“Perceived?” It’s not an opinion, Scylla - it’s a fact.
You know, this just gets more and more ridiculous. The man used his political clout (and whoever said he was “just one vote” obviously has little grasp of the amount of power Thurmond wielded on Capital Hill) to pass laws against (or at the very least delay laws from being enacted for) large segments of the population he considered undesirable for many, many years. Everyone here seems to agree that he was a hateful, bigotted man.
Was he human? Yes.
Was he evil? Obviously open to debate, depending on your POV.
But for those of us who were willfully discriminated against by this man, we say good riddance - his time was overdue, considering he used that time to inflict pain on others.
I’m still not seeing any conflicts here, and this torrent of defense for his “basic humanity,” or those of us glad to see him off have lost some sense of our own, is confusing and, in a way, sad and hurtful.
Otto already said it with eloquence, and I will augment it once more with feeling.
Scylla, the absolutely unacceptable slam you made against gobear left you fully open and deserving of being called out as the pretentious classist piece of shit you often CHOOSE to be.
You are a “man” who more often than not, focuses on difference as it relates to socio-economic castes, not to mention on how in this thread alone you’ve dealt with difference as it relates to the experience of others.
You are not a valiant crusader for truth and evenhandedness.
I really wonder if you can see yourself clearly. Even without having to meet you in person, I’m betting some of us have an insight into you that many don’t have the “privilege” of seeing.
I’ve been trying to think of a good response to Miller’s questions about the whole notion of “respect for the dead”. I guess for me it just seems like the spark of human life (whatever it may be) - is special. It is a great mystery. We could be one of billions of planets with life on them or we could be the only one. We can’t make life from non-life - yet. We don’t know what happens when we die (although some think they know). Life IS a beautiful spark, be it divinely created or just the result of chance interactions between particles. It IS special. It is, unfortunately, also fleeting. Its loss is something that strikes the core of my heart. It is a tragedy every time it happens. I hate that plants must die, I hate that animals must die, and I hate that most people in this thread will probably die (I personally have some backup plans).
Perhaps it is true that a human is no more than a bag of meat, that life is nothing special. Perhaps there is nothing to be revered in the spark. Me personally, I never take joy when that spark is extinguished even when it seems to be the only choice. I won’t take joy when OBL or SH are pronounced dead. I will instead be saddened that there was not another way. I don’t see someone being a bigot as a reason to lose awe and respect for the mysterious force that is “Life”. Perhaps there is no reason to respect life itself so much, but I do. Maybe there is nothing special at all about the living. Somehow that just feels wrong.
It sucks that the man was so negative in so many ways (I acknowledged disdain for his views from the beginning). However, in the same way I don’t wish for anyone to get raped when they go to jail (even if they were a rapist) I never root for anyone to die, I never celebrate when they do, and all because of this basic overwhelming respect for life. Sentiments with messages like “Rape for the Rapist!” or in this case “Hate for the Haters!” seem highly hypocritical. Hate is ugly no matter who spews it at whom. To decry hate is wrong and then actively spew hate at someone makes the position seem foolish to say the least.
I also want to mention that I see no one asking anyone to mourn him. I just see people asking for a little respect for the tragedy that is the passing of life - any life. Of course, those being asked are free to refuse these requests, naturally, but I will have to remember how little respect they have for my views the next time I should be asked to consider their views. I remember being told that using the word “gay” in certain ways on the SDMB bothers people. I find their logic faulty. Yet still, I abstain from using that word here that way because I know it bothers them. Some of the same people who asked me to afford them this respect are in here completely ignoring requests to respect the sanctity of life (and the tragedy of it’s passing) while pointing out that they don’t care how it makes us feel. Hypocritical much? I’m not asking anyone to respect Mr. Thurmond. I’m asking them to respect “Life”. Life’s potential opportunity - both positive and negative - is so tremendous that its loss is ALWAYS a tragedy in my book, particularly if that person died without being able to see the good in others.
I wonder if those who are celebrating would be equally pleased at his passing had it been caused by an assasin’s bullet?
As I posted in another thread, I find it telling that certain posters are more more disturbed at my disrespect for Strom’s death than they are at his disrespect for my life. The man is dead and far beyond the effct of my words, but the legacy of right-wing legal bigotry he left behind continues to affect my life every day.
Good point. I can agree with that-being glad he’s gone, but not wanting him to have a hateful death.
Again, I think the most tragic thing about this is that the man, in his life, was such a miserable bastard that this is how people react to his death. Very few will miss him, I’m sure.
I support challenges to such mentalities and also look forward to the day when bigotry (spoken or veiled) has no place in government. I also submit that such a stance is possible to maintain while still respecting that the passing of any life is a solemn tragedy. I am more disturbed by putrid bigotry than I am by vile grave dancing, but one does not demand the other. I would have so much respect the criticism of the man and the philosophies he represented if they were not joined by a blatant disregard for the specialness of all living things.
You don’t know what I have and haven’t experienced, so don’t presume to lecture me about it.
Your privileged viewpoint stance and that of gobear is simply wrong and elitist. It’s a pile of crap, because if being gay makes you special, than being rich also makes you special. Being white makes you special.
It’s invalid. You don’t have a privileged perspective.
I don’t know what it’s like to be you. You don’t know what it’s like to be me. This is hardly a revelation.
But, for as long as you choose to call me names and attack me personally your call for empathy is nothing more than a display of hypocrisy, demanding a consideration you do not return.
I know what cross-climbing looks like. Again, don’t attack me personally, and then dare to have the audacity to tell me how hard it is for you. When you call me names you lose the right to my consideration.
And you’re right. I don’t know firsthand what it’s like to be gay. Big deal. You don’t know what it’s like to be any of the things that I am.
Empathy is a two way street. When you attack others you have no right to demand empathy.
I don’t belittle your suffering, I belittle the hypocrisy that demands empathy and consideration, yet fails to return it. And I spit in the face of those so vacuously self-righteous that they expect consideration when actively attacking others, that would call somebody else names and dismiss their character, yet in the same breath complain how they’re not being treated fairly.
So, why don’t you take your “you don’t know how tough it is to be me” schtick and cram it for so long as you feel compelled to engage in character asassination. That hypocrisy doesn’t play well, and that dog won’t hunt.
Esprix:
Oh come on, man. Don’t play word games with me. If I “perceive” that you pick up a stone that doesn’t mean you didn’t pick it up.
Mockingbird:
Ok. Fair enough. But then what about you, my friend? It seems to me that you’ve been making unacceptable slams at just about everybody, starting at page 1.
Shall I quote them, or will you concede that this is true?
What do you deserve?
I have not attacked you despite your repeated provocations. I have not called you names.
Unless and until you return the consideration that you claim so bitterly you are lacking, you have no business expecting either it or empathy from others.
matt:
Well, keep waiting, because it still hasn’t happened. I’m taking issue with specific and individual statements made by specific people, not gay politics or gay people in general.
Who’s playing word games? In the context of what you said, “perceived” carried the connotation that we’re somehow imagining Thurmond enacted or supported legislation that was discriminatory. So I’ll ask you outright - did he or didn’t he?
The day you wake up knowing what it means to be gay in America, you be sure to let me know, hon. You don’t know, and barring divine intervention you can’t know and will never know. It’s just that simple.
Oh yes, I certainly feel privileged to be gay. It certainly makes you special. Sheesh.
Look, why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that there are some things that are outside of the range of experiences open to you? You simply can’t know what it means to be gay in America, any more than I can know what it means to be black in America or female in America. The difference is, I don’t dismiss the unique standpoint that being in either of those non-privileged positions can give to those who live it the way you do.
The fundamental difference being that I attacked you based on what you said, not based on who you are.
And frankly I couldn’t care less whether you have any “empathy” for me. What I do expect is an understanding that you are not capable of understanding the perspective of being gay and that casually dismissing the burdens that this imposes with your “you’re a big boy, you can take it” attitude is bullshit.
It would be amusing that your calls for respect are coupled with the grossest of disrespect if it weren’t so disgusting.
Yes. Yes, you do belittle my suffering, and gobear’s suffering, and Mockingbird’s and {b]Esprix**'s and matt_mcl’s and that of those named in matt’s link and all those not named in his link who have suffered. You do nothing but demean and belittle our suffering when your response to that suffering is “big deal” and “get over it” and “you can take it.”
And again, if you review this thread, you’ll see that I did not celebrate Thurmond’s death. Yet you lump me in with those who, rightly or wrongly, for whatever their reason, did, and dismissed my suffering on that basis. At least as far as I am concerned, you are completely in the wrong here and have done to me exactly that which you have accused me of doing.
So I decline your kind invitation to cram my (non-existent) hypocrisy anywhere and heartfeltly suggest that yours is what’s in need of cramming.
The gall of it is only surpassed by the extreme laughter your self-serving, blind words elicit.
Being gay, being an invisible minority, being discriminated against doesn’t make any of us special.
Being white makes you special, you classist and now bigoted piece of shit.
Someday I hope you can hear yourself and how others see you. Until then, you are a blind man screaming in the darkness, proclaiming himself to be the oppressed as he oppresses everyone else.
I’m not trying to be nitpicky here, but I think you’re being a little too dismissive here. If you click on the “A State by State look at sodomy laws” Java Applet on this CNN page, there are (were?) only four states (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri) where homosexuals were unfairly discriminated against, i.e., where gay sodomy is illegal but straight sodomy is legal. There are, however, NINE states where this is no such discrimination – including Virginia, the state where gobear resides. (Sidenote: I wonder why Michigan isn’t noted on CNN’s map? Maybe because that’s a local ordinance and not an official state law?)
My point is not that homosexuals aren’t discriminated against. Rather, I maintain that citing discrimination on the basis of these sodomy laws, even before they were struck down, is a rather small part of the legitimate discrimination homosexuals receive everyday.
And you don’t know what it’s like to deal with my crap. It doesn’t make me special, and you’re not special either.
Than stop telling me that it does.
You’re mistating my point. I fully acknowledge that I do not share your experiences. Never said otherwise. I dispute the claim that your experiences grant you a privileged standpoint.
This claim has been clearly made by gobear when he told Monty to get a clue because he didn’t know what it’s like to be torn out of bed by jackbooted thugs. Well, neither does gobear.
You’re doing it as well, claiming a privileged viewpoint that I can’t share. It’s crap. It’s not a justification for anything.
I’m sure you don’t know what it’s like to be married and have a kid (or maybe you do, I dunno.) If I used that as a sledgehammer to claim privileged perspective on an issue, I’d be just as wrong as you are now.
That’s not true. You didn’t just attack my arguments. You attacked me personally. You called me names. You dared to tell me what I am. It’s character asassination, and it’s crappy.
Again this is wrong. First off, I imagine that I am capable of understanding what it’s like, but that’s neither here nor there. And, secondly, the “You’re a big boy, you can take it” thing was not about being gay but about the risk of being arrested in your own home for having sex, which chances are ludicrously small and easily imaginable to me even without gay sensory apparatus.
I’ll ask you point blank:
Are you particularly worried about this happening to you? You should worry more about meteorites.
The fact that this is a concern worthy of belittling has no bearing on other gay issues.
I’m being specific, not general.
Do I have to be gay to understand how bad it would suck to have police break into my house and arrest me for having sex?
Again, I repeat, give me a break. Your gayness does not give you an exclusive viewpoint here.
At least you’re not calling me names while you say that… this time.
I don’t think so, and I’d know since I’d be the one doing the belittling.
The only concern I’m belittling is the fear of getting arrested in your own bedroom while having sex.
Yes, it would suck. So would getting stepped on by an elephant. 'Prolly about as likely.
Yeah, I did lump you in, and I was incorrect to do so, and apologize. You are correct, and that was my fault. I did not however “dismiss your suffering” on that basis. I don’t dismiss your suffering at all, whatever that really means, unless you mean that I am unwilling to empathize with you while being personally attacked.
When you stop calling me names, I’m more than happy to commiserate, empathize, or extend you whatever consideration I can.
While you’re attacking me personally, the expectation that I should worry about your suffering is laughable.
the statute I linked to was state law, not local. But it’s current use is for plea bargaining generally, not for use on adult consensual activities.
Although there are other states which forbid any such activity and not just among same sex couples, it’s assumable that genital/mouth genital anus contact occurs with homosexual couples, and although possible with heterosexual couples, it’s not assumable. Thus, when a heterosexual couple is checking into a motel, it’s not assumable that they’d be breaking the law, but it is assumable should a homosexual couple do so.
Scylla - even understanding that prosecution is not likely (especially given the relative number of sexual acts vs. prosecution), I think there’s another point you seem to be glossing over. **gobear ** et all can be routinely seen/described as ‘unidicted criminals’ in those states merely 'cause of their sexual orientation. the same cannot be said for you and the missus.
I wish I could link to the op/ed page of our local newspaper, where politicians who are seen as ‘gay friendly’ are labeled as ‘criminal lovers’ because they favor legislation that doesn’t make homosexual love acts criminal behavior. It’s chilling.