Name one poster who has said this.
Okay -
Neither say what you want it to say.
They say just exactly what they say. Since they appeared to be offered in contrast to elucidator’s point, I assumed they were intended to be. If they weren’t then I return to simply being flummoxed and look forward to an explanation as to what they are supposed to mean.
You say they are examples of people wanting to be put first, when the argument is just that they want to be considered equally rather than be shoved back for the sake of currying other favor.
Though to be strictly specific, the examples you quote don’t say anything one way or the other.
I don’t understand any part of this post. It’s like something out of Lewis Carrol.
Hmmm. Maybe it isn’t elucidator who is somehow causing this communication problem then.
I thought Miller was expressly clear on the point. He said:
It seems pretty clearly stated there that it’s either one horse gets advanced before the others, or our interests aren’t recognized at all.
But again, I look forward to hearing what it really is supposed to mean. Miller, on the other hand, appears to not be in a mood to help clarify things.
As one of the two people quoted, I meant pretty much what Bosstone said:
[QUOTE=Bosstone]
…the argument is just that they want to be considered equally rather than be shoved back for the sake of currying other favor.
[/QUOTE]
(Edit: Although, you could add “political expediency” in place of “currying other favor,” too.)
Well, that and that luci’s tone in his posts set my teeth on edge. But, on sober reflection, tone seems like a particularly assinine reason to go on pitting someone for umpteen pages. For that, I prefer the other poster both having an annoyng tone and being dead wrong: damn near anything by Starving Artist, for instance.
Requoting what you quoted:
Nowhere does Miller make it his argument that the third horse should be in front. He’s claiming elucidator is saying it shouldn’t be put in front. If you want to point out whether and how Miller is twisting elucidator’s words, be my guest, but that’s not an outright statement that Miller wants his horse in the lead.
Personally I think the whole thing is stupid. It’s akin to people bitching about trivial Pit threads, asking, “Doesn’t the OP have anything better to think about?” It’s entirely possible to be concerned with several things at once, and that’s just one person, not an entire bloc of voters. It’s a weird situation posited in this whole thread that only one group can be considered at a time.
I agree with you that it’s weird to suggest only one group can be considered at a time.
Also, I’m perfectly happy to acknowledge I’ve misread things. For instance, I misread 42fish vis a vis his attributing anything about second class citizenry to elucidator. I think he was wrong to suggest that elucidator had even implied that nobody should complain about it, but I agree that the status quo is to treat gay people as second class citizens.
However, I don’t think Miller could have been any clearer. (Well, actually I do think he could have been clearer, but for some reason he has chosen to be a pissy little word-twister in this thread, so functionally I don’t think he actually could have been clearer.) He even made a point of restating what elucidator said, although twisting it a bit nevertheless:
and he goes on to say (in the part you didn’t quote) that he assumes elucidator meant:
So sure, he doesn’t say that he feels his horse should be put first, but he clearly says that if his horse is not advanced, he assumes it means that gays are not important enough to have their concerns addressed.
Simply, if they are kept on par with others, they are in fact not important enough. What else could that imply but that to be given the importance they are due, they have to be other than on par (e.g. put first)? I am honestly interested in learning how I am misunderstanding this.
Miller:
I quote you. You paraphrase me. I say it waddles like a duck, quacks, and floats., and is a duck. You say that I explicitly stated that its a witch. But you don’t quote, you twist my words into a new shape to fit your narrative.
But I quote you. I take what you actually say, as above, to witless:
Now, just imagine that you were somebody of importance, some political heavy-hitter for the gay rights cause, and you said that in public. How long do you think it would be before Turdblossom had that plastered over every Spanish language site he could find?
“See? See? The gays will sell you out in a heartbeat to advance their agenda!” And he wouldn’t even have to twist your words to fit, he’d just be flat out quoting you! Christ Jesus, but you’re stupid!
And again, what’s your plan? Are you going to overcome our enemies with the sheer weight of your numbers? Not likely. Now, I got a plan, and it bites. Its full of compromises, and deal making, and going along to get along, and I don’t much like it. I’d much rather sweep aside our enemies in a glorious electoral massacre! I’d also like a pony, and Rachel Maddow. I might get the pony.
Its a painful plan, a slow plan. You got a better one, lets see it. Bring it, tough guy, show us what you got. But so far when that question is posed you want to change the subject to what an asshole I am. OK, I’m an asshole, so are you, what’s your fucking plan!
Because if you don’t have one, what good are you? If you won’t lead, won’t follow, how about you just get out of the way, and the rest of us will see what we can do about this.
And maybe you’ll reflect for a while, and come to realize you’ve got to suit up, put on your cleats and get in the fucking game. Our enemies are rich, powerful and ruthless, and we need all the support we can get. Goddess help us, even yours.
Oh, before I forget, kumbaya, motherfucker! That’s a Swahili word meaning “Kiss my Nixon”. Well, no, it really isn’t. And that would be the only false thing I’ve said so far.
Without getting into the horse analogy too much, here’s one thing that might be worth considering:
The difference, right now, between gays and other groups is that the status quo actually has gays behind, not level. While you can certainly make an argument that some other groups that tend to support Democrats, like African Americans and Hispanics, suffer from de facto inequality due to a variety of circumstances. And you can also argue that it is the role of government to address that inequality.
The difference, for GLBT folks, is that they suffer from not only de facto but also de jure inequality. The military was desegregated decades ago; Loving v. Virginia ensured the right to interracial marriages; and anti-discrimination laws include race and ethnicity. In all of these areas, gays suffer either from laws and measures specifically directed against them (DADT; DOMA; other laws and state constitutional amendments against gay marriage), or from the fact that they are excluded from protections that are offered to other historically-disadvantaged groups (anti-discrimination laws).
So, an argument that that gays be simply treated equally requires, first, that they are actually made equal. And this will necessarily involve placing those issues of gay rights at the forefront until that equality is achieved. Discriminatory laws don’t just expire or disappear by themselves; they require active opposition.
Of course, here’s the one area where the OP of this thread actually has a small point. The Obama administration had an opportunity to effectively allow the demise of a discriminatory law by doing nothing, because the Log Cabin Republicans had done the work of opposing the law in their lawsuit. I appreciate the argument that the Justice Department’s job is to defend the law, but it also seems to me that there are some ruling that they contest, and some that they don’t. I don’t see why this couldn’t have been one of the latter.
On the issue of coalitions and rocking the boat, i don’t think that Obama or the Democrats should pander to the homophobes in their constituencies by going slowly on this issue. I think they should make it clear that this is an important issue of principle. And this is especially the case with DADT. It is my impression that there are plenty of people who oppose gay marriage but who still believe that DADT is pointless and unjust. While an aggressively activist stance supporting gay marriage might hurt the Democrats in their own constituencies, i don’t think the same thing applies to DADT. I know military guys here in San Diego who supported Prop 8, but who think DADT is stupid.
Anyway, that was a bit rambling, and it’s still not really clear to me whether i’ve answered your question.
I appreciate the effort! I actually understand and agree with most all that. I would quibble that it’s quite impossible to determine the relative degree of injustice perpetuated by society in regards to different groups, such that their relative rankings in some horse analogy should be adjusted by x or y degrees. I think the point really is that in principle all horses should be treated equally, and the fight needs to be for everyone until the goal is achieved.
My point had more to do with the specifics of this back and forth than with the larger issues, because that’s what I’m quite perplexed by. It’s been a bit like watching a match in which someone hit a tennis ball over the net, and it gets returned as a volleyball.
Well, I can’t speak for Hentor, but I can say I can’t and do it anyway.
I take your point, but is a really hard sell. How many latinos have relatives or loved ones under threat of deportation? Don’t know that, but willing to guess its quite a few. And that’s the law. About as *de jure *as you’re likely to get.
And whether or not we actually favor gays above them isn’t the question. We have to avoid even the appearance of such a thing. As you may have noticed, a lot of folks are really, really touchy about this shit.
Now, the upside is it appears that our service members are mostly on board, thank goodness. And many of them are Hispanic, so we can expect they will say to their family “Hey, its all right, Mamacita, a gay guy can pull the trigger just as quick as I can.” And thats huge because its personal and direct.
I certainly see the point about letting the court ruling stand, grabbing it and running as fast as we can. But I also see Obama’s point, or at least how I interpret it.
He cut a deal with the brass hats. They wanted time, and he said "OK, I’ll give you that, but in return you gotta stand with me in front of Congress and say “Yes, lets ditch this piece of shit DADT.”
Because a court decision can be overturned. An Executive Order can be overturned. But if he marches down to Congress with the brass hats behind him, and Colin Powell, and Ted Olson, he’s got a real good shot at making this The Law. And that law cannot be overturned as easily as the other alternatives, its a major win that is likely to put the final seal on this nasty thing.
I don’t quite agree with him, but I see his point. And if he doesn’t win in Congress, he still has other things he can do, he has a Plan B. Always good to have a Plan B.
I think his heart is in the right place in this, though I have doubts about his tactics. But hey! He’s the politician, and I’m just a hippy. And he’s proven me wrong once already, he got elected and I didn’t really think he could do it. I’m a pessimist, I love surprises!
Maybe, just maybe, he knows his business better than I do. Possible.
But you’re missing an important distinction here.
Yes, it’s true that plenty of latinos have relatives affected by immigration laws. Living in San Diego makes one acutely aware of the significance of immigration policy on the lives on many latinos. And you’re right that deportation is “as *de jure *as you’re likely to get.”
An important difference, though, is that immigration laws are not written specifically to keep latinos out. It happens that, due to particular geographic and political and economic circumstances, most of the people who are subject to deportation are from Mexico and points south. But the rules themselves apply to anyone here illegally. I was well aware, before i got my green card, that overstaying my visa would not only make me subject to deportation, but could put any future attempts to enter the US in jeopardy.
I’m not denying that race and racism are issues in the debate over immigration policy. I’m not even arguing that the policy itself wasn’t shaped by a certain amount of nativism or xenophobia. You only have to look at a long history of immigration-related laws in America (Chinese Exclusion Act of 1982; Geary Act of 1892; National Origins Act of 1929, etc.) to know that unsavory prejudices have been important in formulating border policies in this country. I’m not even arguing that there hasn’t been some imbalance in the way that immigration laws are enforced, with more resources directed to keeping brown people from crossing the border than, say, keeping white college students from overstaying their F1 visa.
But the fact that latinos are disproportionately affected by laws prohibiting illegal entry is not really a function of discriminatory language within the law itself. The law prohibits everyone from illegally entering the US, from overstaying, and from working without authorization. The laws against gays, like DADT and bans on gay marriage, are specifically aimed at that group. And that’s the sort of thing that governments can and should fix quickly and forcefully, IMO.
Good points, and well stated. I’m not an immigrant, I’m a Texan and that’s as American as you can get, but proud to have you with us!
Shit, this train wreck is in danger of becoming a sensible adult conversation. Somebody say something really stupid, quick!
This is concern trolling, pure and simple.
If Democrats were to stick to their guns on this issue, we’d have Scylla in here tearing out his hair because the “Democrats are too committed to tilting at windmills that they’re not doing anything about the economy.”
Instead, we have Scylla pretending to be the defender of a certain issue, and giving Democrats “helpful advice” on how they should pursue their own interests, which would actually be destructive to their cause if actually pursued.
Either that, or Scylla really does believe Republicans hate gays far less than the Democrats do, but I respect him too much to think he believes that. So concern trolling it is.
That should, of course, be 1882.
From the SDMB random hot topic generator:
I demand that we circumcize kittens!
(Will that do to get a trainwreck back on track. Or off track, I suppose.)