I have eradicated bigots from my life (not that I ever had much, or any that I can actually recall past high school), haven’t ever worked for any to my knowledge, and do not vote. What do I win, and what was that supposed to prove ?
Besides, I think **Bricker **holds the copyright on the Come See The Liberal Hypocrisy card and you don’t want to tangle with a lawyer about copyright, it’s bad mojo.
Heh, good point.
Let’s backtrack to more amiable ground here. And this question is directed at everyone. What is your reaction when accusations of racism or anti-semetism or any other -ism get thrown around and you don’t feel the accusations are justified?
Are you familiar with the Walt/Mearsheimer paper which purported to demonstrate the power of the Jewish lobby in Washington?
Yeah, I’m gonna go with Brian Ekers here.
Why? Other democracies throw people in jail for expressing the wrong thoughts.
And personally, I don’t approve of extralegal methods to achieve the same ends that imprisonment does. But at least we’re admitting now that the goal isn’t just to criticize. It is actually to destroy people for thought crimes.
Us damn impatient queers. Waiting a mere 5,000 years for equal rights. After all, what’s the big rush?
You have a dream I guess. You dream of a day when you can destroy your enemies.
BTW, who here is boycotting Alec Baldwin movies? Anyone?
You really oughta quote stuff that others say to avoid confusion.
But in any case, so what? Eich wasn’t ‘hounded’, there wasn’t even a boycott. There was just angry emails, and then a company made a business decision.
Sometimes, doing bigoted things can have consequences.
The President, explaining his evolution from hateful bigot to enlightened individual who tolerates and respects hateful bigots:
“I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, the word marriage was something that invokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs.”
It was a political campaign. So you’re saying that it’s justifiable to not hire someone based on their political involvement?
Of course, it is legal to discriminate based on political beliefs, but is it right?
Does the same go for racism, or just anti-SSM? If the CEO of a company, it turns out, has privately said black people are inferior, should we keep our mouths shut because that’s his private views?
It was a bit more than that, as others have said – Card isn’t just anti-SSM, but has said many extremely homophobic and bigoted stuff. If a contemporary author said similar things about black people or Jews, I would hope he would suffer a loss of readership. Would you?
I think it’s quite inappropriate that Noam Chomsky doesn’t often get to appear on American TV. I think his hateful views should get a proper hearing. Plus the fact that he can’t get on TV in this country gives credence to his arguments.
That guy was acting in a very bigoted manner.
Those good people are also acting in a bigoted manner. They still might be good people, but the actions you describe are bigoted actions.
Most bigotry is stupid and not hateful. Bigotry is far from always about hatred.
[quote]
And I just don’t see most religious people changing on this.
Why not? Many have changed, statistically, in just the last decade.
Who cares what their personal views are? I just care about not doing bigoted things. If they don’t advocate against gay couples (or the like), then they’re not doing bigoted things.
Okay, so lets say I concede the bigotry issue. Opposition to same sex marriage is bigoted.
That being said, how do we treat the people who are still bigoted? Do we hound them out of public life, ostracize them, shun them? Or do we show understanding and wait until they come around, as SSM advocates did for the President? I have to confess, I can’t recall a single person calling the President a bigot when he expressed his support for traditional marriage based on his Christian beliefs.
…So, can we conclude at this point that “The debate is over, but adaher hasn’t gotten the memo yet”?
Tolerance of bigotry, if it means saying and doing nothing with regards to bigoted actions, is certainly no virtue.
So you’re just arguing about tactics? Fine – shouting down is often a poor tactic. And most pro-SSM folks aren’t shouting people down. Some may be, but most aren’t. But calling out bigotry is not shouting people down. It’s doing them a favor.
I wish someone had done me that favor 15 years ago – I would have come around a lot quicker.
He wasn’t a hateful bigot – he supported something bigoted. As did I, 15 years ago. He was wrong, as was I. Calling that bigoted is the right and correct thing to do.
Who wasn’t hired? Do you mean because he resigned/ was forced out? Companies don’t force people out because of political views, they force people out because they’re afraid they will cost them money. That’s about the purest and best reason for a company to force someone out.
That depends on the situation. If someone is actively seeking to do harm, or incite hatred, then that is cause for a strong response.
Maybe I should feel morally superior for having been persuaded by an argument, because I certainly wouldn’t be persuaded by a moral scold. But I guess us right-wingers aren’t as sensitive to that line of “argument”.
You really need to spell out when you’re serious or not. Chomsky doesn’t get on TV much because many of his views and the things he says are way out of the mainstream. But so what?