Greenwald said something interesting about Bradley Manning:

[Smarmie Doofus]

>>>>Greenwald believes Manning might have been less likely to reveal government secrets if he were straight: Gay people, because they’re already “outside the sphere of comfort,” have a “huge advantage in being willing to challenge authority,” he says, speaking from experience. >>>>>

I agree, actually, and posted something here to this effect a long while back.

Leaving the specifics of the Manning -Wikileaks affair ( it's actually a "government cover-up of war crimes" affair; but that's another argument) aside for the moment, is what Greenwald says true? Are GLBTs more inclined to challenge authority?

Does being "outside the sphere of comfort" confer any kind of special advantage/disadvantage in terms of... I don't know... a willingness to wrestle with the moral complexity of things, (as it appears Manning did)?


Here's the entire article:

http://www.out.com/detail.asp?page=1&id=30073

[RKP5637]

1. If one is gay they are generally forced to live on the peripheral of society, challenging

the status quo is a daily event IMO, basically "outside the sphere of comfort" which takes a lot of inner strength to consistently endure. That said, I think many are forced to live "outside the sphere of comfort" in America from many walks of life.

[Smarmie Doofus]

13. Hmmm. True.

Our experience and circumstances shape us.

It's possible I'd be complacently non-political... even voting repubican.... if I were straight. ( I like to think NOT! But who knows.)

And... we're far from alone "outside the sphere of comfort".

But...most glbts endure a psychological bombardment that is quite distinctive and therefore different from that directed toward other "undesirables." ( I'm not making a "Who's more oppressed" argument. That's been done and no one wins.)

What sort of implications does that have ( if ANY) for the kind(s) of people we become?

Greenwald seems to say there's a lot gained from all that suffering.

[SheilaT]

2. Really? Straight people never reveal secrets.

Wow. I'm going to have to rethink everything I thought I knew about whistle-blowers.

I'm being reminded of the old nonsense about gays being security risks. That was ONLY true because the were forced to hide their sexuality. Once they came out of the closet, everything changed. Or should have. I see there's still a lot of bull crap out there.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. It's hard to find anything here that relates to my OP.

Give it a re-read.

[GodlessBiker]

3. Are African-Americans more willing to reveal state secrets because they are ...

outside the sphere of comfort of governmental authority?

I bet if you look back on all those who have been convicted of revealing state secrets, you will find that most of them, most but not all, are straight white men.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. An interesting comparison.

But you're corrupting it a bit by adding verbiage;


"the sphere of comfort of governmental authority?"

Greenwald doesn't say that.

I think he's talking about a certain psychology that arguably develops in the typical "sociaization" process that many ( most? ) glbts ... ummm... endure.

I'm not AA... and I certainly don't claim to know what growing up was like for all or even most glbts... but it seems likely that the societal marginalization of AAs would typically be experienced psychologically in a different way than most glbts come by ( or "get used to") it. Example: AAs don't normally get rejected by their families for being AA; nor do they have to hide large parts of their psychological selves from the family as a consequence of being AA.
GLBTs do. Usually.

I think this glbt developmental aloneness sets the stage for a *different* , perhaps more "autonomous" mindset.

I'm speaking in generalities, of course.

As is Greenwald.

[GodlessBiker]

7. Fair enough, but I still think we would find that most gov't secret leakers are straight white males

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Yeah, gov and military people who say they are staight always

are! This is a realm where you'd not know unless you knew each of the people individually, I'd say.

[Smarmie Doofus]

9. Historically, yes. But isn't that the demographic that would......

.... be kept in the loop about "secrets" anyway?

Ergo... they'd be most likely to "leak" by definition.

Black, gays and women are all historically very new to this stuff.

[GodlessBiker]

12. So Greenwald's hypothesis is based upon a sample size of one? He's just looking for things to ...

write about.

[closeupready]

5. It can go either way. Personally, I always question authority. But there are gay priests and

gay people like Roy Cohn, who argue(d) in favor of more repression and bigotry, even though they are/were themselves gay.

So a mixed bag.

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. I don't think of folks like that as "gay".

This might be a 70's thing. ( When I more or less came politically of age.)

People like Cohn were " homosexuals", but they were definitely not "gay", as that term ( coined for all intents and purposes in the early 70s) implied a certain political awareness of oneself as a member of a disenfranchised class of people.

Gays were self-identified. Homosexuals were not. Gays were political. Homosexuals were not.

Lingo and it's meaning changes over time but the evidence indicates that Manning is gay in the sense I'm using it, not homosexual. Coming to terms successfully w. one's sexual orientation is a huge part of the developmental process that I think MAY produce a stronger and and more morally and ethically autonomous individual.

A homosexual might have been ok w. watching the collateral murder video and remained emotionally, ethically and morally unaffected. Manning seems to have been unable to do that.

[closeupready]

14. With all due respect, but then aren't you arguing that being gay is a choice?

Or, alternatively, CAN be a choice?

That is, if I know that sex with men is the only thing that does it for me, but I don't want to be stigmatized, then I can get married to a woman and have sex with men on the side RATHER than go whole hog and be one of those nasty gays. (That's not what I think, but I have had boyfriends who think like this, unfortunately.)

[Smarmie Doofus]

15. Noooooooo. No. Negative. Nein.

Sexual orientation... for the vast majority ....is fixed early on. Probably at or before birth for many of that vast majority. Certainly by school age.

I'm not communicating as well as I should.

I'm saying that the word "gay" (as of, say, year 1971) had ... and still to a degree HAS RETAINED ... a *political* connotation. (Though the connotation is wearing off rapidly , it appears.)

The term *gay* was abhorred by the straight world when we first started using it. The New York Times went for YEARS before it agreed to use the word to describe a person who is umm..... "gay", as we now use the word. And as you use it here ( "gay priests".)

Even the RC church... speaking of gay priests.... acknowledges that sexual orientation is essentially immutable and morally neutral but refuses to use the word "gay" . (That's seen by them as a political concession to the glbt movement that would imply approval of people actually having gay sex.)

So... if one wants to describe Roy Cohn for example as "gay "( He appears to have been exclusively homosexual) it is not inaccurate from a 2011 pov, but Cohn wouldn't have *ever* used the word ( He, I'm pretty sure, was morally opposed to homosexuality, even if he repeatedly engaged in it.)

Crazy mixed up world.

Whattayagonnadoooo.

[Zorra]

11. I totally get that. I definitely know that being glbt makes me more inclined

to cast aside all fear to deliberately challenge unacceptable societal constraints.

[nolabels]

16. A lot of times people do things for more than one reason

The interesting part for me is finding or at least figuring out what those reasons are. The reason might be also less covert and more common sense. Sure being on the outside might make it more comfortable to do what outsiders, stranger or even incensed enemies would do. The idea that anybody can understand others motives is a speculative field that often can put most of the rest of us on the same level playing field. I would say after reading the article on Greenwald that empathy part might be conveniently ignored here for reasons of anger. Being subjected hostility often helps in figuring out why we should help others not encounter the same fate. Manning obviously wouldn't be dropping dimes for a need of the notoriety and his plan probably was also not to get apprehended for his efforts. Implying that a main reason he did it was he felt like an outsider with little to loose just sounds like a implausible reach of a reason to me. Or at least for main cause to be sure