In an effort to keep on top of the multitude of disinformation available as political parties continue to fight dirty I have this question.
Recently I was checking on progress of some local issues and bumped into this idea that Fred Phelps is so over the top that it may be possible that he is working to drum up sympathy for the very group he villifies.
Having arrived late to the party, my apologies if this has been done to death here already. I don’t see it in any recent threads. How about it, voices of reason? What is your take on this?
I seriously doubt it. I can’t remember where I read it (maybe one of his kids came out against him, I’m pretty sure it was one of his kids who wrote it), but Phelps seems more like a sociopath. He was really abusive towards his children, and he used to constantly use the law to extort money from people in his community.
To your first question, no, he’s probably not a plant. The site you linked to–which, incidentally, doesn’t say that he is a plant but only mentions that as a possibility–notes that he’s been at this a long time, and times have changed quite a bit since he started. The very fact that most people, even those opposed to homosexuality, condemn his “God Hates Fags” demonstrations show that the country has come a long way. If he were a plant, one would think that he would see that he is no longer needed.
Secondly, he’s broadened his attacks to fallen soldiers, whose families certainly have enough sympathy and who (justifiably) get quite a bit of attention already.
So, if he is a plant, it’s hard to see what he intends to accomplish in that position.
Thanks for the references. Reading and then reading.
I’m not surprised that of his thirteen children some of them have spoken out about unhappy childhoods. But it doesn’t really address the idea of whether he could have begun his career as a gay rights plant.
I kinda like that term. Plant. Hee.
The article I referenced talked about legal and Democratic background. I find that interesting and out of synch. Still in search of material which could explain his continued freakshow.
Mental illness? Adrenaline junkie? Enjoying the limelight like the kid who thinks negative attention is better than none at all? Masochist? Sadist? Megalomania? Is he making big bucks? From where?
The mind boggles. Certainly there’s more here than meets the eye. Which is plently enough.
The suggestion that he would no longer serve a purpose to LGBT folks hardly seems sufficient. One could just as well make the argument that no more Gay Pride marches are necessary.
Okay, the smiley was a gesture towards politeness, but the notion truly is ridiculous. It’s like suggesting Scott Roeder isn’t really against abortion, but killed Dr. Tiller for the purpose of gaining sympathy for pro-choice advocates. Phelps and Roeder are dyed-in-the-wool extremists who are absolutely certain that their views are correct and that God is solidly behind all that they do. They’re over the top because they’re irrational, not because they’re plants.
One might muse that they’re so out there that they do their pet causes more harm than good, and that’s likely true. But to seriously suggest that Phelps supports gay rights, and is intending to further that cause, just flies in the face of decades worth of facts, and betrays an alarming ignorance of the way extremists think.
Poe’s Law in action, I guess. - Religious extremists are so ridiculous, they’re difficult to tell apart from people parodying religious extremists.
Although Phelps’ main targets are ‘fags’, he rants and rails at other groups too - so if he’s a plant, it either has to be on behalf of a coalition of all of those groups, or the other groups are getting a freebie.
[moderating]
Since any answers to this will be speculation, I’m moving the thread from General Questions to Great Debates, where it can hang out with the rest of the political threads.
[/moderating]
I don’t know how large the group is, but there is a subset of LGBT folks who think the “outrageousness” of some Gay Pride marches are doing more harm than good for gay rights as a whole.
Phelps’ actions aren’t hard to understand. It’s pretty standard cult leader behavior, actually. The entire point of his protests is to re-enforce to his followers that they are hated and despised by the outside world, and that they have no choice but to remain in his “church.” That’s why he chooses targets like military funerals, or beloved media figures like Mr. Rodgers. Phelps himself is a sociopath. I don’t think he has any actual values or beliefs, other than a sick fascination with controlling and hurting the people around him.
Parsimony alone would suggest he’s just a religious lunatic. There’s really not reason to believe anything else. You’d have to be rather naive to assume he’s not that crazy.
Exactly. For those who wonder about the purpose of Fred Phelps’ actions, search for Lemur866’s posts about him, I think he’s the one who’s explained them best. [post=10498619]This post[/post] and [post=8584325]this one[/post] are pretty good for a start.
Follow the money if you can. Phelps is a disbarred lawyer and yet is able to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Someone or some organisation is paying for it.
