Again you assume your conclusion. SHOW ME PROOF this ad had this effect on “many Montana viewers”. A Gallup poll would do nicely. Thanks!
**
Hey december! There’s a guy named James Randi looking for you! With your amazing psychic ability to divine the motives behind the actions of your fellow dopers, you could get a Million bucks!
No?
Then shut up.
Enjoy,
Steven
Rico Constantino will want to have some words with this guy. This Mike Taylor was dressed so poorly, he can’t possibly be gay.
Stereotype, I know. Sorry.
Let’s not let truth interfere w/a good rant.
If you’d been paying attention, december, Duck Duck Goose worked her Google magic on the first page of this thread and demonstrated that Montana viewers had, by and large, already decided not to vote for him **before ** the ad.
so your claim that it was this ad had any appreciable effect on the voters of Montana had been dispelled on page one.
Mtgman – Here I was thinking you might be a hypocrite and a homophobe. It turns out you’re a Randi fan. I’ll have to reconsider. You may be OK after all. 
wring, whether or not Taylor was losing, the ad’s offensiveness (or lack thereof) stands on its own. E.g., the Watergate burglary wasn’t OK just because Nixon would have won anyhow.
However, some sources think Taylor had a good chance to win before the ad was run.
So here’s what happened. December starts another inflamatory OP. And his legion of fans think: “here we go again, another OP from that crazed lunatic december - let’s all pile on”. And guess what - it turns out the the opinions expressed by december turn out to be - if not conclusive - at least widely shared by many people on both sides of the political spectrum. So this is not some wildly partisan ranting after all - just another opinion, as valid as your own. So what happens? Retractions? Apologies? No, we get weaseling, twisting and distorting - attacking some of those who share december’s view, and distorting the positions of others.
You guys are so in favor of integrity when you are attacking the perceived lack of it in others. Let’s see some of it now.
(FTR, I have no opinion at all on whether it was homophobic or not - not my field. But I think it is clearly established beyond reasonable doubt that there is reason to think that others will perceive it that way.)
Psst! Izzy, no one has said he wouldn’t have a legimitate gripe IF the ad could be shown to truly be appealing to homophobes. The debate has been because december has once again assumed his conclusion. He assumes the ad is homophobic. He then goes on to assume posters on the SDMB are willfully ignoring the “obvious” homophobia in the ad. Another jump takes him to some sort of conspiracy where SDMB posters are all ignoring the homophobia BECAUSE we all believe the Democratic party can do no wrong.
He’s taking us on Mr Toad’s Wild Ride here.
Leap 1 => This ad is homophobic
Leap 2 => The Democrats intended it to be homophobic
Leap 3 => The ad destroyed Mr. Taylor’s chances in the race.
Leap 4 => SDMB Posters are ignoring the homophobia.
Leap 5 => SDMB Posters are ignoring the effect the ad had on Mr. Taylor’s campaign.
Leap 6 => SDMB Posters are ignoring these issues because it was run by Democrats
This is the place he wants us to start at. Unfortunately for him, you’re not allowed to assume such starting points when you begin a debate. People can go back and challenge your original assertions. Myself, for example, I originally hopped off at leap 1. I’m now beginning to believe the ad was, intentionally or otherwise, indeed playing on stereotypes which would invoke homophobic reactions. Although I didn’t see this in the ad with my own viewings, there is evidence it has had this effect. I don’t follow leap two still, and three is unproven. Four through six are laughable to me.
Now, just for the record, december’s list of posters who would critize this ad if the homophobia angle could be proven should have included myself as well as gobear. I was simply not willing to discuss the proper response to the ad without having the facts. Once the facts are in place, then we can discuss if it’s right or wrong. I give you a post from page two, by me, to support this.
december yes, I am a fan of James Randi. Anyone who seeks knowledge without prejudice has my admiration. I think if you’d put down your huge black and white paintbrushes and deal with your fellow posters as individuals instead of dimensionless representatives of stereotypes which embody good and evil that you’d find many more such pleasant revelations.
Enjoy,
Steven
IzzyR, there is a large difference between a debate entitled “Is this ad homophobic?” and “Are homophobic ads OK if they’re run by Democrats?”
I think that december would have started an interesting debate had he asked the former question.
But, of course, he didn’t.
Sua
I disagree. Whether the ad appeals to stereotypes is apparently a subjective judgement. I don’t think it is reasonable to ask that it be proved. It is reasonable to disagree with the premise of the OP. It is not right to attack it for failing to prove the unprovable. (I guess you could prove it if witnesses testified that the makers of the ad planned this reaction. But at this point the evidence at hand is purely subjective).
This is interesting. I did not remember the “obvious” line, and a quick search reveals that it is not to be found in december’s words. It does appear in a quote from some other pol, but not in the form you mention. Significantly, in your first post to this thread, you refer to a troll on another MB who would justify all his claims by saying “it’s obvious”. So I think you may be projecting here.
Note that #3 and #5 are not part of the OP. I don’t think they are especially significant.
#4 and #6 are judgement calls. Personally, I would guess that the needlessly taunting nature of the OP and thread title, as well as december’s history here are greater factors in provoking the reaction that it received. Still, the idea that people are disposed to judge more kindly those that they symphathise with is not exactly a revolutionary one. Personally, I think everyone is biased, and there’s not much to be gained by focusing on it. But everyone has their own interests, and I think this type of acusation is flung from both sides of the aisle (e.g. the Republicans are hypocrites for hounding Clinton and ignoring Bush etc. etc.)
Again, I don’t agree. People can assume whatever they want, and you can go back and challenge whatever you want. No need to get nasty about it, though.
Sua, I don’t disagree with your post. So december did not realize that the idea of it being an appeal to homophobia was not an agreed upon fact. What of it?
Izzy, Sua’s point was that december didn’t start this “debate” on a firm footing. It was a flamefest from the get go. He started out with wild, and hurtful, assumptions about a wide group of people. Then he acts the martyr when people flame him? You admit the evidence is subjective, but december treats it as conclusive. Then he draws horrid conclusions about large groups of people. How is this reasonable? How can you look at it and say “What of it?” Start a flamefest, then cry foul when people flame you?
My number 3 and 5 points were not in the OP, but they were still assumptions in the thread that december supported. You can look up a few posts on this page to find a place where december still supports that this ad had a detrimental effect on Taylor’s campaign.
Enjoy,
Steven
The guy who is crying foul here is me, and I’ve not started any flamefest (or been flamed). And my central point was that the notion that the ad played to homophobic perceptions has been shown to not be a wildly partisan one. So people should stop pretending that it is, regardless of how riled up they got at the OP. “He started it” might be a valid excuse in a flamefest in the Pit, not in an ostensible discussion of issues in GD.
The fact that the evidence is subjective is an opportunity for you to disagree with it - not a criticism of the other guy. If something is subjective that does not mean that it is purely random as to whether it is true or not - it means only that it is dependent on personal judgement and cannot be objectively proved. A person is entitled to feel about a subjective matter that his own subjective judgement (or that of others) is conclusive - others are entitled to disagree.
And I don’t buy this “wild and hurtful” thing. If you can’t live with the general suggestion that people holding your opinions are influenced by bias, then GD is just not for you.
Oh, its certainly there. Just not a significant issue with regards to the central subject of this thread.
—I think that december would have started an interesting debate had he asked the former question.—
Maybe, but by asking the latter, I think I’ve found some interesting things. It certainly IS a legitimate question: are people more knee-jerk willing to defend things like homophobia if they are used by allies? Of course, no one, even homophobes, are going to jump out and say “yes!” But it’s still a legitimate question that goes right to the very heart of human psychology and partisan bickering.
Even if the ad is homophobic, why would that lead Taylor to quit the race? Where’s the evidence that this “destroyed his campaign”?
Is the thought of being called gay so traumatic to Taylor that he must withdraw to his fortress of solitude for years to recover? If anything, his withdrawal suggests that he’s homophobic or at least believes the voters in his state are.
Ceded: that some ultra-right-wing magazines will leap at any chance, no matter how deceptive or transparently hypocritical, to sling feces at Democrats.
“Some sources” indeed. What does that have to do with anything?
Everybody, I think, agrees that some people are interpreting the ad as homophobic. The items in contention are:
My answers are:
December, I invite you to refute these points. Here’s how you could do it:
I eagerly await your rebuttal. In deference to the Montana Libertarian candidate, I’m holding my breath.
Daniel
question -
december, if you are willing (as you seem to be here) to call this ad homophobic based on a pundit or two’s opinion, does that mean that you’re now willing to accept that the phrase “oriental” when used in reference to a person is considered to be offensive, that the Willie HOrton ad was racially inflamatory, that references to Matthew Shepards’ specific sexual likes and dislikes had no business being reported in the trial coverage, that minorities should feel offended when they, well, say that they are?
::snort:: IzzyR in the OP, december not only linked to an article in which the relevant Democratic Party official denied Taylor’s allegations, but december also included that denial in his block quote from the article.
Ergo, he realized it was not an agreed-upon fact. Compounding this, he failed to view the ad himself, even though it was available on-line, before he started this “debate.”
Again, IzzyR, the OPer decides what the debate is.
That was the issue at debate in this thread. december then “clarified” the issue with this lovely post, which, if I may note, misquoted or mischaracterized just about every response to that point (Including yours truly. My original response said nothing even close to what december claimed it said.)
It’s called “poisoning the well.” If december wanted a real debate on the issue, he could have:
He chose not to. And it’s not our job to fix his “mistakes.”
If someone else wishes to start a new thread on a different issue, to wit, “Was the Taylor ad homophobic?”, they are more than welcome to. Until then, I will respond to the OP.
Sua
Izzy, can I ask why you’re crying foul at the way december has been treated as opposed to crying foul at the way he slandered members of the SDMB by asserting they are supporting people who produce homophobic ads? In case you missed the place he did that, let me replay it for you.
I’ve been critical of december because he treated subjective evidence as conclusive and drew negative conclusions about a group of people. Perhaps I’ve been more vehemently critical because the group includes myself(SDMB members, not Democrats). Still, I’d criticize anyone who used such dubious methods of analysis. If the evidence wasn’t bundled with the judgement, we, as Sua noted, may have had a debate instead of a flamefest. My feelings aren’t as fragile as you may think, but I do reserve the right to defend myself when I am slandered by implications such as december made in this thread.
As for the use of the word “obviously” don’t split hairs with me as to his language, both are appeals to some imaginary authority which he intends to treat as authoritative. I also resent your implication that I’m falsely accusing december of pleas to an imaginary authority figure because of my history with a troll on another message board. december, right here, has made appeals to dubious authority. He’s said “Of course, it is pretty likely”, “Also, many of them must have”, and the ever popular "this is a widespread belief. " All of these appeals to some kind of etheric group authority, or “common sense” are intended to support his assertion that the ad is truly homophobic. Very convenient to have such an authority on your side because no one else can examine it rigoriously. Assertions made on such grounds fall flat and deserve to be shot down. You must prove how likely something is, or how many of them “must have” or demonstrate the “widespread” nature of the “belief”. If you can’t then you should not attempt to use such things as a basis for your arguement.
I’ll agree the effectiveness of the ad is not a central issue. As far as I can tell the central issues are the actual nature of the ad, homophobic or not, and if it was intentional. Once consensus, or some type of agreement, even agreement to disagree, is made on those points, then we can talk about the appropriate reaction to it.
Enjoy,
Steven
On Preview: Apos I agree the question in and of itself is legit. I disagee with december’s allegation that this is an accurate representation of the posters on the SDMB. When you start saying “You people support homophobic ads because they’re produced by a political party you support” then you better be damn well prepared to prove A) that the ad is homophobic, B) that we support it, C) that we support it because it was run by Democrats. Point A is entering serious discussion, but if someone wishes to continue to assert B and C, then they deserve the flames they get.
Sua
I’m not sure that a denial by the actual guys who were responsible for the ad counts here. Obviously they are not going to admit having run an ad capitalizing on homophobia.
I don’t see what you mean with this. I’ve agreed that december assumed that the homophobia angle was more apparent than it apparently is. The debate was: “let’s see you defend this homophobia, huh huh huh”. To which the answer is either “no, I don’t defend it” or “yes, becauseI don’t think it is homophobic”. Not: “anyone who thinks it is homophobic is some sort of rabid partisan”.
You have a legitimate gripe with regards to december’s summary of your first post - he clearly misrepresented you. (I didn’t check anyone else’s).
mtgman
december’s “slander” is a subjective judgement that so many democrats would not be jumping to defend this type of ad if not for the fact that they are biased in this matter. As mentioned before, I don’t think it is that big of a slander, and in any event don’t really have much basis for an opinion on its merits (though I am skeptical, as mentioned). By contrast, the idea that the ad could reasonably be construed by some people as homophobic has been proved (though not that it was deliberately intended to be homophobic).
Huh? Neither of the first two are appeals to any form of authority - they are judgements. And they immediately followed a list of nine supposed “clues” which formed the basis for the judgement (though they may have referred only to the last). The statement about the “widespread belief” did not refer to a widespread belief that the ad was homophobic, but rather to a widespread belief that there is some connection between “gay” and “hairdresser”. So your original assertion that december has asserted that there is “obvious” homophobia in the ad is false, even leaving aside what you strangely consider “split[ting] hairs” about language.
In all seriousness, I think your weaseling and twisting on this latter issue does not leave you in a position to be criticizing anyone’s debating style, much less to be calling for their banning. But the main problem I have with you at this point is that you keep making me reread this thread to look up the non-existent or out-of-context quotes that you are attributing to december. I’m a busy man, ya know.
—Apos I agree the question in and of itself is legit. I disagee with december’s allegation that this is an accurate representation of the posters on the SDMB.—
Of course: the question is just a question. The leading, “so how long have you been beating your wife?” question is basically akin to a statement, and it’s one he has no right to assume, nor really any chance of proving even if it was true.
IzzyR – thank you for your support.
SuaSponte – Yes, it would have been interesting to debate: “Is this ad homophobic?” However, the topic I was aiming at was what many people see as a big double standard that Democrats demonstrate regarding treatment of minorities. They are very touchy when one of their own is insulted, but tend to be oblivious when one of ours is. As Apos, all groups tend to display a double standard. The OP’s allegation is that the Democrats do so to a greater-than-normal degree. You are free to disagree. Of course, the question of whether or not the ad is homophobic plays a role in debating the OP.
Homebrew – “If anything, his withdrawal suggests that…[he] at least believes the voters in his state are [homophobic].” Yep.
SuaSponte – I would have viewed the ad before posting the OP if I had known then that it was on line. As you say, the homophobia not an agreed-upon fact. It’s a matter of judgment, as is the impact of the Willie Horton ad, Dick Armey’s use a phrase that sounded suspiciously like Barney Fag, and Bush’s use of the word “crusade” in a speech some time ago.
Mtgman – “I’m now beginning to believe the ad was, intentionally or otherwise, indeed playing on stereotypes which would invoke homophobic reactions. Although I didn’t see this in the ad with my own viewings, there is evidence it has had this effect.” Have you been able to download the ad? If not, here is a link to 2 stills from it.
You wrote: “The assertion “This ad = homophobic” is NOT adequately proven.” The trouble is (as IzzyR already pointed out), this is a matter of judgment. It can never be absolutely proven.
DanielWithrow – I agree that there is a non-offensive interpretation of the last line. However, note that Taylor was not campaigning for a business position, so the comment wasn’t directly about his qualification for elective office. Also, the words were about his schooling business, but the pictures and music were about something different. A picture is worth 1000 words.
BTW your hateful, unsupported comment about slinging feces at Democrats doesn’t help Sua in his effort to show that my posts failed to meet GD standards of decorum and factual support.
Regarding your 3 questions. On #1, I’m not concerned about the hypothetical “reasonable viewer,” but rather about the actual Montana viewer. There seems to be no disagreement that the ad was effective at turning viewers against Taylor. On #2, note that the ad was paid for and designed by the National Democratic Party, according to that Insight article. I don’t know if they intended merely to make him look odd. However, once the ad was running, they must have known how people were seeing it – especially since State Sen. Ken Toole, D-Helena, and program director for the Montana Human Rights Network, had said that the ad “is an overt and obvious appeal to the homophobic (voter) that is playing to that stereotypic imagery.” (See OP) (Incidentally, Sua, ISTM that the opinion by Mr. O’Toole ought to have justified the OP as being more than wild speculation.) On #3, I think I would be equally critical if the Republicans did the same thing. Can you think of any examples? Note that the point of the OP is that Reps wouldn’t dare do the same thing, because the major media would massacre them for it.
You answered #1 -3, but not the OP: Do Democrats typically apply a big double standard in cases like this? What do you think?
wring – it’s incorrect to say that I called the ad homophobic based on “a pundit or two’s opinion.” Note that the ad was criticized by Democrat Ken O’Toole and by The Human Rights Campaign, who called it, “an affront to gay people.”
december’s slander is a subjective judgement, but our criticisms of his assertions is weaseling. I’m afraid I’m going to have to agree to disagee with you Izzy. I’d hate to try to work out our differences if it means wasting any more of your valuable time.
Enjoy,
Steven