Calm Dialogue or ACT UP!

Great Debates
1

In the thread about http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=131615”]Methodist acceptance of Homosexuality one poster goes off in a hissy-fit against another over her religious beliefs spouting accusations of “bigotry” and saying she has a “feeble mind”. While I understand the frustration of the outraged poster, I think that his reaction won’t help in the effort to change the fundamentalist’s POV. Gobear and I both advise the poster to calm down and deal rationally with the religious person and to quit the histrionics.

I said:

In turn gobear and I get read the riot act by lissener for trying to deal rationally with the religious poster and suggesting that the inflamed responses do more damage than good. We’re labeled as appeasers and accused of supplicating for acceptance when we should be shouting her down and using “in your face” tactics

I think lissener is wrong. Standing up for your rights is what we were doing. We were confronting the religious propaganda directly and showing the flawed logic and misunderstanding. Cries of “bigot” and “feeble mindedness” only make the religious posters defensive and give them an escape hatch.

The debate is, which is more effective – rational debate or In-Your-Face confrontation?

2

Damn curly quotes.

The correct link is

Methodist acceptance of Homosexuality

3

“Effective” in what way, exactly?

It seems to me that when a person truly believes that homosexuals/non-Christians/group B individuals aren’t full human beings, then that person is highly unlikely to be rationally convinced otherwise.

It’s also been my observation that such folks tend to be pretty good at feeling all martyred and put-upon regardless of how reasonably they’re dealt with. I think there’s some sort of aptitude test for it that they have to pass.

4

You ask that question as if either solution will solve the problem. Calm dialogue works only with those receptive in the first place. Act Up! tactics are cathartic I’m sure but I can’t think of anyone they don’t’ alienate.

5

First of all, I never invoked ACTUP. Frankly, the greatest value I think ACTUP confers on the gay rights ‘movement’ is to provide a ready red cape to keep the martyrs occupied; they keep the fringe out where it belongs, at the fringe, thus conferring on the rest of us a kind of default mainstreamism.

My model for change is the Civil Rights movement of the sixties: when calm rationality proved ineffective, they didn’t resort to violence, but to firm, implacable insistance.

My tactic (if you read my posts), is not to shout and threaten, but to try to frame the issue (note I don’t use the word ‘debate’) as nondebatable and non-negotiable: I try to make supporters of the anti-gay-rights status quo understand that they are the fringe; that the closet they want me to live in is entirely of their own construction, and that I will not cooperate with ther agenda by quietly stepping into it and closing the door.

I try to put forth the perspective that I’m not asking their permission to be human; I’m informing them that their ‘opinion’ on the matter is invalid, illogical, self-destructive, irrelevant, and ultimately more about them and their world than it is about me and mine.

If you choose to see my stance of firm non-negotiation as hysteria, then that says more about you and your world than it does about me and mine.

6

You are still missing the point, lissener. [sub]Okay, I’ll name names now[/sub]. Kirkland came into the thread calling His4ever “feeble minded” and using other abusive language. So much so that he was eventually warned by the administration.

When gobear and I told him to knock it off and deal with her directly with calm logic and reason. Then for some reason, you come into the fray, defending his histronics and calling us Uncle Toms. Never once did we ask for her acceptance. We demonstrated with science and with her own scriptures that she was wrong, and we never waivered on that.

Yet instead of joining a rational discussion in an effort to open her mind, you condemn us and set up Kirkland as the martyr. If you review the thread, you’ll see that she latched onto Kirkland’s comments and claimed she was insulted rather than address gobear’s and my comments. He’s strengthened her stereotype of gay men as histronic, irrational heathens whom she doesn’t have to respect.

So which was more effective?

7

[list=A][li]I’ve already addressed that: I don’t think either works, and I offered a third alternative.I agree that Kirkland reacted in an extreme manner. I will still defend his right to feel attacked when his humanity is questioned–nay; denied–by a self-righteous pseudochristian. I did not address his posts; I left that to Gaudere. I addressed you and gobear’s towering gall in dictating to him how he should defend himself and his humanity. [/list]More to the point, I addressed the futility of arguing the logic of the Bible with a hardline Chick follower–one who, moreover, had already announced that she would not discuss it any further and would never change her mind on the subject. [/li]
Your and gobear’s obsequious Tommery will never, never, never get you anywhere with her and her fellow travelers. “Make a friend of your enemy,” indeed: do you really think you could ever convince a Chickite that a god-hated, hellbound faggot is her friend? You’ll get nowhere trying to make things easy for her. Likewise, you’ll get nowhere, Kirkland, simply shouting louder than her. The only way we’ll ever get anywhere with any of them is to make it clear to them that they simply don’t matter.

Until the natural reaction of the “mainstream” American is to react to such statements as “I just think that homosexuals are deviants and abominations before God. I’m sorry but that’s my opinion” in exactly the same way they would react to “I just think that blacks/jews/women/[your group here] are inferior to white men. I’m sorry but that’s just my opinion”–until then, nothing will change. They must be driven into the closet, underground, the way neo-nazis and the KKK are forced to exist today.

Every time one of you pops up to defend them by saying “Hey, everyone has a right to express their opinion” you contribute to their hold on the status quo.

[I’m going to break one of my SDMB rules here: I never preempt an argument; I always trust in the intelligence of the average not to lead a thread astray into an obvious side argument; and again and again I am disappointed. So now I will say: Of *course* I would never suggest that they don’t have the legal, constitutional right to express such an opinion. That’s not my point; let 'em speak up and expose their idiocy. But when, say, a racist comes to the SDMB and expresses the opinion, as he/she has every legal and constitutional right to do, that blacks are inferior to whites, he/she gets called on it. And no one rushes to their defense and says, “Hey, quit attacking them. They have a right to their opinion.” It’s just simply the case that a dehumanizing “opinion” about gays is more acceptable here than a dehumanizing “opinion” about African Americans.]

Another thought: The usual tack, when engaging politely with a Biblical literalist, is to ask why they don’t follow all the rules of Leviticus to the letter.

We all know why: because they’re lying to you (and probably to themselves) when they give that as their reason for their homophobia. The fact is, they don’t cover/uncover their heads when they pray, avoid mixed-fiber clothing, etc., because they think those things are obviously outdated and just plain silly. Those rules don’t make any sense to them, so they give themselves permission to ignore them. The proscription against homosexuality, however (such as it is), that does make sense to them. For a couple reasons: because we live in a society that largely accepts and supports that prejudice, and because, for whatever freudian reason (for another debate), queers give them the willies. End of story. They don’t like queers, and they don’t have to address–to you or to themselves–why that is, because they can point to the Book and say, “Because God says!” They don’t hate gays because God says so; they say “God says so” because they hate gays.

So I reiterate, and insist, that neither reason nor rage will get you anywhere with these people. They won’t respond to either and, like the hardest-core KKKers, will always cling to their freudian willies. The only thing we can do–for ourselves, and for the rest of society as a whole–is to give up on them and push them into the dark corners where they belong.

8

A psuedochristian? Is that a follower of psuedoChrist?

–I try to make supporters of the anti-gay-rights status quo understand that they are the fringe;—

Just to be clear, what exactly do you mean by “anti-gay-rights”? Isn’t it possible that people can think homosexuality is morally wrong without opposing the civil liberties of homosexuals.

9

Indeed, I think so. At least, that’s how I used to feel. A LONG time ago-when I was oh, about thirteen or so, I used to think ti was wrong. I also thought it was nobody’s damn business, and that it was between each individual person and their own conscience.

Eventually, of course, I changed my mind. Most people do. I think my dad thinks it’s wrong, but he also hates it when people complain about “fags” or whatever. He always said, “Let the poor guy alone and mind your own damn business. Worry about yourself for a change.”

Seriously, I think that ACT UP types (and let me say, as a Catholic, and more importantly, as a human being, ACT UP and their types offend me very deeply) do more harm than good to their cause-no matter WHAT that cause may be.

10

Apos, if I may ask a question of you…why is this? Please take no offense, but I’m curious as to why you feel this way.

11

In this context (first of all, if you’d read the linked thread, you’d see that I addressed this there), a pseudochristian is one who selectively mouths the parts of the Bible they agree with, while breaking its other commandments. Again, specifically, I mean those people who have succumbed to the temptation to turn away from the gospel and hate their neighbor, rather than love him–and twist the scriptures as rationalization for doing so. They are SO going to hell.

Yes, if they don’t shove their lifestyle choices down our throats.

12

—Apos, if I may ask a question of you…why is this? Please take no offense, but I’m curious as to why you feel this way.—

You mean, why Guinastasia feels that way.

13

—In this context (first of all, if you’d read the linked thread, you’d see that I addressed this there), a pseudochristian is one who selectively mouths the parts of the Bible they agree with, while breaking its other commandments. —

In other words, it’s a derogatory epithet invented by you to pre-judge the validity of a particular understanding of the Bible that you don’t like?

I mean, I don’t agree with these people’s views (I’m not even a Christian), but I know better than to make presumptive judgements about what “true” Christian views are.

14

Um, who the hell are you what freakin left field is this coming out of? Hot buttons: “derogatory”–“prejudge”–WTF? I’m not prejudging anything; I’m describing a specific approach to the scripture as hypocritical, and defining it pretty clearly, it seems.

Are you just being contrary, or do you have any real point, that’s relevant to the subject at hand, to make?

15

Sorry; *count to ten, and remember: *

“If you put a million monkeys in a room with a million keyboards, half of them will sign up for the SDMB.” [ul]–anonymous doper[/ul]

16

—Um, who the hell are you—

I’m Apos.

—what freakin left field is this coming out of?—

The field that thinks calling people “psuedochristians” is exaclty the sort of thing this thread is all about.

—Hot buttons: “derogatory”–“prejudge”–WTF? I’m not prejudging anything;—

Of course you are. You never asked any Christian who believes the rationale you hate to explain the reasons for their position. You simply assumed that it was stupid and hypocritical. But for all anyone knows, they feel that it is justified, if only by what their faith tells them. You and I may not agree with their opinions, but it is nothing but meanspirited to insult their beliefs.

Any Christians who are reading this: if someone called you a psuedochristian because they didn’t agree with your particular scriptural interpretation, wouldn’t you feel that this was derogatory?

—I’m describing a specific approach to the scripture as hypocritical, and defining it pretty clearly, it seems.—

Sorry, but how is that anything other than name calling? Maybe you think that they aren’t Christians, but they say they are, and that’s good enough for me (even though I’m not Christian). If we had to decide what the “right” Christian beliefs were and limit the use of “Christian” only to that, we’d be here for centuries debating.

—Are you just being contrary, or do you have any real point, that’s relevant to the subject at hand, to make?—

Yes. This entire thread is about whether or not being abusive is really worth it. I think that calling Christians names is probably pointlessly abusive and insulting.

It’s one thing to make an arguement that you think that someone’s religious beliefs are hypocritical. It’s quite another to simply tie that arguement up in a name that you use to reffer to them. I believe that our moderators actually had a post about exactly this recently, wherein two posters started reffering to each other by such presumptive names.

For the record, I’m an atheist, and I get pretty darn pissed off with people who think homosexuality is wrong too. But just because we happen to have the same goals doesn’t mean I have to rubberstamp approve of every method an “ally” uses. And that’s exactly what this thread is about.

17

No, seriously, did you like just wake up or something? I’ll check in later, and if I see any evidence that you have the first freakin idea what you’re talkin about, I’ll respond. Otherwise, don’t hold your breath. (Hint: this is not the first thread about this topic. In fact, it’s very explicitly a followup to another thread, which was itself just one of a long line of similar threads. Catch up before you spray assumptions and accusations indescriminately. Contrary to your apparent inference, this board did not spring into existence the moment you graced it. I gotta tell you, from here, it just looks a lot like you’re spouting vacuously from a vacuum.)

18

Is “racist” a derogatory and prejudicial term? Then fine; define the term “pseudochristian” however you want. But read my post above to try to understand why I don’t really care if you think I’m being impolite to pseudochristians.

I get sick and gottam tired of people saying things like “You demand tolerance, yet you turn around and are intolerant of their opinion.”

They’re intolerant of my existence, and I’m supposed to be tolerant of their opinions? I’m supposed to be tolerant of their “right” to express their intolerance? Screw that. I’ll never deny they have a legal right to do so, but by the same token I’ll never agree they have any moral right.

I’m pretty close to WAAAY fed up with this board’s PC insistance on equating homophobia with film criticism, or something. It is not as innocuous as the consensus demand that it be tolerated as an “opinion” would suggest. Just labeling hate speech as “opinion” gets you a pass around here, as long as the subject is gays. Express an intolerant “opinion” on women or blacks or whatever, and everybody and their moderator lands two-footed on your back. But express the same opinion about homosexuals, and everyone defends your right to be spoken to politely; to be reasoned with quietly; etc.

Really makes me wanna barf, Dopers. I really wish you’d all reexamine what amounts to an unwritten double standard around here: for all the sometimes really excellent and eloquent talk on this subject that often takes place here, it remains a fact that intolerance for homosexuals is far more tolerated around here than any other prejudice.

19

If you read the other thread, you’ll note that I contributed to it myself. I am well aware of wat went on there. I did misttate the above, however: the problem is not that you didn’t ask (though your asking was incredulously rhetorical), but that you took a non-response/“that’s what my faith tells me” as a decisive admission of hypocrisy. That’s still just as presumptive. And regardless, it still doesn’t justify continually refering to a poster or hypothetical poster by a nasty name (and I believe that the moderators of this board do not look kindly on this sort of thing).

And you certainly don’t seem to limit your use of the term to His4ever either: you seem to think that anyone who quotes one part of the Bible while neglecting another part qualifies: apparently irregardless of whether or not they might have a (in their particular faith) legitimate reason to think one passage is relevant and another is not, due to their particular religious beliefs about how to interpret scripture.

20

The difference, lissener, is that no one, even the christians who think homosexuality is wrong, are habitually reffering to you with a derogatory pet name.

—Is “racist” a derogatory and prejudicial term?—

If it is used against someone who isn’t a racist, yes, it is. Most real racists are happy to admit that they are indeed racist, and those that are still racists are pretty clearly so by their statments. “Pseudochristian” however, isn’t a term anyone would call themselves in the way you mean it, anymore than someone would call themselves a “moron.”

—Then fine; define the term “pseudochristian” however you want.—

I am defining it by how YOU define it: as a label you give to people who’s Christianity you wish to deny (which many Christians find to be highly insulting and presumptive).

----But read my post above to try to understand why I don’t really care if you think I’m being impolite to pseudochristians.—

I understand that you don’t care. I don’t really think this is even so much a matter of simply having respect for christians (which no one is forced to have). It’s, rather, a matter of simply having certain standards for HOW one goes about attacking the positions of others, even when one thinks they’re crap.