The LGBT campus ultra PC left versus the LGBT left, as a University of Chicago speech by Dan Savage is denounced as transphobic “hate speech” that should be banned.
Leftism continually mutates into more extreme forms, which then attack the previous standard as insufficiently purist.
More. Savage, it goes without saying, has nothing but contempt for gay Republicans. Elsewhere, he’s called them “house faggots.” That’s his real hate speech, not that it should be banned.
43 Comments for “Calls to Ban ‘Hate Speech’ Spiral On”
posted by Doug on
“Leftism continually mutates into more extreme forms then attack the previous standard as insufficiently purist.”
That doesn’t sound like Leftism to me, sounds more like the Tea Party, turning ever more extreme and attacking mainstream conservatives. Witness the Tea Party attacks on Bob Bennett, John Cornyn and Thad Cochran.
posted by Agie on
Oh, I don’t think you actually know much about leftwing politics, and this is especially true of the academic variety. It may also be true of rightwing politics, or religious extremism. But it is certainly true of leftwing ideologues.
posted by Houndentenor on
The difference is that the far left write journal articles read by fewer than a dozen people. The far right run a political party.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As someone with more than passing familiarity with the University of Chicago, generalizing from a few undergraduates raising hell to the global statement “Leftism continually mutates into more extreme forms then attack the previous standard as insufficiently purist.” would, well, get you the “F” you would deserve.
posted by tom Jefferson III on
1. Yes, context matters – although trying telling that to a “God-fearing” man about the Bible….or a Tea party or Objectionist about….well, you know.
Although, if I called someone’s mother or wife a word, like the popular vernacular about a female dog or a lady that provides men with female company for a short while, I doubt I get too many “yeah, let’s reclaim the word speeches” from loving sons or wives…..
posted by Jorge on
“Tranny” is not a word I would use in polite society. For some reason I associate it with porn videos.
Anyway, it seems all’s well that ends well.
You know, it’s hard to keep up. Negro. Black. African American. Carribian, African, or African American. Back to Black again. Homosexual. Gay. Gay and lesbian. GLBT. GLBT +questioning. GLBT +queer. GLBT +asterisk. LGBT. He or she. The generic she. Alternate the generic he and the generic she. They. Ze. Cis-gender. Big-boned. Endomorph. Person with mental retardation. Mentally challenged. Intellectually disabled. Learning disability. Mobility-impaired. Legally blind. Hearing impaired. Latino, Latin American, and back to Hispanic (+Brazilian) again.
And by the way, make sure to spell my name with a J, but pronounce it with a G.
posted by J. Bruce Wilcox on
So the J sounds like a G and the G sounds like a J?
J (G) or G (J)e
Or both the J and the G sound like G? Hard G- Soft G?
Nonexistent sounding J?
Your parents were cruel. Sorry…
posted by Jorge on
My parents are in their sixties. I am in my thirties. You are missing the broad side of a barn.
posted by Houndentenor on
What was the point of that? If you wanted everyone to think you are a dick, congratulations, mission accomplished.
posted by Jorge on
…hey! I think he got it before I did. I don’t care!
posted by Jorge on
Savage, it goes without says, has nothing but contempt for gay Republicans. Elsewhere, he’s called them “house faggots.” That’s his real hate speech, not that it should be banned.
I thought that faceoff with the Log Cabin Republican guy was mild. But speaking of LCR:
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-gop-advances-reparative-therapy-gays-052641549–politics.html
Someone really needs to go to their convention and speak truth to power. Yes, I am well aware that it is not “in our best interest” and that the LCR has a responsibility to play the long game. I support the long game:
“Also on the table is removing decades-old language that states, “homosexuality tears at the fabric of society.” Davis said that was the only language his group sought to change at the convention, and that he still wanted to go home with that win.”
But if the Log Cabin Republicans in Texas are too taxed to perform that role, then we need to be working hand-in-hand with people like Dan Savage rather than condemning them. Well, I suppose we could do both. We could use more Larry King promos (I thought that guy retired?).
posted by Houndentenor on
And how are they going to speak this truth to this power? Will they be allowed to speak? Usually state GOP conventions have not allowed LCR to have any official presence there or allowed them any time to speak or debate platform planks. Maybe that will change but it’s hard to speak (truth or not) to power that keeps you far far away.
posted by Mike in Houston on
The Texas LCR have already struck their usual supine pose and won’t challenge the ex-gay language out of fear that the old anti-gay language might be resurrected… Because language that calls for basically fixing (e.g. erasing) gay people is touted as progress.
Their candidate for governor not only kept them from having a booth, but refuses to take campaign money from them.
Democrat Wendy Davis not only supports “equal means equal” but is smartly using it against Abbott.
posted by Carl on
They weren’t allowed to speak. Some people tried to speak out against this platform and it was passed before they could say a word.
The sad thing is if they’d still said something and caused a ruckus, sites like this likely would have shamed them.
posted by Houndentenor on
The entire “hate speech” meme is a lot of nonsense. This reminds me of an interesting experience I had years ago. I was in Germany and had gone to Amsterdam for a few days (those Germans had started to work my nerves). While I was there I visited the Anne Frank house. At the end they had an interactive exhibit where they played some video and people voted on whether or not things should be allowed. Among them were things like denouncement of Muslim practices, Holocaust denial, etc. Now understandably the Dutch, because of their not that distant history, are a little touchy about what appears to be propaganda against minority religious groups and even more so about anything that washes away the crimes of the Third Reich. Even so consistently there were three of us that kept voting, “yes, that should still be allowed”. I scanned the room and indeed there were two other Americans participating. (We’re easy to spot. I can’t tell you how but white Americans may look like Europeans…I passed as Scandinavian very easily up there until I opened my mouth and a Texas accent came out) but we do not think or behave like them. Yes, some things people say are ugly, hateful, mean, vile and deplorable. They also have to be out in the open. Sunlight is nature’s disinfectant. The worst thing for our (American) society is to allow such things to go underground where they grow and flourish without being challenged by people who will also exercise their right to free speech. (This brings up the other topic of some Americans thinking their rights are violated when they are criticized. They aren’t. Your critics have the same rights that you do. Deal with it.) Far from silencing the anti-gay speakers, I’m more inclined to put together a best of video and play it on a loop so that everyone can see how vile and disgusting that crowd really is. Why would I silence them. They are (ironically) our best advocates because most people don’t want to be associated with such nastiness.
posted by Houndentenor on
In the case of trans people vs RuPaul, I have to side with the trans community. Once he knew that people were offended by some of the terms used on the show (not just the word “tranny” but others like “she-male”) he should have stopped. He didn’t. And then when it really blew up he tried playing the victim. Everyone tries to play the victim these days. How hard is it to say, “I’m sorry. I didn’t know that term was offensive but now that I do I won’t say it any more.” It’s really not that hard. Doubling down and attacking people is hardly productive. In the case of Dan Savage, he’s on their side. Making an enemy out of him (which they haven’t done but could have) is also hardly productive. For some reason Dan is a convenient target for a lot of activists of various types (and across the social issues divide). He’s just a guy who writes a column and has a podcast and he’s well-known for publishing or airing comments that dress him down when he screws up. Take him on but throwing glitter at him or whatever people are doing this week, is really pointless.
posted by Wilberforce on
I think the language debate is a healthy one, although it’s tedious. It’s have we get people to speak more respectfully.
But I don’t agree with the trans community on this. They are appropriating terms from drag culture, which have no history compared with words like the f and n words, and declaring them off limits. It rinds me of when women thought they should have victim status and tried to declare bitch a slur.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Some transgender people I talked with, say that ‘tranny’ is their ‘f-word’ or ‘n-word’. Some say that they want to reclaim the word — like ‘queer’ and other said it depends on the context.
I do not use the word often — partly because it does sound a bit ‘porn-ification’ — and also because the transgender people that I have met and worked with told me what they wanted to be called — typically their name.
Dan Savage might not see too many gay Republicans who are actually helping to support gay rights or help advance the GOP along to a bit of sanity.
posted by Houndentenor on
That seems to be the main objection to the word: its association with porn. I don’t think this has been handled that well, but then when a marginalized group asks politely they are ignored. We can’t blame them for shouting when we don’t listen any other time.
posted by Wilberforce on
Please explain when the trans community ever asked politely. Use a word they don’t like, and they label you transphobic. This after destroying enda, which I was told would have passed, job protection for millions of gay men and lesbians. And the bulk of trans comments on the net are openly contemptuous of gay men. All this while we have bent over backwards to be their friends.
posted by Houndentenor on
Do you even know any trans people? They live in fear of being bashed to death in the street. Most of them keep their heads down and are terrified of being “clocked” (recognized for being trans). Yes, a few activists misbehave. Since when are activists representative of any community’s overall population.
posted by Wilberforce on
I’ve known trans people over the years. I used to go to the trans community meetings, but I got bored with the constant focus on pronouns. And I’ve known individuals who’ve mostly just hit on me, and when I was too slow in deciding, they dropped me like a hot potato. And I’m not even that hot.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. The problem with “inclusive” or “exclusive” ENDA debate within ‘the community’ (in IMHO) was that (a) some people did not understand that civil rights generally gets passed in baby steps and (b) the transgender community (at least some people within it) were getting tired of being welcomed to provide entertainment at ‘LGBT’ events or organizing sessions, but then otherwise basically being expected to shut up.
2. The ‘transgender community’ didn’t ‘kill’ the ENDA bill, just like the ‘gay community’ cannot magically get a bill passed. Its way more complicated then a School House Rock cartoon.
Their are not enough votes to get ENDA passed. Party membership in the House/Senate is a factor. But so is political geography.
This after destroying enda, which I was told would have passed, job protection for millions of gay men and lesbians. – See more at: https://igfculturewatch.com/2014/06/06/calls-to-ban-hate-speech-spiral-on/comment-page-1/#comment-214421
posted by Wilberforce on
The history is clear. Enda would have passed but for the trans community’s demand for frigging bathroom privileges. This is all well known and has nothing to do with a school house rock cartoon, whatever that means.
posted by Doug on
Stephen is all in an uproar over Dan Savage calling gay Republican ‘house faggots’ but apparently has nothing to say about the real hate speech in the Texas Republican Platform called Reparative Therapy. It boggles the mind and really says a lot about him.
posted by Jorge on
And how are they going to speak this truth to this power? Will they be allowed to speak?
Certainly not by following the rules. Only by making a scene.
The sad thing is if they’d still said something and caused a ruckus, sites like this likely would have shamed them.
I admit it.
I occasionally point to the incident when a gay activist spit out the communion bread at St. Patrick’s Cathedral some decades ago, and I condemn it. But the dirty little secret about extremists and other people who engage in hate is that moderates like us give tacit approval to them by speaking to the things that have caused their extremism. These incidents capture the country’s attention, and we take advantage. Though in the short run that incident was an abomination, that it is part of our history is in the long run a very important marker of fault line between gays and the Catholic Church.
And the bulk of trans comments on the net are openly contemptuous of gay men. All this while we have bent over backwards to be their friends.
Sorry, but I think that second part is debatable.
Stephen is all in an uproar over Dan Savage calling gay Republican ‘house faggots’ but apparently has nothing to say about the real hate speech in the Texas Republican Platform called Reparative Therapy.
…..
My reaction will depend on whether the Log Cabin Republicans succeed at removing even more homophobic language from the platform. Although not by much.
To answer your earlier question, Doug, when it comes to “homosexuality”, people need to be treated equally and given respect for their freedom of conscience regardless of whether they welcome their own homosexuality or not.
On reflection, I do not think any community of would-be public servants or their bosses has any business endorsing something that only exists because society looks down on freedom of conscience. But I do not think they should interfere, either. Freedom of conscience does not belong only to gays who make the “right” choice about whether to accept their sexuality or deny their bodily urges.
posted by Doug on
Freedom of conscience is one thing, snake oil is quite another and that is what Reparative Therapy is. I question the contention that trying to change your sexual orientation via Reparative Therapy is actually freedom of conscience when the social group that person likely belongs to disapproves of their sexuality and probably condemns them as well. That is coercion not freedom on choice.
We have laws against ‘secret’ cures for cancer etc. because they deceive people into believing in cures that do nothing. Reparative Therapy is the same thing.
posted by Houndentenor on
Reparative therapy is quackery and a dangerous bit of quackery at that. When it fails they blame the person for not having enough faith or some nonsense. It doesn’t work. People pushing phony “cures” for anything should be banned and their licenses (if any) revoked.
posted by Jorge on
I question the contention that trying to change your sexual orientation via Reparative Therapy is actually freedom of conscience when the social group that person likely belongs to disapproves of their sexuality and probably condemns them as well.
I’m actually not talking about trying to change one’s sexual orientaiton–that’s pretty well discredited. But reinforcing a certain type of identity and behavior are another matter entirely. That should not be banned absent much stronger evidence.
Anyway, I think choosing to belong to a social group vs. being happy on one’s own terms is a tossup. We do not have the ability to make every group and culture accept gays. Nor do we have the ability to integrate every person born into such groups. So yes, freedom of conscience.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Sorry Jorge, but that kind of rationalization is back to the “love the sinner, hate the sin” nonsense.
An ADULT who freely chooses a lifestyle where they sublimate their authentic selves and assume an artificial identity and set of behaviors, that’s one thing.
Problems arise over the fact that this is neither the intent nor the actuality of the so-called reparative therapy advocates.
Children, especially, should not be exposed to this kind of snake-oil.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. The Internet is a pretty big place. I am not sure if anyone can say that “most” or “all” Transgender people posting online (or people who claim to be transgender) are very ant-gay.
2. It will be interesting to see whether or not the Texas GOP listens to the LCR or its more hardcore “Bring Back Paragraph 175” or “Selectively Quote From Lev” crowd.
3. If consistency matters, then surely the party should be called to the mat (by gay Republicans) when it puts in hate speech into its platform.
If — “If” can be a mighty big word for some folk, I reckon — its hate speech for Dan Savage to call all gay Republicans “house f-gg…” (I will assume that he said that and that their is no relevant context to the quote), then when a major political party puts stuff into anti-gay hate speech into its platform, well,. they should not be given a pass by gay Republicans….
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Savage has not called all gay Republicans “house faggots”. Miller is not being honest with that one.
Savage used the “house faggots” term to describe GOProud after their endorsement of anti-gay politicians (e.g., Romney in 2012 – who clarified his support for a Federal Marriage Amendment @ 10 days prior to the election).
The clip that Miller links is interesting. The LCR rep is responding to Savage’s claim that LCR will support Republicans with anti-gay positions. LCR guy notes that LCR did not endorse Bush in 2004, because of his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Of course, by 2012, LCR had changed its tune and endorsed Romney, despite his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Savage’s “contempt” (if it is actually contempt) is for those gay Republicans who consistently vote for Republicans with anti-gay positions.
Does that sound familiar, Stephen Miller???
posted by Houndentenor on
GOProud was always an obvious astro-turf group. The board was mostly straight people with a few token gay people. It wasn’t a real gay-rights group. It existed to “pink-wash” the very anti-gay GOP. I wouldn’t say that about LCR which accomplished a great deal in their DADT lawsuit. That’s not a blanket endorsement LCR by any means but a statement of fact. GOProud meanwhile constantly bashed gays and anyone in favor of gay rights while endorsing anti-gay Republicans. It was an anti-gay group designed to help Republicans feel better about stabbing their coworkers and relatives in the back with the party’s platforms and policies. “House faggot” may be a mean term, but it is accurate. Even its two main “useful idiots”, LaSalvia and Barron, eventually got tired of being exploited and quit.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Yes, Houndentenor, to your description of LCR and GOProud.
What I found frustrating with Miller in this post was his inaccurate (dishonest) descriptions of Savage’s comments on gay Republicans.
I’ve never found Savage to have “nothing but contempt” for gay Republicans.
Savage’s ‘contempt’ is for gay Republicans who support anti-gay Republicans – and specifically, for gay Republican political/lobbying organizations that support anti-gay Republican politicians.
Why should LCR endorse a Republican presidential nominee who is running on an anti-gay platform? LCR refused to endorse Bush in 2004 because of Bush’s support for a Federal Marriage Amendment.
Yet, by 2012, LCR was willing to endorse Romney – who also supported a Federal Marriage Amendment. And Romney was running on a most decidedly anti-equality, anti-gay national platform.
Maybe Miller should start directing his attention to the decisions gay Republicans have to make – constantly.
Stop dishonestly assigning contempt to people like Savage. Start looking at the difficult choices a gay, conservative, Republican has to make most every election.
How do you parse the choices you must make, Stephen? Do you support a Party that welcomes people who call for Old Testament execution of homosexuals? Because your life as a gay man matters less to you than your tax percentage. etc…
Instead of this constant whining about leftist gays and how mean they are to gay Republicans – why not write about something more closely resembling facts.
How will the Republican Party come to support equality – if gay Republicans are willing to support anti-gay Republican politicians?
And if gay Republicans make the value judgement that civil equality is of a lesser concern to them than (say, banking regulation, as an example) – how does civil equality progress in the Republican Party at all?
posted by Jorge on
Sorry Jorge, but that kind of rationalization is back to the “love the sinner, hate the sin” nonsense.
Love the sinner, hate the sin is a winning argument.
And frankly, whether or not children should be “exposed” to something, legitimate or not, should be the decision of their parents in all but the most extreme of cases. Although, of course, much of that depends on the parent’s income.
Do you even know any trans people? They live in fear of being bashed to death in the street. Most of them keep their heads down and are terrified of being “clocked” (recognized for being trans).
A horrifying term for being recognized.
I once met during my job a group of several male-to-female transgender people and their partners (as well as one gay couple). It was obvious.
And the neighborhood was so potentially hostile to “fags” that the level of survival skills necessary to be out in such an area meant that they were very dangerous.
posted by Doug on
“Love the sinner, hate the sin is a winning argument.” A winning argument for what? Being a bigot? That is a winning argument for nothing but continued bigotry by the evangelical religious right.
posted by Lori Heine on
Who the hell cares whether these people think their customers are sinners or not? That’s insane.
Public accommodations laws should not even be applicable to small businesses, independent contractors and freelancers. Under such laws, I — as a freelancer and independent contractor — would be required to work for bigots.
However — and this is a huge however — there is no rational reason why LGBT people should be made an exception of. That is most definitely a special carve-out, and there’s no other way to see it. Whatever the public accommodations laws are going to be, there should be no special exemptions caving in to bigotry.
Our legislators lack to cojones to write sane and sensible laws on the subject to begin with. All the blather about “freedom of conscience” is designed to obscure their cowardice and incompetence.
They should not be able to get away with that. I’m glad they’re not.
posted by Lori Heine on
As of this moment, freelancers and independent contractors may be exempt. I only hope it stays that way.
As far as small businesses are concerned, my point is that social conservatives are attempting to draw the line on LGBT people. There is no rational reason this is being done — other than as a cave-in to one specific group of people, for “religious” reasons.
It is, specifically, an attempt to bully us. And because it would actually violate the religious beliefs of nearly as many Christians as the number it would appease, it would mean that the government was establishing a state religion. It can’t choose some beliefs as more valid than others when making laws.
posted by Houndentenor on
Most of my work is as an independent contractor. People call me up for gigs and I tell them yes or no. I’m constantly having to tell younger singers that they don’t need to give a reason for turning down a contract. “Thank you for your offer but I am unavailable.” I don’t have to tell you that you’re insane for offering me that particular role (and that you should be grateful I said no because I would suck), or that I was offered something that paid better, or that I would rather have a root canal than set foot in a Catholic church, or any other reason. (And conversely people are free to hire someone else because I’m too tall, too short, too fat, too old, nor Jewish, too loud, or any other reason. The normal rules of employment discrimination don’t apply to me so I’ll be damned if I’m going to feel bad because I just don’t feel like working for or with a particular person or organization.
All that said, I’m not about to tell the music director at the Catholic Church that I’m not going to work for a criminal organization that is continuing to cover up for the rape of children (see today’s story in which a bishop claims he didn’t know that it was illegal to have sex with children…really? REALLY?). I just say I’m not available and that’s that. So I don’t know why the Christian Hypocrite bakers didn’t just tell the gay couple that they were booked up that weekend and they couldn’t possible bake another cake at that time but maybe so-and-so nearby might be able to help them and no one would no. But no, it wasn’t enough to just not bake the cake. They had to be assholes about it too. They had to make sure the gay couple knew what bigots they are.
I’m not sure how our culture got to be so mean-spirited. A lot of people like to blame the reality shows but I think that’s a symptom rather than a cause.
posted by Jimmy on
Instead of worrying about ideological tiffs on the left, Miller might put some more energy into worrying about any LGBT people who could potentially be represented by Oklahoma’s Scott Esk?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/11/oklahoma_tea_party_candidate_scott_esk_supports_stoning_gay_people_to_death.html
posted by tom jefferson III on
Either Stephen thought that the candidate was talking about marijuana legalization or maybe he thought that gay people in Oklahoma are sort of like gay people in Iraq….
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A side note, updating Wisconsin’s legal situation regarding same-sex marriage, which is getting interesting:
(1) Judge Crabb rendered a decision last Friday that declared that Wisconsin’s constitutional amendment and laws banning same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. The decision declared the amendment and laws void, but did not contain an injunction prohibiting Wisconsin officials from enforcing the ban on same-sex marriage. Judge Crabb required the plaintiffs (the same-sex couples who brought the lawsuit) to propose an injunction no later than June 16, and set up a briefing schedule following submission of the proposed injunction.
(2) Wisconsin’s Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen, issued a statement several hours later declaring the Wisconsin law remained unchanged and pledging to fight the decision to the last ditch in the appeals process.
(3) Beginning on Friday night, and continuing until the present, County Clerks in Wisconsin’s two largest counties, Dane and Milwaukee, acting on advice from county attorneys, began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The number of County Clerks issuing licenses has grown to 53 of the state’s 72 counties. Hundreds of same-sex couples were married, many by state court judges.
(4) AG Van Hollen filed a motion with Judge Crabb for an emergency stay on Monday. Judge Crabb denied the request for a stay on the grounds that because she had issued no injunction or order requiring Wisconsin officials to do or refrain from doing anything, there was nothing to stay. She responded that she did not have the authority to order County Clerks to stop issuing licenses because she had not ordered them to do so; the state’s request that County Clerks be ordered to stop issuing licenses was a matter for the state courts.
(5) On Monday, the ACLU, representing the plaintiffs, filed a proposed permanent injunction barring the state and other officials from enforcing the Marriage Amendment and denying same-sex couples the right to marry. In its response, the state argued that the ACLU’s proposed injunction falls short of federal legal requirements because it is not specific enough about what laws the state is to be barred from enforcing. It also argues that Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen and Gov. Scott Walker, who are named as defendants, are each a public official with authority to validate or invalidate a marriage and cannot be the subjects of an injunction. Judge Crabb set a hearing on the proposed injunction for Friday. The state also asked for an immediate stay of any injunction that might be issued by Judge Crabb.
(6) The state petitioned the 7th Circuit for an emergency stay on Monday. Both sides are to file arguments for or against the court accepting jurisdiction in the case today. The jurisdictional question revolves around the question of whether the 7th Circuit can assume jurisdiction and issue a stay before Judge Crabb issues a final order — the injunction — in the case.
(7) The state Vital Records Office wasn’t filing same-sex marriage licenses, saying on Tuesday that it lacked guidance from state Attorney General Van Hollen. The office changed position Wednesday afternoon, and is now filing marriage certificates.
The situation remains quite fluid, and I expect changes daily.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
You get people on the political left and right who want to restrict ‘speech’ that they find to be really, really offensive.
Just as you are probably going to get undergraduate students — on the left and right — who want to make some noise, cause some headaches and the like, just so that they can ‘stick it’ to the man or some such thing.
How much of that is actually representative of the priorities of most mainstream liberals or conservatives is, probably, a different story.