december I’ve seen the ad. I meant to show that when I said “I didn’t see this[homophobia] in the ad with my own viewings”. Sorry if it wasn’t clear.
Enjoy,
Steven
Not all. I referred specifically to “this latter issue”, i.e. your false statement that that “He then goes on to assume posters on the SDMB are willfully ignoring the “obvious” homophobia in the ad”, and your subsequent attempts to justify this.
IzzyR
Of course the denial counts here. If the self-interest of the party is determinative of whether an assertion “counts,” then there wasn’t a credible accusation in the first place.
If Taylor’s accusation counts, so does the Democrats’ denial. The credibility of both must be analyzed before the alleged homophobia, or lack thereof, becomes an “agreed-upon fact.”
ok, december , according to ‘a pundit or two, the OP, and the object of the ad’. same question.
I don’t think so. It is almost certain that someone accused of making a homophobic ad wil deny this, if at all possible. It is not almost certain that someone else will accuse someone of making such an ad. So the accusation is more significant. But far from conclusive, of course. What is more significant is the Democrat quoted (Toole) who said it was “an overt and obvious appeal to the homophobic (voter) that is playing to that stereotypic imagery”.
wring, how about, “According to quite a few pundits, the object of the ad, the Montana Democrat most concerned with homophobia, and the largest gay and lesbian organization in the country…” Would you accept that clause?
Okay, fine; you’ve acknowledged that the words were about his schooling business. I take it you acknowledge that the final line, composed of words, were also about the schooling business? If so, let’s drop the argument that they were really sneaky words about having sex.
It was a metaphor; I apologize if it came across that I was being literal.
Bait and switch. The question is not whether the ad was effective at turning viewers against Taylor; the question is whether the ad turned viewers against Taylor by making him look gay. If that’s your assertion, you need to provide some evidence of it.
I do think that the “reasonable viewer” is a decent standard. If I run a political ad, I’m not responsible for the conclusions drawn from the ad by unreasonable viewers – if they decide that my campaign logo looks like the Mark of the Beast, that’s their problem. But if you want to go for the Montana Viewer as your standard, please furnish evidence that a significant number of Montana Viewers saw homosexual overtones in this ad.
I’m having trouble finding a timeline. Did Taylor suggest that the ad was homophobic before he dropped out of the race? If he made the suggestion simultaneously, and if he was the first to make the suggestion, then the DNC didn’t have a chance to pull the ad.
Even if they did have a chance, if they believed a reasonable viewer would not see homophobia in the ad, then they don’t have a moral responsibility to drop the ad. They’d do well to issue a strong statement saying that they condemn homophobia in all forms, but they don’t need to drop an ad because unreasonable people misinterpret it.
You obviously don’t live in North Carolina, where Helms ran an ad against Harvey Gantt suggesting that Gantt wanted gay people to be teaching your children. This was in 1996, I believe, that such ads ran. I somehow don’t recall rightwingers getting up in arms about those ads. Off the top of my head, I’m having trouble thinking of more recent outrages like this; I’ll get back to you. Just so we’re clear: you can’t recall expressing outrage over a similar situation in which Republicans were at fault, right?
Sometimes Democrats do, sure. I don’t think they do so disproportionately.
FWIW, if this ad were actually designed to call on gay stereotypes, I’ll roundly condemn it. I’ll go further and condemn Baucus for not having a statement on his Web site condemning homophobia: it would be very appropriate for him to do so by now, to make his position very clear. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that he was a bigot.
But I don’t find evidence of bigotry in the ad. And on that, your OP falls.
Daniel
Actually I think the final line had a double meaning.
That is my assertion and I have provided evidence. Clearly, you are unconvinced.
Unfortunately, people aren’t perfect. There are homophobes, who are not “reasonable viewers” in my book, but they vote.
That vaguely rings a bell. That was digusting tactics by the Helms campaign.
Good Lord this is silly.
The proper conservative response (and my history of posting should settle any doubt as my location in the conservative camp), IMHO, to this little tempest in a teapot is twofold:
-
Pull up a chair, crack open a beer, and enjoy the show as the Democratic party and one of their key supporting interest groups have a nice little hissy fight.
-
Call said interest groups out for the whining nincompoops they are. Just because the whining isn’t directed at Republicans doesn’t make said whining any less pathetic.
december says a bunch of groups have called this ad homophobic. Guess what? I don’t care. The ad isn’t homophobic. They’re wrong. If they think the ad is homophobic, then they need to grow thicker skins. If you go looking to find something offensive, you most assuredly will succeed.
Granted, I may be the wrong person to ask. I like politics played with sharp elbows. Running for office is not a task for the faint-hearted. The alternative is to have boring campaigns, and that would be just plain un-American.
If anything, even if by some stretch some overly-sensitive types find this ad homophobic, Taylor’s crybaby attitude about this ad shows him unfit for office, IMHO. American politics have never been about crying foul; they’ve about hitting back, preferably harder than you were hit. That his campaign apparently lacks the imagination to do so does not speak well of him.
But, Izzy my friend, I still maintain that my, admittedly paraphrased, statement of december’s position was not false. Here is a quotation from his own OP
The statement “this homophobic ad” clearly indicates his position on the subject. There’s no qualifiers in that. No “alleged” or “reputedly” or “potentially” between the word “this” and the word “homophobic”. He assumed that conclusion from the beginning. I think we’re on the same page as far as that is concerned. Here’s where we get into matters of interpretation.
I further assert that it is clear from his calling us out to provide “excuse[s]” that he believes us hypocrites who dismiss dirty politics when it’s Democrats who throw the mud. The assumtion here is that we support it, in spite of our knowledge of its(assumed) homophobic nature. Then he says we should provide justification for that support. The way he phrased the bit about “buying the Democratic response” makes it clear, to me at least, he believes the ad was INTENDED to provoke homophobic responses. Later in the thread, middle of page two, I believe he re-inforces this interpretation of his OP by saying
I submit that my understanding of december’s position is not flawed. I say he WAS accusing us of being “hypocrite[s] and a homophobe[s]”(sorry about the jumping around ;)). I submit this as further evidence that he believes us hypocrites who dismiss dirty politics when it’s Democrats who throw the mud.
In an odd sort of way I’m in the same position with you that december was with us. I’m believe he meant something nasty by his comments and you’re maintaining that it wasn’t that way. It’s funny actually(always been a fan of dark humor, I’m a bit odd that way). As evidence for my side, I cite Legal-pudit-Sua, wring-ring, minty votes-everything-but green, Duck Duck Google, et al. They seem to have parsed december’s OP the same way I did. If I am wrong in my interpretation of december’s OP, then obviously we’ve had some kind of massive miscommunication and I will sincerely apologize for the antagonistic attitude. Since you believe my reading to be false, meaning you believe december was NOT accusing us of being homophobes and hypocrites, I’d invite you to present your interpretation of the OP and what you believe december’s assertions in the thread have been.
Enjoy,
Steven
Well, whether he was fit for office was a moot point by the time the ad came out. He was already behind in the polls, double-digit deficits. This ad, whether by showing his corrupt financial past (my guess) or by making him out to be a '70s disco queen (December’s guess), hurt him even worse in the polls. Baucus had raised about 6 times as much money as Taylor had.
He was pretty obviously not gonna be elected. Maybe he figured he could at least “hit back” by causing Democrats to attack one another – a pretty easy game, judging by the party’s history.
(For an example, watch this: Baucus raised and is spending a loathsome amount of money on the campaign, is buying the election in exactly the same way that I condemn so many Republicans for doing. Had the OP been about the corrupt influence of money in politics, using Baucus as an example, I would’ve agreed with it absolutely).
Daniel
Your statement to which I objected was:
Which implied that after having been challenged on the homophobia angle, december continued to simply assert that it was “obvious”. (This was also your position in your subsequent posts on the subject). This is not the case. It is true that in the OP he took for granted that the ad was homophobic (see my exchange with Sua). But having been challenged, he switched to reliance on the concurrence of pundits, “bloggers”, and gay-rights organizations, as well as pointing out various aspects of the ad that might be seen as homosexual. Of such exchanges are debates made. It is true that he did suggest that you (meaning ostensible Democratic leaning posters - although at least one of these was actually a Republican) were biased in your interpretation of the ad by a reluctance to criticize a Democrat. No big deal here, as mentioned previously. It’s like a liberal complaining that the Republicans won’t see how much of a crook Bush is for his Harken shenanigans - he is not (necessarily) saying that Republicans prefer crooks - only that they are blinded by their bias (“and meanwhile they investigated Clinton for 8 years and came up with nothing…”)
My interpretation of the OP was that, again, he assumed that the ad was indeed appealing to homophobia. And, having assumed that, he decided to bait you (not specifically you). And this by challenging all Democrats to either condemn one of their own - which would also be an opportunity to cut into the image of the Democratic Party as being gay friendly, or try to find some way to weasel out of it, which would be an opportunity to both accuse you of hypocricy and undercut complaints about similar tactics when used by Republicans. It was not a statement that all Democrats are hypocrites. It was an attempt to paint you into a corner, knowing that most people are reluctant to think badly of those that they support and there was therefore an opportunity here to push some political opponents into a choice of hypocricy or “self”-criticism. (You will notice in any political scandal that people’s opinions tend to break down along the ideological lines).
In sum, I would think the OP was needlessly provocative but not dishonest or defamatory.
I don’t know what the opinions are of the posters you name. But in any event I would note that most or all of them have a history of antipathy towards december.
And now, purely in the interests of provided wholesome trivia for the masses, I present: Gore Campaign Gay Bashing?, by yours truly (Mostly a discussion of the veracity of the Drudge Report) 
IzzyR, your points are well-taken, but they miss a fundamental point. Effectively, your argument is that even pathological liars tell the truth sometimes, and this is one of those times.
Fair enough. But december has chosen to destroy his own credibility on these boards. He has voluntarily waived his right to be taken seriously or at face value through his well-documented conduct.
A pathological liar may well be telling the truth in one instance, but it is safer to assume he’s lying. Similarly, december may occasionally start a debate in good faith, but it is safer to assume that he is falsifying his citations, mischaracterizing the facts, and flat-out lying.
And sadly, because he is so damn prolific, he destroys many good potential debates. If Scylla, Bricker, Minty Green or any number of other posters had started a thread on this subject, I think we would have had a good debate - I mean, this subject is chock-full of both political and cultural issues to chew over.
But december ruined it. By his behavior over the past year or so, he ensured that this thread (and, indeed, most any thread he starts) is going to become a debate about him and his motivations.
That’s just the way it is. That’s how humans respond to the decembers of the world. This may, consciously or unconsciously, be december’s goal. Perhaps he’s not even aware of it. But it is the inevitable result. When a messenger makes himself an issue, most people aren’t going to be able to “rise above” and ignore the messenger to focus on the message.
Sua
Sua
I don’t know if that’s what it is. The same as was done here could be done with any number of december threads. And I’m not saying none of the charges are true - e.g. I’ve agreed that he misrepresented your first post to this thread in his “summary”. But I think the same charge could be made against numerous other posters, as has been demonstrated here and elsewhere. It is the nature of people who feel strongly about things to overstate their case sometimes, whether this be the evils of Liberals, Palestinians or december.
The reason december gets singled out, IMHO, is primarily due to two factors.
-
Because his opinions diverge significantly from the mainstream. This does NOT mean that anyone whose opinions diverge from the mainstream will be attacked for this alone. But there is a natural tendency of people to find logic and arguments in support of things they believe in to be stronger than parallel logic and arguments in support of things they don’t believe in. Someone of average integrity and debating talent who is consistently arguing in favor of positions that few people agree with will have many harsh critics of his debating style and few defenders, and eventually a consensus of opinion may form that he is devious or dishonest etc.
-
Because he is intensely partisan and needlessly provocative. As you and others have pointed out, the central questions in the OP could have - and would have - been subject to serious debate were they not framed in what I agree was a needlessly provocative style. And this provocation has been repeated many many times. In this sense you are correct in your final paragraph - december is in large part responsible for the feelings that he engenders. Still, even if your frustration is legitimate, it’s worthwhile to not let this cloud your own judgement and cause you to overreact. If possible.
Intensely partisan and needlessly provocative is not half of it. Our friend’s posts, at least in the threads he initiates, are invariably dishonest, or at best disingenuous. This thread is a classic demonstration. Our friend starts out with an assertion that the TV ad is homophobic and will be understood by the good voters of Montana as implying that the candidate is a homosexual. When you go look at the ad on the web site and you see that the only person who could reasonably be expected to see the ad as an accusation of homosexuality is a junior high school boy with a fixation that anything unusual is strange=queer=homosexual, or maybe someone who has their whole life invested in uncovering anti-gay behavior, or maybe someone who has their whole life invested in demonstration the veniality of a particular political party. The candidate certainly is unusual, but then so is the cobalt hued Libertarian candidate. The ad certainly shows the candidate in an unfavorable light –in his Saturday Night Fever wannabe costume with an over text about cheating on student loans and grants. But homophobic, give me a break.
No amount of debate, logic or vindictive will get our friend and his defenders to publicly and candidly concede that maybe, just maybe, there could possibly be another view of the problem and that this may be a situation in which reasonable men can differ. That is after all why we have court trials and horse races and elections. We don’t have any of those here, just endless blather and posturing.
I therefore invite someone who knows how to do the linking to take this whole thing over to Humble Opinion and set up a poll on the question of whether this ad is homophobic or not.
For the love of all that is reasonable, let us have and end to this exercise in denying the obvious.
“Vindictive?” My God, I’m channeling the President. Please read as: “invective.”
Hey Izzy, I think we’ve got it worked out. I said december implied we were hypocrites and homophobes, and you said that what he really implied was that we could choose between being hypocrites and homophobes or being liars. Ok, fair enough.
Can I ask you a question real quick? Can you give me a working definition of “troll”? Because I’ve seen, what I would consider, two good working definitions posted by you in your past two posts. I’ll re-post them here with some emphasis to show why I consider them good working definitions. Most of the highlighted passages are the hallmarks of the behavior of trolls. Here’s the first, emphasis mine.
I notice you used the term “bait you”. You do know that the term “troll” comes from the term “trolling for newbies” which is a corruption of one of the forms of fishing, right? “Baiting” someone on a message board, is pretty much synonomous with “trolling”.
The second was in response to Sua, again, emphasis mine.
I happen to agree with you that we overreacted to december’s post here. Perhaps we could be more forgiving and continue to give him as wide a benefit of every doubt as possible(you’ve already seen that most of the time where he posted a reasonable OP, he got reasonable responses. You said as much in the pit thread). If we do, do you promise to be more forgiving of us when we occasinally slip in response to a unreasonable OP, as we did in this thread, and decide to stuff an apple in his mouth and slow-roast him over a banked fire?
Enjoy,
Steven
<< tiny little voice calls to Steven >>
[spoiler]steeeeeevennnnnn
steeeeeeeeeeeveennnnnn
this is your life calling
remember me?[/spoiler]
sheesh, are ALL you people STILL here?
DDG Am I supposed to see a black rectangle marked “spoiler”? I don’t get it. I hate not getting it.
WHAZZITMEAN? Huh? Whazzit?
