I am proud to be a signatory of “Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent.” There is a petition where others can join us, though obviously it’s totally cool if you disagree.
A friend told me he agreed with the full statement, but pointedly asked, “What purpose does this serve, exactly.” That’s a great question.
I, at least, was concerned, not just with the resignation of Brendan Eich, but the broader impulse among some of our supporters to take victory too far. The extreme, quoted in the statement, is the writer who just wishes everyone who opposes equal marriage rights would just shut up.
There are times when I understand the impulse, but it’s something to be resisted. A liberal society does not enforce conformity of opinion, and it should not — either through the law, or even through majorities — punish those whose opinion is deemed wrong.
That is the impulse behind the pressure on Eich — that he had to pay the price for his donation to Prop. 8. Under California law, it’s not illegal to pressure your CEO to quit over political reasons, or much of anything else. And I acknowledge, as several of Mozilla’s board members did, that Eich’s donation (and some other reported activities) made him a difficult fit.
But he is not the only one who has been subject to a growing sense, not of success among our supporters, but of something close to vengeance against those who oppose equality. We are prevailing in the political debate, and there is a long way to go. We need to let the other side fully air their arguments, even the bad or intolerant ones. We need to have the strength of character to accept even hateful insults, particularly those of us who are homosexual. We will never eradicate arguments and opinions we think are absurd or offensive, nor can we silence them.
That’s the price of living in a diverse society — actual diversity. That’s the point I think is worth emphasizing, and it’s why I signed.
46 Comments for “Why I Signed”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
We need to let the other side fully air their arguments, even the bad or intolerant ones.
So why, then, is it that it is so important to curtail “the broader impulse among some of our supporters to take victory too far”? The impulse is, at least from the evidence I’ve seen, a minority impulse among gays and lesbians. So why not let the marketplace of ideas sort things out over time?
If “the broader impulse among some of our supporters to take victory too far” is a bad idea, and I think that it is for the most part, then common sense will eventually cause the idea to die on the vine.
I agree with the principles of the statement, although I would not sign it for two reasons: (1) it misuses the Eich case, in my opinion, and (2) goes beyond a statement of principles in an attempt to shame those who don’t agree with us into conforming to our idea of what is right and wrong.
I don’t believe that any business joining in on that effort.
posted by AG on
“So why not let the marketplace of ideas sort things out over time?”
How can you be so obtuse? The petition is a part of the marketplace of ideas. There are many people, gay and straight, who find the most extreme impulses of the (pro-)gay progressives rather disgusting. If I understand your position correctly, you don’t agree with some of the things embraced by the progressive gay activists. Well, others disagree with the progressives much more forcefully and are willing to criticize them in public. So, stop whining when people disagree with you.
posted by Doug on
Reading the comments on IGF and other blogs it appears to me that the conservative right is doing the majority of whining on this issue.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Let me repeat, AG: Attempting to enforce orthodoxy of ideas hurts everyone. It doesn’t make a damn worth of difference whether the attempt comes from the left, from the right, or the middle. It really is that simple.
posted by Houndentenor on
Orthodoxy. Hilarious. What the right wants is freedom from criticism no matter what they do or say. They are the ones attempting to silence their opposition. Houndie don’t play that.
posted by AG on
Who is enforcing orthodoxy of ideas in this episode? The petition signatories? I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. I actually understand pretty well the prog-speak. But I’m at a loss here.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Who is enforcing orthodoxy of ideas in this episode? The petition signatories? I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. I actually understand pretty well the prog-speak. But I’m at a loss here.
I’m not surprised. The operative word was “attempt”. So lets look at that issue. You described the statement as “exactly how the “(pro-)gay” McCarthyism should be denounced” in the previous post (“Enforcing Orthodoxy Hurts Everyone”). What is the purpose of denouncing, in your view? Is it solely to add to the hot air supply in the world?
posted by Jorge on
Mr. AG, in light of the previous blog topic, I am going to give you an assignment. I want you to contact Dan Savage. Or one of his friends of friends.
It is a twofold assignment. One, you are going to ask if Dan Savage will be signing this petition, and why. Two, you are going to tell Dan Savage or his surrogate that you learned he said that Brendan Eich’s resignation is a step backward for the LGBT rights movement, and you are going to give him your honest evaluation of that statement.
As you argue, Dan Savage is more influential than many of the national gay organizations. What he has to say is important. And as someone who wants to act on behalf of your interests, he cannot do so without hearing the heat of your gaze. Seems to me now’s a good opportunity for that.
In all fairness, it is probably in your best interests for you to decline this assignment on the grounds that you’re not going to do my dirty work for me 😛 however if you decline you shall have to make a counteroffer about what you will do instead.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I would like to see real substantiation of the claims of these so-called victims who have been “subject to a growing sense, not of success among our supporters, but of something close to vengeance against those who oppose equality.”
Like with the Obama-scare tales, I suspect that there really is no there, there.
So AG, Stephen, and David — put up or (at the risk of accusals of ‘silencing you’) change the subject.
posted by Mark on
I agree with the above–there’s something of a manufactured controversy here, focused on a single case (Eich). The statement’s wording also seemed a little loose. I assume there are gay or lesbian employees at Mozilla. So by donating to a campaign to strip away their rights, Eich clearly sought to discriminate against them. Why pretend otherwise?
I also assume that by asserting “the consequence of holding a wrong opinion should not be the loss of a job,” all of the signatories affirm that if a CEO publicly calls for the right to marry for the company’s interracial couples to be terminated, that CEO must be allowed to remain in place and be the public face of the company. I can’t imagine any company–even Chik-fil-a or Hobby Lobby–that would share such a sentiment. The signatories’ unwillingness to differentiate between the responsibilities of a CEO and an average worker seems unrealistic.
posted by Doug on
Where was the gay conservative right all these past decades when the LGBT community was being pilloried and defamed by just about everyone? I didn’t hear any of their voices raised in protest.
posted by Lori Heine on
That’s because they weren’t raised in protest. They didn’t utter one peep.
Gay conservatives are supposed to keep other gays in line. That’s their job, just as the task to which the right will put other minorities is keeping their fellows in line. No input from gay conservatives is welcome on the political right other than this.
Which explains why sits like Gay Patriot spend all their time attacking gay people, or swarming any LGBT commenter with any self-respect or sense of community solidarity.
This petition is just the latest. The terriers are snapping at our heels again, trying to get us back in line. To get the herd going in the “right” direction.
posted by craig123 on
What self-righteous bunk. Stephen Miller was for many years an early activist with GLAAD and other groups in NYC, and served on GLAAD’s initial boards ( he left over disagreements about the direction the group was taking). Enlighten us, Lori, about your activist credentials. Also, your suggestion that IGFers and others are pandering to the homophobes (why don’t you just come out and call them Uncle Toms; we know you want to) is really ugly and reflects very poorly on you.
posted by tom jefferson III on
Hmm. I am not sure if much thought has been given to the general principle or theory implied in such a petition.
Are petitioners suggesting that [political or religious] belief-based discrimination is generally wrong? Are the suggesting that its wrong for anyone to socially censure someone for advocating beliefs that you find really bad (and could end up messing with your life)?
Aren’t the petitioners attempt to socially censure folks who they disagree with — which is something that they seem to be saying is a bad thing?
I can see value in having a conversation about political/religious discrimination as civil rights issue, make reasonable exemptions in civil rights laws, having more civility in our disagreements, etc.
However, I cannot see much value in this petition.
posted by Thom on
Two things:
1) “We need to let the other side fully air their arguments, even the bad or intolerant ones. ” – We have, for the last 2,000 years.
2) Eich wasn’t fired because he gave to Prop 8 – he was let go because having someone with his views was bad for Mozilla’s business. There are plenty of businesses that cater to people who believe the way Eich does and he is more than welcome to work there.
posted by Jimmy on
Yes and yes. I guess I could muster a nod signifying approval of this petition if there was some unseemliness committed by LGBT advocates in this instance someone could point to, but there isn’t, so I can’t.
It’s one thing to have an opinion, and it is another to take action. Eich took action. That action didn’t happen in a vacuum, and he never should have assumed that it did. The egg on Eich’s face, not anyone else’s.
posted by Jorge on
There is a petition where others can join us
Much better.
We are prevailing in the political debate, and there is a long way to go. We need to let the other side fully air their arguments, even the bad or intolerant ones. We need to have the strength of character to accept even hateful insults, particularly those of us who are homosexual. We will never eradicate arguments and opinions we think are absurd or offensive, nor can we silence them.
That’s the price of living in a diverse society — actual diversity. That’s the point I think is worth emphasizing, and it’s why I signed.
Using an extreme example to uphold a moderate principle. Such cheek.
Every single year at my college there was some kind of racial controversy. In my opinion, most of them were frivolous and suffered from a lack of appreciation for diversity on the side of the allegedly aggrieved party. My parents told me very early and often that I was going to a place where there were a lot of white people, and some of them are from other parts of the country, etc. As a result… I saw my college as a place where there were a lot of white people, and some of them were from other parts of the country.
I came to believe that diversity of experiences means that two people from different subcultures are going to end up sleighting and offending each other. It is inevitable. Mature people recognize this, regardless of the strength of their convictions.
I realized not too long ago that I can tell people who get offended easily and do a slight charm offensive on them when I detect them getting annoyed, before they start complaining. Some people do not respond well to faux pas, some let things slide without telling you they’re annoyed.
Extending this principle to people talking about us as gays in offensive terms… in some areas it does not bother me, but in others? Because some people are unapologetic even when you tell them they’re stepping on your feet, even when you suggest that it is not necessary to conduct business, even if only for the sake of a temporary neutrality. I don’t have a good deal of tolerance for people who refuse to offer such small social courtesies in one-on-one conversations. I take it as narcisissm. That is much of the difference between a social conservative I will support and a social conservative I will not.
posted by JohnInCA on
I find it really weird how gay conservatives have, in the last few weeks, bought into the whole “tolerance means support” meme. That meme was pushed by right-wingers as an attack on pleas for tolerance by trying to re-cast tolerance as something more then it is. Why did you buy into it?
Tolerance means begrudging non-interference. I don’t mess with you, you don’t mess with me, we both get to go home without a bloody nose. It does not mean that I have to support someone that took deliberate action against me.
posted by Carl on
This reminds me of when I saw William Saletan’s name on that letter, as I mostly remember him for being one of the Slate writers involved in the fiasco over that Mark Regenerus gay parenting “study.”
If this is someone I’m supposed to count on as some sort of gay ally who has to speak out because of those unknown Communist McCarthy-esque Gestapo gays, then I don’t know what to say.
posted by Jorge on
I find it really weird how gay conservatives have, in the last few weeks, bought into the whole “tolerance means support” meme. That meme was pushed by right-wingers as an attack on pleas for tolerance by trying to re-cast tolerance as something more then it is. Why did you buy into it?
……
Cute.
But no.
This is nothing more than a backlash (and one that’s been going on for months if not years) with a principle attached to it. I hope you’re not going to suggest that those right-wingers are going to buy into onto all that puffery about freedom and diversity means accepting and valuing that people are going to disagree with you while being true to your own views. Aha! That is why that principle was needed. To make a distinction from the shrilly right-wing.
My goodness, but it’s so much fun fighting multiple fronts at once, isn’t it?
posted by Houndentenor on
If there were a principle involved wouldn’t it be equally applied to both sides of the issue? Where are the homocons when the anti-gay crowd calls for boycotts of pro-gay businesses or individuals?
posted by Jorge on
Hmm. Good question. Poor example. I think you will find “homocons” out supporting the saner among the GLAAD condemnations.
Like that actor who said the f-bomb and then got honored by this black organization.
And like how GOProud condemned Rick Santorum and demanded an apology after a debate in which audience members apparently booed a question by a gay soldier and Santorum didn’t respond. And by the way, he condemned the booing the next day. Do I know how to pick ’em or do I know how to pick ’em?
You cannot adopt a standard that is wrong and use it to accuse other people of hypocrisy, as if premised on the notion that they ever consented to or considered following your wrong standard.
You will notice that I avoided you question. I have a hard time understanding it and think you should claim victory on it.
(I think he’s talking about Duck Man.)
Oh. That explains why I don’t understand it. You cannot adopt a standard that is wrong and use it to accuse other people of hypocrisy, as if premised on the notion that they ever consented to or considered following your wrong standard. You’re going to have to fight the culture war head-on. Remind me of this petition when you need to.
posted by JohnInCA on
I’m pretty sure what I’m suggesting is anyone who thinks Eich is entitled to my support is an idiot who has confused what “tolerance” actually means.
posted by Kosh III on
“We need to let the other side fully air their arguments, even the bad or intolerant ones. We need to have the strength of character to accept even hateful insults, ”
They’ve been airing their attacks for centuries and gays have endured the insults, harrassments, denial of rights and murder all along.
And now the Right says “can’t we all just get along?”
Frak them. They can believe what they want and say what they want but there are consequences, just ask the Dixie Chicks.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Ilya Somin, a conservative who teaches at George Mason University School of Law, has an absolutely fascinating article in the Washington Post, explaining why he did not sign the statement, although asked to do so.
It is worth a read because it gets at a primary issue with the statement — does the statement mean what it says on its face (“… the consequence of holding a wrong opinion should not be the loss of a job …”), which would presumably include wrong opinions about racial discrimination, religious discrimination and other matters, or is the statement intended to be applicable soley to “wrong opinions” about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If the former, the statement meets the “equal means equal” test; if the latter, it does not.
Here’s the most fascinating part of the article:
Somin’s observation that “the drafters probably would not object to … changes” clarifying that the statement was aimed soley at “wrong opinions” about gays and lesbians. It makes me very suspicious about the statement.
posted by Carl on
So basically a bunch of people, some of whom are considered to be very distinguished, signed their names to something that is vaguely worded and can be used to defend the continued employment of people for any number of things.
I hope the “gotcha” to those liberal McCarthy gays was worth it.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
OK, It seems like somewhere here is basically saying, “Yeah, living in a free society means tolerating actual diversity, now everyone needs to fall in line, shut-up and think like me.” I smell hypocrisy.
The CEO was — probably not an ’employee’ so I am not sure if the state equal opportunity policy would applied in that case. Granted, I am not sure about that.
Even if the law was written differently, it is not entirely clear that he would (a) bring a lawsuit and (b) would have a case. I suspect, that Mozilla would — if it went to court — argue that his beliefs were some relevant to the bottom line or something like that.
Now, I am not opposed to the idea of “political belief” — much like religion or “creed” — being a part of the civil right code. But you need to think clearly and consistently about how such a provision would actually work.
Some of this reminds me of the ‘scandal’ over Tea Party groups and the IRS.
Do conservative citizens have a right to create interest groups? Yes.
However, getting non-profit status comes with certain benefits and limitations and any political group seeking non-profit status has to be looked over.
I will note that talk of “we need to support real diversity” in America is coming from folk who {for the most part} have little problem with the discrimination against citizens who want to participate in the political process and are not member of either of the two major parties.
If we just look at the issue of diversity in terms of political belief discrimination, Independent citizens and members of a third party probably have a more serious case to argue — because they don’t have many elected supporters (like the Tea Party folks) and all sorts of ‘quaint’ little rules about campaign finance and ballot access and public debate inclusion are shamefully set up as incumbency protection.
So, why aren’t the people who signed this petition up and arms about this type of discrimination?
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Was the CEO actually fired or pressured to resign? That would probably make some difference in terms of equal opportunity/ employment law. What type of ‘goodbye’ package/benefits did the CEO get? That might also be of some interest.
posted by Jorge on
I will note that talk of “we need to support real diversity” in America is coming from folk who {for the most part} have little problem with the discrimination against citizens who want to participate in the political process and are not member of either of the two major parties.
There is no such thing. People who belong to neither party have every right to vote for the candidate of their choice, give to the candidate of their choice, and field the candidate of their choice. It’s not my problem if most everyone else isn’t going to give enough money or provide enough signatures to make it a competetive race or even qualify just because they’re in puppy love with their own elected officials who all happen to be Democrats or Republicans. You had your say and have fully benefited from it–as has everyone else.
As for you suggesting that the Tea Party scandal is something that merits quotation marks, when 100% of organizations with the words “Tea Party”, “9/12”, and “Patriot” in their organization names are selected for extended review, and only 33% of organizations with the word Progressive are so selected, there is something improper going on that needs to be remedied. This came to light because of a special report by the United States government itself, in the form of Inspector General for the Department of Treasury. The Inspector General concluded that going by organization name alone is both underrepresentative and overrepresentative of potential political cases, and that the distribution of cases selected gives a disturbing impression that an impartial branch of government is making decisions for partisan political reasons. President Obama accepted the findings of the report and condemned them. The fact that Darrel Issa has a stick up his butt discredits the Inspector General’s report to a point where it is still smoking gun credible.
posted by Jimmy on
“The fact that Darrel Issa has a stick up his butt discredits the Inspector General’s report to a point where it is still smoking gun credible.”
Huh? You made sense until this last sentence.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—There is no such thing.
Wow……[insert picture of Captain Picard face palm]. Yes, there is such a thing and the evidence demonstrates just as much.
(a) Whether or not Independent voters can vote in either a major party primary is generally left up the state or party. Case law is a bit fuzzy.
(b) Their is certainly a legit purpose in having some ballot access laws, but most of the time they go way beyond what is necessary for any legit state interest. Their has been quite a bit of scholarly research on this point.
—As for you suggesting that the Tea Party scandal is something that merits quotation marks,
The rules governing non-profits say that in exchange for certain benefits (mostly financial) the group seeking the status agrees to NOT engage in certain political activities.
If the name of your organization suggests that you have no intention of following this agreement, then questions might just have to be asked.
All prospective nonprofit groups — I been involved with several — have to be prepared for lots and lots of questions and paperwork to prove that they are going to follow all of the rules that come with the benefits.
Were the liberal or conservative groups cited following the rules?
Again, I am not saying that political discrimination — by the government — does not happen.
I just seen far too much ‘I only care about political discrimination when its my views’ and far, far too much silly complaints about how a Tea Party group should instantly get nonprofit status and not have to follow any of the rules that come with the benefits.
posted by Jorge on
Huh? You made sense until this last sentence.
It’s my way of minimizing what I consider the strongest rebuttal argument.
I have never encountered anyone who denies there was a scandal who was willing to acknowledge the facts stated and concluded in the Inspector General’s report (there’s also a follow-up correspondence by the IG to a congressman I like to cite). At best, what usually happens is what we have with Tom Jefferson’s response, an attempt to say “Yes, but” in such a way as to excuse or ignore it. (Obviously I hope to prove I’m not doing the same thing toward him.)
The excuse that makes the most sense to me is the conduct of (I believe it’s the House Oversight Committee) Chairman Darrell Issa in response to this report and a few other situations, which I consider rather cynical and faithless even in situations in which there’s a clear problem. The IG investigation began in response to Issa’s inquiries, which were due to complaints by tea party organizations.
The facts of the report remain.
Tom nails it right on the head when he says there is far too much “I only care about political discrimination when its my views”. That is the difference between President Obama’s response to the scandal and that of the political left.
…there is such a thing and the evidence demonstrates just as much.
a: Reasonable can disagree on what the most reasonable and fair thing is. That does not make it discrimination. I happen to think that the right to vote in a primary is a reasonable members-only benefit. Minor parties can field their own candidates.
b: I’ll concede on this. This means: political discrimination on the basis of whether or not you belong to a major party likely to get an inflated number of signatures to run… impacting both independent people who want to run and the people who want to vote for them… so why aren’t we up in arms over this type of discrimination?
Well that’s not something I’ll be able to explain because I feel that the alternating balance of power between the two major parties does represent me. It is difficult for me to imagine people who fall in the middle and are dissatisfied as being anything other than ignorant of how to exercise their power. I’m more sympathetic to people who fall somewhere completely outside the prevailing political axis, like socialists and some libertarians, but it’s hard to know how common they are. I just don’t see where the great harm is. Left, right, and middle are all represented. How many people does that truly leave out?
“If the name of your organization suggests that you have no intention of following this agreement…”
I could maybe understand if the names of the groups were something like Libertarian, Democratic or Republican, but Tea Party? 9/12? Patriots? Are you ****ing kidding me? What gives any government official the right to say I’m smart enough to know you by your funny name? Go back to monarchist Europe and call your king a cream puff.
posted by Lori Heine on
I’m going to ask a question that the bloggers, and the conservatives who post here, won’t answer. It’s a very simple and straightforward question, and its answer would be quite revealing. Which is why I doubt it will be answered.
Who is this petition supposed to be for? Who is its intended recipient?
Is it the public in general, Republican legislators, hardcore anti-gay crusaders, undecided potential swing voters? Who’s it for?
All petitions aim to influence people. Every one of them circulates with the intention of influencing somebody. Who is this one supposed to influence?
Again, I don’t expect to get an answer. But if none can be provided, we have no reason to take this petition seriously.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
@ Lori – I was wondering the same thing. Who is this petition directed towards?
David Link talks about ‘diversity of opinion’ – yet chastises those who were opposed to Eich’s appointment for expressing their opinions.
What’s behind all of this?
My guess – several of the signers of this petition have spent some time and energy arguing for a tolerance towards those who oppose equality. We’re supposed to accept that there are rational arguments against equality that are not bigoted in their origin.
(These arguments are usually classified as ‘religious’ and/or ‘traditional’).
Now, though, with the rulings re: non-discrimination laws (upholding them with regard to the baker and photographer) and the social backlash against Mozilla’s appointment of an anti-equality supporter – it seems there are parts of the country that are moving on past this notion of an acceptable homophobia (which, per the signers, isn’t homophobia. It’s a rational opposition to our equality.)
And where does that leave these homocons who argue for social acceptance for those intolerant of lgbt equality?
It leaves them stuck with these same folks who still, to this day, oppose equality.
I’ve also got to throw in my 2 cents and note that having signers like Mehlman and Blankenship – who worked so hard for years to oppose our equality – criticizing the lgbt community for ‘not playing nice’ is beyond ironic. Really? We’re supposed to be taking moral direction from these guys re: how to advance our own equality?
And then there are people like Andrew Sullivan – who attacks people for opposing Eich’s appointment, then demands that the marriage equality book by NYT journalist Becker be ‘pulled from publication’ because he doesn’t agree with it, then recants his demand – we should listen to this guy lecture our community as a whole?
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
I just re-read Link’s statement above – and I’m back to the central point so many have noted.
What does Link want from the lgbt community as a whole? Are we supposed to operate as a hive? All in lock-step, marching to the ‘play nice’ drum?
How did what happen with Eich violate anything in your petition? Wasn’t there diversity of opinion expressed?
(If, like me, you visit several lgbt blogs on a regular basis – you would have encountered some vigorous debates about how to respond to Eich when this first hit the net. )
Several commenters at lgbt blog sites did the ‘firefox off my pc’ route. Several argued for a more ‘let bygones be bygones’ approach with the Prop 8 support. Some Mozilla employees said they did not feel comfortable with Eich as CEO. The 2 Mozilla app developers started the original boycott, demanded to speak with Eich (and did), got what they wanted and announced the end of their boycott – some days prior to the resignation.
In looking at the chronology of events – I find nothing but ‘diversity of opinions’ being expressed. All over the place.
This petition seems to want to silence those whose opinion runs counter to the petition.
But then we get to Link’s final paragraphs – the “general sense…of vengeance”. Here we go.
These guys are talking to the Republicans, the right-leaning libertarians, to those who oppose equality.
Who else is constantly talking about a ‘general sense of vengeance’ among equality supporters? (George Will, Douthat, etc…, that’s who.)
i.e., right wing talking heads who still personally oppose equality, religious leaders who are now calling themselves the victims because they can’t control the conversation, etc… – these are the ones who use that language.
This is a call-out to the peers of the petition-signers – these signers are not going to support lgbt equality at the expense of their relationships with bigots.
Oh, excuse me, ‘bigots’ is such a… direct word.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh, of course, because no one here is actively counseling vengeance.
https://igfculturewatch.com/2014/04/24/opposing-gay-marriage-vs-opposing-inter-racial-marriage/#comment-202824
Oops.
It’s kind of like how you’re swearing up and down that you don’t support violence or discrimination, but that the people who signed this petition saying that are race traitors and Uncle Toms.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
@NDT – so you pick one comment, with a ‘rub their noses in it’ line – and that’s a call out for “vengeance”.
That comment inspired these signers to speak out against the “general sense… of vengeance”?
The petition, Rauch’s article on racism/homophobia, NDT’s return with his vapid links to either comments or posts that either (a) have nothing to do with the thread, or (b) actually counter NDT’s supposed point – these all seem desperate, but empty, acts.
And though NDT offers a valid contender for most vapid response, I think I’ll have to give the crown to Rauch in this case.
His argument re: racism and its religious underpinnings is so flimsy, and historically blind, that it probably serves to support those who find the similarities valuable in criticizing both racism and homophobia.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Lol, Audrey.
If you won’t recognize one, what should make me believe you’ll recognize more?
Simple fact: you’re so blinded by your tribal mentality and hate that you’ve lost the capacity for decent behavior.
Personally, I find it funny, because Raich has been doing nothing but whipping up feral animals like yourself for the past ten years. Apparently the good doctor is suddenly coming to the realization he’s created a monster — and that good, law-abiding people are sick of him and his experiments.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I guess I tend to look at political discrimination from the government as something that shouldn’t dependent on whether or not your like the viewpoints or the interest group or the party platform involved.
Some people here don’t.
posted by Lori Heine on
Third-graderish distortions of people’s names (Audrey? Really?) and gender panic aside, the question is out there and has yet to be answered. I’m glad that more than one person is asking it.
It appears to me that the petition is a response to a lie, but that it responds by accepting that lie as reality. If there are, indeed, legions of gay people swarming out of some hive, like wasps, all unanimously demanding vengeance, then a petition expressing a different opinion might be a good idea.
Gay conservatives live in a very scary world. I don’t know what color their sky is, but it must be dark.
I have encountered three predominant reactions to incidents such as the Eich affair:
(A) Indifference — as in, “I’ve got too many things going on in my own life, and stuff like this is in the media all the time, so it’s getting boring”
(B) It’s better to ignore this crap than to get involved
(C) Because the social right is up to its old tricks, let’s not give them any more ammunition
(D) Mozilla employees have a right not to want to work under a CEO they don’t respect.
My own inclinations hover between C and D.
To take “D” first, I don’t believe workers in a corporation should be treated any more like serfs than they already are, so Mozilla’s employees had a right to protest working for someone they didn’t respect. Had this been a company with a very socially-conservative culture, whose workers objected to a CEO who was pro-gay marriage when they were against it, the principle would have been the same.
As far as “C” is concerned, the social right’s current strategy is transparent. Even the major LGBT activist organizations have evidently figured it out, and as many of those people are far from the brightest porch lights on the block, that certainly means it isn’t fooling anybody.
Except, I guess, for people who anxiously draft and circulate petitions to “prove” that lies are not true. The problem with such a strategy is that it actually gives the lie longer legs than it would probably otherwise have.
posted by Lori Heine on
I can see that I’ve listed four reactions instead of three. Diversity! Tonight, when I’m out with my friends, I’ll bring up the subject and see if there are more.
posted by Doug on
Who why aren’t all you free speech conservatives defending Clipper owner Sperling and his racist rants from being taken to task?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Because they’d get their heads bitten off. That’s why.
posted by Houndentenor on
There is a good case to be made that his statements were made in private. He didn’t tweet them or say them in a public speech. But even though I have some sympathy to the fact that most of us would not something stupid we said in private to be broadcast publicly, none of us wants to be near the radioactive mess that is Sterling. Plus his interview with Anderson Cooper just made things worse for himself. I’d rather save my energy for defending the free speech rights of someone who has something worth saying, not an idiot who really needs to shut up for his own good.
posted by Johng710 on
As a Newbie, I am continuously searching online for articles that can aid me. Thank you dkdadegdcgkb
posted by women on
Excellent post! We are linking to this particularly
great article on our website. Keep up the great writing.