the  Drug Enforcement Administration may be viewing Adsense-embedded sites at work.

Not to mention, they should be awarded at least 300 douchebag points for not allowing sexual health or medical advice.  

I say that in both of my naked picture posts that people do not have my consent to use these pictures against me in a negative fashion. I don't know if I can really blame Adsense for trying to remain consistent with what they allowed to be posted. So I'm not so much pissed off at the enforcement as I am with the rules they came up with in the first place. Of what I can see, they make no mention of art in any form, unless you count pornography. Of course, this all begs the question: Why does nudity have to be artistic or medical for it to be acceptable?

Overall, I can understand why Adsense would want to cater to the needs of the advertisers. Personally, if I was an advertiser, I probably wouldn't care where my ad was placed (unless the money went towards an atrocious person/company/cause) because if people choose to associate my ad with an image of a battle wound on a site that is totally unrelated and therefore don't want to buy my product, I sure don't want those dumb fucks to be supporting my brand. I just wished Google was less lenient with what they allow advertisers to do...

To be honest, I have been very uncomfortable with Adsense on my blog. I only added it because, "Oh hey - money" (and not even that much for as long as I had it) and the convenience since, "Oh hey - I want to make some money." I would have felt more comfortable if they allowed me to choose which kinds of ads I wanted. Instead they were all like, "Ah, she's half-Filipino, so let's give the men on her blog the opportunity to date *coughexploitcough* Asian and Filipino women!"

"Katrina must have many men after her, so let's further objectify Filipino women!"

"Katrina's an attractive Asian women, so surely she wouldn't mind this."

I wasn't able to screenshot these ads (because I hadn't seen them after this incident), but Google seemed to think that because I am open in talking about sex, that I approve of people cheating on their romantic partner. So yeah, I had ads on my blog that told my audience (usually focused towards the men) to have extramarital affairs.

It would make sense for me to wrap this all up in a conclusion. However, I think you all can decide for yourselves about what injustices have been done here. There is no real end to this story until Google and other online conglomerates can pull their shit together.

UPDATE: I am now using Infolinks for ad revenue. While I am not a fan of the default format (I want to see if I can change it to something more formal), it is making me more than I make with Adsense.