Recently, a fourteen year old Texan girl decided that she wanted to join the protest against the anti-abortion and all around anti-women laws being passed in Texas. She decided what her sign would say, and felt confident about it.
"Jesus isn't a dick, so keep him out of my vagina."
She was verbally assaulted and called names by adults from the opposing supporters of the legislature. "Whore" "ugly" and "no one will ever want to marry you." It only got worse when the pictures reached the internet.
Above is her response to being called a whore, and why she protested in the first place. She is startlingly blunt on more than a few issues, and quite skilled in writing not just for her age but in comparison to most adults as well. I think this kid and others like her are our future, I wish I had the logic and reasoning skills she has at fourteen now at the age of twenty-five. The biggest reason why I felt I should share this story with Hatrack is this single, elegant sentence.
quote: Adults are not acting like adults.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
Her comment was intentionally crude and inflammatory. The response was disproportionate, even downright ugly. But if she thinks adults should act like adults, and wants to be part of "adult" conversation, she should tailor her comments accordingly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But if she thinks adults should act like adults, and wants to be part of "adult" conversation, she should tailor her comments accordingly.
I find it interesting that you think calling her an "ugly" "whore" is a proportionate response to her deliberately inflammatory comment. Why is that?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Her comment was intentionally crude and inflammatory. The response was disproportionate, even downright ugly. But if she thinks adults should act like adults, and wants to be part of "adult" conversation, she should tailor her comments accordingly.
I find it interesting that people think intentionally crude and inflammatory commentary is automatically, intrinsically childish.
Also, Tom's point, though I think he misread you a bit. The point is still valid, though.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:I find it interesting that you think calling her an "ugly" "whore" is a proportionate response to her deliberately inflammatory comment. Why is that?
quote: The response was disproportionate, even downright ugly.
Maybe it was ninja edited?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:I find it interesting that you think calling her an "ugly" "whore" is a proportionate response to her deliberately inflammatory comment. Why is that?
quote: The response was disproportionate, even downright ugly.
Maybe it was ninja edited?
No edit. Tom misread my comment.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But if she thinks adults should act like adults, and wants to be part of "adult" conversation, she should tailor her comments accordingly.
That seems pretty victim blame-y. She shouldn't have dressed that way. She was asking for it. etc.
Her comments were definitely inflammatory, but protest signs and slogans often are. She was acting like an adult protestor - using provocative language to garner attention to an issue. She has no lesson to learn here other than the fact that there are a bunch of jerks out there ready to verbally assault a teenager whose ideas they disagree with.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Those screaming insults are the worst sort of people.
But if her intent was to change minds, she featured the wrong sign.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Did she, though? It's a conversation starter.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The word choices might have been a bit crude, but I actually didn't think it was that inflammatory. She's crudely saying that Jesus was a pretty decent guy, and maybe everyone should be so decent.
I think she's also saying that using Jesus as a prop to keep women down is just plain wrong.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Protests are as much about bringing attention to a topic and encouraging your supporters as changing minds. They are also about demonstrating presence and determination. She's now a hero of the women's rights movement and she's all over social media, so I think she's done pretty well on those counts.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:But if she thinks adults should act like adults, and wants to be part of "adult" conversation, she should tailor her comments accordingly.
That seems pretty victim blame-y. She shouldn't have dressed that way. She was asking for it. etc.
Her comments were definitely inflammatory, but protest signs and slogans often are. She was acting like an adult protestor - using provocative language to garner attention to an issue. She has no lesson to learn here other than the fact that there are a bunch of jerks out there ready to verbally assault a teenager whose ideas they disagree with.
What kind of reaction was she expecting? If she thought her trite comment wasn't crude and inflammatory she would do well to spend some time studying the pro-life side. She wanted a visceral reaction and she got one. I think we all agree the reaction was over the top but immaturity begets immaturity.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think being snarky is a lot different than being threatening and verbally abusive.
What she did might have been immature, depending on your feelings on protests. But what they did back to her was well above immature.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Those screaming insults are the worst sort of people.
But if her intent was to change minds, she featured the wrong sign.
I suspect much of the intent-besides 'keep your religion out of my body', a notion I strongly support-was to provoke the angry, misogynistic, and hateful response I suspect she knew was lurking just below the surface, and expose the 'party of God', those who like to put Jesus or God on their standard, for what they are really about.
Good job for her.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
In what way was her comment trite? It's not the only reason, but religion is an enormous role in opposition to abortion. Someone else is attempting to use their religion to wield government power to control what medical procedures she can and cannot do.
Thus, 'Jesus out of my vagina' is actually rather pointed. Or is she supposed to be deferential to the religious figure she (probably doesn't, but I don't know) worship for the sake of those attempting to use that figure's credibility to control her?
If people don't want Jesus mentioned in unflattering ways on political matters, they shouldn't bring him into them to begin with. But if they're going to use him, freaking grow up about it.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I not only agree with the girl's statement and sentiment, but I find it amusing that it was the "adults" who are trying to defend themselves by whinging about how "she started it."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's interesting but not surprising to me that apparently to even mention Jesus and 'dick' in the same sentence is immediately offensive and inflammatory. More offensive, in fact, that religious-based arguments against abortion*. She didn't even say 'Jesus is a dick'. It was an attack on people using the name and reputation of Jesus as a lever by which to wield government against others. It wasn't an attack on Jesus at all, but on Christians.
Well, I'm certainly fine with that. No one should get a pass from challenge or criticism of their arguments just because they're faith-based. In fact that's a reason there should be *more* criticism. But because of a tradition of entitlement in this area, even a hint of an attack at a religious basis for government policy is reacted as though it were a heinous insult.
*These are not the only or even-to me-most important much less credible arguments against caution and restriction with respect to abortion. But I think they are the most common, and that bothers me.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
That exact sentiment - "keep God out X part of my life" - has been expressed in various ways by many people on a number of issues. Besides preaching to the choir, the thrust of her position falls flat when expressed in such a way. Her age, the abrasiveness of her word choice, and the backlash it received are the reasons this story gained notoriety.
She exposed the angry response of a small portion of the pro-life religious who themselves are only a portion of the whole pro-life movement. She has a valid desire but it's not as if the pro-life position can be reduced to a theological position.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That exact sentiment - "keep God out X part of my life" - has been expressed in various ways by many people on a number of issues. Besides preaching to the choir, the thrust of her position falls flat when expressed in such a way. Her age, the abrasiveness of her word choice, and the backlash it received are the reasons this story gained notoriety.
That's not actually the exact sentiment, first of all. It's not just a minor quibble to say that the sentiment is 'keep your religion out of my my life'. And she wasn't just preaching to the choir, she was responding to protests made to women. Strange how she was 'preaching to the choir'...but those she was protesting against somehow weren't?
It didn't fall flat. It failed to impress you, but then you're hardly a fair minded analyst when it comes to challenges to a conservative political position.
She didn't say that the entire pro-life movement can be reduced to the people screaming misogynistic slurs at her, and for the record she didn't 'expose' anything. It's no secret that abortion-clinic protestors can be pretty reprehensible. I'm not talking about the people who offer calm attempts at persuasion through pamphlets and remarks, I'm talking about the screamers about baby-killers and God hates and so on and so forth.
She gets to attack that trash. She didn't put it out there, they did. In fact she shouldn't be the one doing it at all. Those claiming to speak for God ought to be the ones shaming them into silence, but they're not. As is common in politics, a larger movement that's embarrassed by a fringe will attempt to distance themselves while still making use of their passion.
I know it's embarrassing that she exposed this particular fringe so neatly, but that's fair game. It's politics. Good for her. Just how respectful need she be when someone attempts to use their religion to govern what she can do (from her perspective) with her body?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
As respectful as she hopes people will be to her?
In general, thinking someone is offensive/stupid/evil is fine. Telling them so is fine. But telling them so and then being shocked when they respond harshly is kind of dumb.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I think the gist here is that when these people are trying to tell her what she can and cannot do with her own body, they're the ones who are being disrespectful first.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: As respectful as she hopes people will be to her?
In general, thinking someone is offensive/stupid/evil is fine. Telling them so is fine. But telling them so and then being shocked when they respond harshly is kind of dumb.
So, wait. I'm still trying to double back to what was actually offensive about the sign. Don't get me wrong, I know it was shocking and deliberately provocative, but she didn't call Jesus a dick. In fact she specifically said Jesus wasn't a dick. So is it just using the two words in a sentence that's so offensive it shouldn't be surprising that she's suddenly a lesbian whore? Or is it so provocative because she decided to use the exact same person many of them were using to make a political statement-only in opposition? Or is it the combination of the two?
I don't particularly care that some people get outraged if you mention-not even insult, but just mention!-their given holy figures in a manner of which they disapprove. That shouldn't be an excuse for this 'well sure they were wrong, but what did she expect?' business. It's toxic behavior that shouldn't be minimized just because it's expected-quite the contrary.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Those screaming insults are the worst sort of people.
But if her intent was to change minds, she featured the wrong sign.
What's the "right sign?" Something polite?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
She should have brought a stop sign.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I'm not really sure what anyone is arguing. Has anyone said that the reaction to the sign was anything but reprehensible? Is addressing the sign in any form other than approval minimizing the toxic response to it?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So, wait. I'm still trying to double back to what was actually offensive about the sign.
I think it might have to do with the light treatment of something sacred. Which isn't to say that those same exact people haven't used Jesus' name lightly or on a poster of their own. But I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees that the people reacting so vehemently are the worst sort of scum anyway (Is there anyone that doesn't? Please point some out). Why would a mark of hypocrisy slow them down?
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I would say that people who would get offended at such a sign are exactly the sort of people who are very, very, unlikely to change their views on the matter. So who cares if they're offended?
The sign was made to protest and to draw attention to the matter so that other, more reasonable people who otherwise weren't paying much attention might stop and think on the matter. It worked. Perfectly. And the people crying foul and lesbian whore and the like are just helping her out.
Some people, when it comes to certain topics, are very much varelse. Once you've tried in good faith a time or two, why continue along the "we'll just convince them" path to victory?
[ July 24, 2013, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Obama ]
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
There's also the point that Rakeesh brought up and no one has really responded to yet; the sign wasn't insulting Jesus. It was insulting Christians trying to force their religious morals on other people.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: There's also the point that Rakeesh brought up and no one has really responded to yet; the sign wasn't insulting Jesus. It was insulting Christians trying to force their religious morals on other people.
Um, I tried to address it. It's kind of hard to address without knowing what/if there is an equivalent thing that you hold sacred at the same level. My suspicion is that most people who scratch their heads don't have something so sacrosanct in their lives. But that's a judgement that I'm unsure of and can't apply to you or Rakeesh. Only the general faceless nebula of nondescript people in my head...
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Well, you're right in that I don't hold anything sacred in the way that Christians hold Jesus to be sacred. I'd say the closest would probably be the idea of basic human rights, but even that doesn't approach the level of "he is all that is right and good in the world" that Christians like to attribute to their god.
That being acknowledged, though, why did the sign offend people's sense of the sacred? Is Jesus actually a penis? If he were with us, would he attempt to climb into that girl's vagina? Or is sex just something nasty and icky that shouldn't be associated with the figurehead of your chosen religion?
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
The Bible says pretty clearly that the name of God is sacred. Using it in the same sentence as the word 'dick' and to support a position that many Christians find immoral is probably the issue.
I disagree with the assertion that a sign like this makes people stop and think about an issue. Most people I know would either react A) "She's right! You go, girl!" or B) "She's offensive! Unacceptable!" There isn't, in my experience, a group of people who choose C) "I thought abortion was an abomination, but now that I read that sign I see she has a good point. Maybe I should really re-think my position."
I've lived in Kansas and I've lived in Portland, OR, and I've met very few people who didn't already have an entrenched position on this issue.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I've met plenty of guys named Jesus that are exactly what she is describing. Two of them tried to date my host daughter last year. They weren't welcome in my house.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
The B group is a lost cause. There is no changing their mind. What this effectively does is call that group of people out and spotlight just how ridiculous suppressing a woman's right to her body really is. This in turn catches the attention of the undecided, thus giving them an opportunity to use their brain and take a stance on the issue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The Bible says pretty clearly that the name of God is sacred. Using it in the same sentence as the word 'dick'...
The Bible also makes it pretty clear that the sacred name of God is not "Jesus."
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
While I do find what her responders said to be very crude and wrong, she also shouldn't have said what she said. Probably, she thought she was being clever, but in reality she was insulting a large group of people and their religion. If she wants to be treated with respect, she should give it out. What's the old saying? Get more flies with honey than you do vinegar? I'm pretty sure saying something that suggests that a religious figure is going inside your sexual organs will ultimately insult the followers of that religion and they are going to get mad at you. I'm honestly surprised that she didn't see that one coming.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
It is a well known tactic in any protest/rebellion type situation to antagonize your opponents into doing something stupid. Let's look at an alphabet battle.
Side A believes in A and has about a million followers. Side Z believes in Z and also has about a million followers. The rest of the people believe in something else, B,C,D,X, or no alphabet at all. They are all pretty much indifferent to A and Z.
Now A and Z have been waging their war of ideas for years and no one is convincing the other side to change their minds in any significant numbers. The ideology is too ingrained in the followers and besides, maybe both sides have good points in their favor. There's really no good vs. evil to point too in the ideas themselves. So the only way to gain more support is to get it from the undecided masses in the middle. How can they do that?
Well, one way is to make the other side look bad. Goad them into doing something reprehensible. Someone from side A uses their knowledge of the other side, human nature, etc. to come up with a plan. If they can do something that would be viewed by at least some side Z people as highly offensive, inflammatory, threatening or otherwise demanding a knee jerk, ill advised response but which does not appear to be that bad or offensive to the masses in the middle, they can paint their opponent in a bad light, gaining support for their cause and hurting recruiting for the Zs.
Now I don't know if this girl thought of all this and did this intentionally or just got lucky with a clever sign but either way, it worked brilliantly.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I'm honestly surprised that she didn't see that one coming.
I suspect she did and hoped for it. Either that or just got lucky. See my previous post.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: The Bible says pretty clearly that the name of God is sacred. Using it in the same sentence as the word 'dick' and to support a position that many Christians find immoral is probably the issue.
I disagree with the assertion that a sign like this makes people stop and think about an issue. Most people I know would either react A) "She's right! You go, girl!" or B) "She's offensive! Unacceptable!" There isn't, in my experience, a group of people who choose C) "I thought abortion was an abomination, but now that I read that sign I see she has a good point. Maybe I should really re-think my position."
It's not the only desired result. There's a difference between someone who merely agrees with her, and someone joins her in the trenches of the issue. Or on the other side of fight, someone sees their pro-life partners behave in the way they have, may now, if not likely to change their mind, they still may feel less like standing beside (literally) these people.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
"I humbly accept your rebuke." - Richard Dawkins
Are all arguments made against a religious (or more specifically christian) action or belief to be timid? We are heathens, sinners, unpatriotic and undeserving of equality. And we are to make sure the kid gloves are always on?
Honestly for groups so intent on ostracizing and oppressing innocent people religious persons and movements are incredibly thin skinned.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
In fairness no one is saying that.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The Bible says pretty clearly that the name of God is sacred. Using it in the same sentence as the word 'dick'...
The Bible also makes it pretty clear that the sacred name of God is not "Jesus."
True. But many Christians lump 'Jesus Christ' in with 'God' or 'Yahweh' or whatever other name they use.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Honestly for groups so intent on ostracizing and oppressing innocent people religious persons and movements are incredibly thin skinned.
Is that what religious persons and movements are intent on? Well, as the great Richard Dawkins once said, I humbly accept your rebuke.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The Bible says pretty clearly that the name of God is sacred. Using it in the same sentence as the word 'dick'...
The Bible also makes it pretty clear that the sacred name of God is not "Jesus."
True. But many Christians lump 'Jesus Christ' in with 'God' or 'Yahweh' or whatever other name they use.
I think that ship has sailed on the name of that particular god being sacred. Given the very common use of, even among Christians: "for god's sake" "Oh Jesus" "OMG" or even "Jesus Christ" on its own.
I'm fairly certain that the subject of the sign (abortion, women) is the active ingredient here and not the vocabulary because if the sign had been "Jesus isn't a dick," we probably wouldn't be having this discussion about a girl being called a whore.
Edit to add: Come to think of it, didn't the whole Sandra Fluke thing demonstrate that women will be called that on this issue totally without a sign or a reference to "sacred" things?
[ July 24, 2013, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: While I do find what her responders said to be very crude and wrong, she also shouldn't have said what she said. Probably, she thought she was being clever, but in reality she was insulting a large group of people and their religion. If she wants to be treated with respect, she should give it out. What's the old saying? Get more flies with honey than you do vinegar? I'm pretty sure saying something that suggests that a religious figure is going inside your sexual organs will ultimately insult the followers of that religion and they are going to get mad at you. I'm honestly surprised that she didn't see that one coming.
Why shouldn't she have said it? Because it's disrespectful? This is an issue with life at stake on the one side, and body sovereignty on the other side, from each sides varying perspectives. Challenges are almost by default going to be on some level disrespectful, or perceived that way.
Anyway, that said...for a not-inconsiderable portion of the pro-life community, there is a substantial bit of religious motivation in their activism. Which I think should not be disallowed, btw. But...how is that not considered even more disrespectful? "My religion says this, therefore you must do that and by the way no sharia law." That's what she was responding to with her sign. I suspect to her perspective, she has already been offered a pretty serious affront-someone is trying to control her body because of what their scriptures say-according to their interpretation, no less.
I suppose it's just cultural inertia that that is taken as a given that when someone reacts to it as though it were something new, rather than a traditional practice with cultural cover, they've done something wrong.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I'm fairly certain that the subject of the sign (abortion, women) is the active ingredient here and not the vocabulary because if the sign had been "Jesus isn't a dick," we probably wouldn't be having this discussion about a girl being called a whore.
I agree. The Jesus part may have helped raise her profile in the first place, but any young woman who got the attention of the loud misogynist wing of the religious right would likely have endured the same sort of insults. To paraphrase the Simpsons Fox News jab - "Pro-life - not misogynist, but #1 with misogynists."
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: While I do find what her responders said to be very crude and wrong, she also shouldn't have said what she said. Probably, she thought she was being clever, but in reality she was insulting a large group of people and their religion. If she wants to be treated with respect, she should give it out. What's the old saying? Get more flies with honey than you do vinegar? I'm pretty sure saying something that suggests that a religious figure is going inside your sexual organs will ultimately insult the followers of that religion and they are going to get mad at you. I'm honestly surprised that she didn't see that one coming.
Why shouldn't she have said it? Because it's disrespectful? This is an issue with life at stake on the one side, and body sovereignty on the other side, from each sides varying perspectives. Challenges are almost by default going to be on some level disrespectful, or perceived that way.
Anyway, that said...for a not-inconsiderable portion of the pro-life community, there is a substantial bit of religious motivation in their activism. Which I think should not be disallowed, btw. But...how is that not considered even more disrespectful? "My religion says this, therefore you must do that and by the way no sharia law." That's what she was responding to with her sign. I suspect to her perspective, she has already been offered a pretty serious affront-someone is trying to control her body because of what their scriptures say-according to their interpretation, no less.
I suppose it's just cultural inertia that that is taken as a given that when someone reacts to it as though it were something new, rather than a traditional practice with cultural cover, they've done something wrong.
If she was trying to convince a group of people to leave her alone or to listen or come to some kind of agreement, she failed. When you flat out antagonize an entire group of people (some of which are actually on your side, by the way), you plant the seeds of war, rather than peace.
Think of it this way: When someone presents an argument to you and tells you that you're wrong, you have two options. You can A) present a counter-argument based on logic and reason, possibly coming to some kind of resolution in the end; or B) you can punch the person in the face. Which one is going to lead to some civility?
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I disagree with her stance (on the contrary, I fully support it), but I don't agree with antagonizing a group of people because a group within that group antagonized you first. It reminds me (albeit to a much lesser degree) of when people all over the US went around treating Muslims negatively because of 9/11, even though the people who did those things and said those things were not representative of the entire religion.
In other words, not every Muslim wants to destroy America; and not every Christian hates homosexuals or is against abortion.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
It doesn't even come close to implying that.
I think at best, the intentions of the sign, may be to suggest a more deliberate, more relishingly mysogynistic attitude from the opposition than what might be true (for several) At best. Even that is dubious. Beyond that, there are plenty of conjectures that can be made about reasons that it can be found offensive, many of them more relating to the imagination of the conservative side of the fight than anything else. But they all end in them looking high maintenance and pettily offendable.
[ July 26, 2013, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If she was trying to convince a group of people to leave her alone or to listen or come to some kind of agreement, she failed. When you flat out antagonize an entire group of people (some of which are actually on your side, by the way), you plant the seeds of war, rather than peace.
I've asked this before: in what way, exactly, did she legitimately antagonize them? By saying Jesus isn't a dick? By directly making the point 'you need a better reason than your religion to legislate my medicine'? By invoking the name of Jesus in an oppositional way? Because here's my take on it: the only reason she's 'planting the seeds of war' (and btw, on this issue, politically there's basically a 'war' already) is because it's expected the people who reacted by calling her a lesbian forever unmarried whore would react like towering schmucks themselves.
They get a pass on it, in other words. And yes, that's precisely what this is. If someone says something that particular lunatic fringe doesn't like, we say to that person 'yeah, that's not nice, but why did you antagonize them'? That's pretty much what you're saying now, Jeff.
quote:Think of it this way: When someone presents an argument to you and tells you that you're wrong, you have two options. You can A) present a counter-argument based on logic and reason, possibly coming to some kind of resolution in the end; or B) you can punch the person in the face. Which one is going to lead to some civility?
That's an invalid comparison for at least two reasons. One, there was no violence. Two, since we're dealing with the realities of the fringe activists here we can safely admit they're not going to change their minds and they're not going to be civil. That's generally the nature of fringe extremes. They're so passionate about an issue that civility and disagreement are almost impossible to coexist.
quote:Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I disagree with her stance (on the contrary, I fully support it), but I don't agree with antagonizing a group of people because a group within that group antagonized you first. It reminds me (albeit to a much lesser degree) of when people all over the US went around treating Muslims negatively because of 9/11, even though the people who did those things and said those things were not representative of the entire religion.
This doesn't make sense, Jeff. She didn't target much less attack all Christians or even any Christians, in fact, in that sign. She attacked an idea-the toxic blend of religion and politics-and used a religious name to do it. Well the fact is, the people on the fringes in this case do want religion and politics heavily blended and they will have a negative reaction to anyone attempting to coopt their faith in non-approved ways.
Consider this: if you can't describe what was actually so offensive and antagonistic about her sign*, you're basically giving up a huge portion of ground at the start to the fringe because you surrender to them the right to be noisy and uncivil.
*I don't mean antagonistic towards fringe activists, either. Does an interracial couple 'antagonize' a racist simply by being together where they can be seen by the racist?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *I don't mean antagonistic towards fringe activists, either. Does an interracial couple 'antagonize' a racist simply by being together where they can be seen by the racist?
In theory, no. But do you think it would be a good idea for them to go to a white supremacist meeting? Would you expect them to act civil in such circumstances?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:In theory, no. But do you think it would be a good idea for them to go to a white supremacist meeting? Would you expect them to act civil in such circumstances?
Nope, but I would still hold them fully accountable for their uncivil behavior. I wouldn't say a word to the couple about provoking the behavior. If I were them I wouldn't have chosen to go myself, but no one should have to modulate their behavior (and be criticized for not doing so) solely to avoid provoking racists or misogynists.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *I don't mean antagonistic towards fringe activists, either. Does an interracial couple 'antagonize' a racist simply by being together where they can be seen by the racist?
In theory, no. But do you think it would be a good idea for them to go to a white supremacist meeting? Would you expect them to act civil in such circumstances?
As a practical matter of safety, or to avoid confrontation, of course not. But that's not what's being discussed here, as MattP pointed out. They're two different discussions, and there's another element as well. In politics it's supposed to be a matter of ideas battling, compromise, doing as much as one can with as little as necessary, a variety of things like that. But in the battle of ideas portion, neither side is obligated to recognize a portion of the battlefield where one side will behave in hostile ways that damage their own side and shrug their shoulders saying, "Hey, c'mon, this will upset them."
She didn't break into the home of someone who was strongly pro-life on religious grounds and wave her sign in their face, she engaged people who were already fighting.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Edit to add: Come to think of it, didn't the whole Sandra Fluke thing demonstrate that women will be called that on this issue totally without a sign or a reference to "sacred" things?
Yes.
I'd almost prefer that we just add a bit of pretense to outrage over blasphemy, of all things, just to make the response more stark.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That said, the entire discussion about the sign will have to involve an acceptance of this fact:
Her sign worked. Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:In theory, no. But do you think it would be a good idea for them to go to a white supremacist meeting? Would you expect them to act civil in such circumstances?
Nope, but I would still hold them fully accountable for their uncivil behavior. I wouldn't say a word to the couple about provoking the behavior. If I were them I wouldn't have chosen to go myself, but no one should have to modulate their behavior (and be criticized for not doing so) solely to avoid provoking racists or misogynists.
Exactly. So why would such a couple actually do such a thing knowing full well what the consequences would be? As I said in my earlier post, specifically to provoke such a reaction.
Note: This is not a criticism of the girl or this hypothetical couple, more of an acknowledgement of a well played gambit Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Because people holding such views are at the very least subconciously misogynistic, so why not provoke them a little to unveil that misogyny to the masses?
Might as well ask why go on a rights march when you know that dogs and water cannons, or British soldiers with truncheons, await you.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)