People don’t like to be called names. I don’t like being called names. Lots of people argue that it’s ineffective to call names, but I know that I will sometimes change my behavior if someone calls me names. I don’t see the evidence of it being ineffective to label bigotry as bigotry. I’m sure that it silences some people, but some people will always be silenced, and silencing bigotry gives it less power. It’s hard to convince someone you’re right to be bigoted if you don’t speak to them.
And I know that people have been trying to shush civil rights advocates for decades, saying that being loud, or angry, or flamboyant, or anything other than closeted would backfire. It hasn’t.
Not when it’s advice as bad as yours, no. You know that you’re not offering anything new, right? This particular nugget of “advice” has been offered up by well meaning (and, often, not-so-well meaning) straight people since the first drag queen wound up and tagged a cop in the head with a bottle at Stonewall. Despite ignoring it, we’ve gone from routine police raids on gay bars, to federal guarantees of marriage rights in less than half a century - a better record of success than any civil rights movement you care to name.
But no, you’re totally right. We were doing it wrong all along. If we’d just avoided harsh language, we’d have settled all this stuff before the end of the '80s, I’m sure.
How many homophobes do you think attended gay rallies? How many rallies were reported on the news as condemning bigots, as opposed to calling for acceptance?
In the days since the SCOTUS decision, I have heard a few references to the oncoming persecution of religious people, a few references that the whole issue was one about money, and pretty much nothing further. One other guy and I are the only two who have ridiculed the “religious persecution” claims.
No one has talked about how their opinions have changed.
No one has talked about the final justice of the decision.
No one has talked about when they had finally realized that homophobia was both bad and dumb.
Can anyone point to a single public condemnation of homophobia as bigotry between 1995 and the present that appears to have been heard and understood by the decreasing majority of people whom one would regard as homophobic?
Well, honestly, this is a silly argument. I don’t think you have any evidence that calling folks on the other side 'bigots" was useful in making advances. In fact, it’s rather childish to think so. But you can go ahead and call people all the names you want.
Wow, why are you so concerned with defending bigots??? It’s not like I’m calling people bad names for no reason. I am calling people bad names who are acting badly.
Why are you twisting my words? I have not posted any defense of bigots.
My introduction to this thread was a response to Miller’s claim that calling bigots “bigots” was an effective technique.
My response was simply that I doubt that the name-calling had any serious effect on the change in attitudes. I suspect that the changes came as more people were exposed to the idea that homosexuality was not a major evil and that there were good people who were homosexual. This occurred, generally through the two prongs of the entertainment media presenting homosexuals as normal people and news media emphasizing the general idea of tolerance, without being accompanied by castigations of people (short of condemnation of actual violence).
Some time back I gave up arguing that refraining from name-calling was a better tactic or strategy. If someone feels the need to hurl epithets, I am not going to interfere. In this case, I only challenged the claim that the name-calling had actually been effective and I have seen no evidence presented by anyone that it was effective. Multiple tactics were employed by different groups. I find the evidence for the effectiveness of the less hostile approach more persuasive. Perhaps if I am presented evidence of the contrary, I will be persuaded otherwise.
For me, I try not to call people names ever. (I don’t succeed at that, especially with idiots, but that’s another issue. ) I don’t think it serves any purpose other than making the name caller somehow better about himself. I don’t need to put anyone down to feel good about myself.
Do you agree that the majority of Americans today would classify anti-gay discrimination as a species of bigotry? Do you think that, forty years ago, the majority of Americans would have classified anti-gay discrimination as a species of bigotry? How do you think that change happened?
There seems to be some sentiment in this thread that homophobia based on ignorance is less bigoted than homophobia based on informed malice. So I thought I would pop into this debate to say that this is hogwash.
First, informed malice (no-one has used this term but that is what I would call the alternative to so-called ignorance) is pretty rare, in my opinion, except among those few who have something to gain by pandering (politicians and pundits, for example). Your average joe who is being pandered to would surely fall under the category of ignorant. But “that’s the way I was raised” isn’t a valid excuse for hating wholesale categories of people, and if they can’t be bothered to actually think about their own opinions, then they are just as deserving as the panderers to be called bigots. Or more deserving. The panderers may not actually hate at all; they may just want more power and money (or it might be both). In other words, hate is not a necessary condition for someone to pander to bigotry. But it is a necessary ingredient for those in the audience who follow the panderers - they are the bigots. They hate without reason, without thought, without even sense.
I suppose it’s possible that some of these clerks might want to refuse to license same sex marriages more in sorrow than in anger (hate the sin, love the sinner) and them I would call mis-guided (or just plain stupid) but maybe not bigoted. So there’s an out for everyone who wants to look out for the poor mis-guided souls who think that it’s ok to deny civil rights to people they think are immoral. But I find myself surprised that anyone with such a tender conscience could ever have functioned in a government position at all. Time for them to go.
You are acting silly. I have not said anything like this and already said you could indulge yourself with any name-calling you wished to hurl.
At some point, there will always be people who simply prefer intolerance and hatred.
For the majority, we continue to promote laws that push toward equality, indicate disapproval of acts and words of intolerance, promote education. That will be enough for the overwhelming majority who are open to change, just as we have, in the last 20 years, gone from fewer than 5% of the people accepting the idea of SSM to nearly 60% (and growing) who accept it.
But look at how selective they are. It takes a staggering amount of hypocrisy to sit through a sunday morning lecture on the evils of homosexuality and then go out after church to the local BBQ for diner with friends/family. No working being conducted on the Sabbath. Not so important. No gays getting married. The most important civil rights issue of the past 40 years.
At the end of the day the clerk is not issuing anything, the state is. I have no tolerance for this bullshit so called christians under fire mentality that seems to be pervading the world.
No, you are being silly. Racists and bigots and homophobes deserve to be called racists and bigots and homophobes when they are acting in derogatory ways towards other people.
) I don’t think it serves any purpose other than making the name caller somehow better about himself. I don’t need to put anyone down to feel good about myself.