I also resent the use of the word “more” in the thread title. As I seem to recall the “homophobia” of the other Democratic campaign december recently trolled the board with was not established as a point of fact. Is this your style december take threads where your opponents concede that there is a possibility, not a certainty, for interpretation the way you are positing as a victory? Pathetic.
This seems to be a clear case of Democratic gay-bashing. I think it’s slimy and I would gleefully vote “none of the above” were I a citizen of South Carolina. What I resent is your position that this is somehow another case of Democratic gay-bashing when your first case was on such pathetically shallow grounds.
Actually, I should clarify the above post. This seems to be A case of A Democratic candidate/campaign gay-bashing. This is not canon and should not be used as justification in any kind of assertion about the homophobic/non-homophobic tendencies of all Democrats. As I’ve pointed out before, the logical sequence
Some Democrat acted like a total jackass homophobe -> Democrats are jackass homophobes
is completely invalid. Sadly that seems to be the way logic works in december-land.
Okay, thanks Captain, for the more thorough source.
Ehh. It’s kinda fringe gay-bashing, I guess. But it seems much more like liberal bashing, instead. He’s trying to show that the other guy is “ultra-liberal,” and linking him to behaviors typical of liberals, a pretty good tactic for a conservative state.
So kind of that annoying level of idiocy instead of flat-out offensive. And it’s about time that you figure out that one or two members of a huge political party does not typify the entire party’s stance on an issue, it’s certainly not enough to condemn a whole party, especially one that generally campaigns for gay rights…
Not to hijack a perfectly good self-parody from december, but tell me you didn’t mean to actually refer to the entire population of South Carolina as “sludge.”
Every time I see december’s ‘evil democrat’ threads, I think about starting a parody ‘evil republicans’ thread, and it’s just not jelling… ‘More evidence of GOP gay bashing!’ sounds like ‘Pope wears funny hat again’. Why bother?
No, no, King. Just the politico types there. The general population isn’t all so bad. I mean, my brother lives there, so there’s at least one decent guy there.
Yeah, the post is pretty despicable, and the politics of the poster are pretty despicable. I can’t help who else is a registered Democrat, but it appears to me that this guy’s politics are very close to most Republicans. I condmen the man’s remarks.
But I also note that this is the umpteenth post from the december clown that seriously misquotes the original source, in this instance to eliminate the context that showed that the speaker was conservative, not liberal. I’ve seen others banned for much less.
My point concerns the myth: Democrats are good people; Republicans are bad people or Democrats are tolerant; Republicans are bigots. This idea is sometimes put forth to attack opponents of some government program such as affirmative action.
The myth isn’t true. (Nor is the reverse true. Most Democrats are good people as are most Republicans.)
Some Democrats are so committed to the idea that their party is the “good guys” that they will deny the obvious. Some of the denial mechanisms include:
Scylla exaggerated my point in order to mock it.
Stoid observes the quote reflects poorly on South Carolina, not gay people, in her opinion. I agree with her, but that’s not how the speaker intended it. I think all bigotry reflects poorly on the speaker, but that doesn’t mean that bigotry doesn’t exist.
Captain Amazing mis-characterizes the quote as being critical of gay rights," when it was actually implicitly critical of gay people]
El_Kabong pretends that the context excuses the quote in some unexplained way.
I am Sparticus blames me having eliminated the context that showed that the speaker was conservative, not liberal. This accusation is triply bizarre. First of all, I never claimed the speaker was liberal. Second, the quote in the OP implies that the speaker is conservative, since it criticizes someone for being “ultra-liberal.” Third, is the idea of bringing banning into the discussion.
Mtgman points out that this particular instance should not be used as justification in any kind of assertion about the homophobic/non-homophobic tendencies of all Democrats. I fully agree. He also seems to imply that I claimed it did, which is a way of exaggerating the OP in order to refute it.
December: The context was important. It established that Sanders had a list of things that aren’t ‘South Carolina values.’ Whilst living with a gay couple was one of them, there was a whole list of other attributes, each associated with a left-wing stance that were used to damn Graham. Hence, I believe it was an attack on liberals, and this attack included an anti-gay remark.
Sanders characterised his opponent as an ultra-liberal, and then effectively said “we don’t want no ultra-liberals round here.” His opponent is bad because he’s a liberal (or more correctly, fraternises with liberals), rather than because he’s a guy who lives with guys who like guys.
You seem very fond of simplifying issues, much to the detriment of your argument. You did it again with your percieved myth that:
I think most people who believe this would better state it as ‘Democrats are more likely to be tolerant; Republicans are more likely to be bigots/less likely to be tolerant’ (depending on how friendly they’re feeling).
This is a more precise and I consider, a more accurate statement. Republican policy and legislative history reflect this statement, although both parties have been involved in the passing of laws that they should not be proud of in this regard. The Republican reputation of bigotry is also enhanced by the support they get in areas that are considered to have a higher proportion of bigoted individuals than the rest of the country and their popularity amongst bigoted individuals of any area.
And let us not ignore the fact that their leader, as opposed to some crackpot candidate in Carolina has made comments that are far more blatantly homophobic than all the ones you have managed to muster.
Do you mean to say that some people have gasp resorted to mudslingling in politics? (And, of course, no Republcan has ever resorted to mudslinging in a campaign, portraying Democrats as, say “opposed to ‘family’ values.”)
That is supposed to be a discussion point?
sheeesh
Nonsense. I haven’t yet discussed whether or not the quote is excusable (and of course it isn’t, even in its correct form; you haven’t, however, shown that all Democrats, or even many, are closet homophobes, which is what your OP seems to imply). I simply pointed out that you have edited the referenced quote in a clumsy attempt to bolster your position, and that you do this repeatedly in the threads you launch in this forum.
Please note that unlike you in your OP, I have repeated your quoted sentences in their entirety. I presume you consider yourself a Republican; how does your long history of misrepresentation of statements made by Democrats support your case?
It would serve your case far better if you could show instances where Democrats have actually characterized Republicans as bad people, then refute those claims with factual argument. 'Cause, right now, you seem mostly to be making the case that at least some Republicans have a remarkably hard time making truthful statements.
Uh, yeah. And you’re asserting that this is some sort of widespread belief on the SDMB? I mean, you can certainly find a handful of idiots who believe in those blanket statements, but you’ll also notice that their idiocy is treated as such by the vast majority of posters around here.
Kinda like 95% of your OPs, come to think of it. Sheesh, you’re like our current white supremacist, condemning entire peoples wholesale on the one hand, but demanding to be treated as an individual when it comes to identifying her own particular flavor of Nazism.
That may be your mis-reading of the OP, but you cannot point to any words of mine which make that implication.
I did no editing. The OP provided as much of the quote as I knew about from the cite I had. The remainder of the quote came from a cite provided later by Captain Amazing.
You didn’t quote a partial sentence to justify your assertion that I called many, most or all Democrats “closet homophobes.”
gex gex, you have made a good effort to show that context was important. Of course, the context was clear from the part of the quote included in the OP but let’s set that aside. I will argue that the context is not important.
Which of these would objectionable:
“Giuliani is to be faulted for having lived with two African Americans.”
“Giuliani is to be faulted for having lived with two African American men, because it’s a sign of ultra-liberalism.”
To me, they’re equally offensive. Regardless of the “ultraliberalism” explanation, either of these statements means that there’s something wrong with Guiliani living with African Americans, which means that there’s something wrong or different about African Americans. Substitute “Jews” or “gay men” and I’d feel the same.
Sorry, I was less than clear. I meant you were likeour current white supremacist, in that–like Sionnach–you demand that you and your side be treated as individuals while routinely denouncing other groups without qualification.
I meant to imply you are a hypocrite, not that you are a Nazi.
Comparing someone to a demonized group in terms of some non-essential aspect was a common technique used for red-baiting back in the 1950’s E.g., Democratic politicians were often accused of being “soft on communism” because they agreed with the communists on some individual policy point.
If you accuse me of hypocricy, that’s fair enough. But, it’s below the belt to accuse me of being a hypocrite “like a White Supremicist.” That wording improperly links me to White Supremacy.
It would be similarly unfair if I were to accuse you of being like Joseph McCarthy in your use of comparisons. Obviously, you are nothing like McCarthy in all essential respects.
