posted
Re: Perry On the other hand, outspoken Republican against gay rights, certain rumours over the years, it would make certain possible future developments less than surprising.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Based on what I've read, the characters in Brokeback mountain were portrayed as regular cowboys in all respects except their love for each other and so they weren't dressed as "gay cowboys" or "repressed gay cowboys". (I admit that I've never seen Brokeback Mountain. I very very rarely go to movies anymore. So feel free to correct me I'm wrong).
Which one? There are so many disconnects in this videos I have no idea which ONE you might be referring to.
The most obvious is the simultaneous criticism of the "intellectual underpinnings of OWS" and "bank bailouts".
But the bigger issue is that Elizabeth Warren was an opponent of the bank bailouts and lack of accountability from the start. Republicans blocked her appointment to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because she might have actually regulate banks and protected the middle class.
Then there's the whole problem of criticizing the Obama administration for not focusing on creating jobs while they are simultaneously working to block any proposal that could create jobs.
Then there's inherent contradiction in criticizing someone for sympathizing with OWS instead of focusing on jobs for the middle class. I thought lack of jobs and decline of the middle class were two of the major OWS issues?
There's also the fact that the bank bailouts and Warren's service on the oversight committee began while GWB was president not Obama.
I was also a bit taken back by the claim that OWS protesters "attack police". That's not what I've seen in the video footage. The first attack ad in this series, Matriarch of Mayhem, had footage of a police officer clubbing protestors while it was talking about the violent protestors.
And I guess the final big disconnect is the idea that linking Elizabeth Warren to OWS is going to hurt her. According to the polls I've seen, the OWS agenda has been pretty popular except with the far right wing who would never support Warren even if Karl Rove endorsed her.
Actually, I think endorsing Elizabeth Warren might be a more successful strategy for CrossRoads than attacking her.
[ December 12, 2011, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And with the outfit already highlighted as a bit of stagecraft, the mental association with the film is only made easier.
Only people horribly out of touch with rural America and manual laborers would think of this as a western costume rather normal working clothes.
Yes he's clearly dressed down and emphasizing his rural ranch connections, but if he actually were doing manual labor on his family ranch -- that's very likely what he'd wear.
That jacket is extremely common clothing in rural communities. If you visited any working farm or ranch in Montana, Wyoming or Idaho, I bet you 10 to 1 that you could find a similar looking jacket in every single one of them. To someone who is familiar with that culture, there is absolutely nothing distinctive about this jacket that would make the fact that it was worn by a gay cowboy in a movie any more noteworthy than the fact that both men have on socks.
Based on what I've read, the characters in Brokeback mountain were portrayed as regular cowboys in all respects except their love for each other and so they weren't dressed as "gay cowboys" or "repressed gay cowboys". (I admit that I've never seen Brokeback Mountain. I very very rarely go to movies anymore. So feel free to correct me I'm wrong).
Unless you have some strong evidence that homosexuality is dramatically more common among rural conservatives than the 10% that's accepted for the population as a whole, I have a hard time seeing this association as anything more than Big City Liberal bigotry about rural Americans.
Okay, let's back up a bit. You're reading way more into my comment than I intended.
I acknowledged that this is indeed a common rural outfit. My comment was that because of the *context* of the ad, that of a politician who is making a very clear attempt to appeal to rural voters by contrasting his usual suit-wearing image with this one, Perry himself is drawing attention to his clothing as a statement about his values and roots. The ad is about his values, which expressly include anti-gay rights sentiment.
Now, given that context, and given the clear attempt to draw attention to his image, his outfit appears to me, and I imagine a few more of the tens of millions of Americans born in urban areas, as a bit of stagecraft. Something clearly and notably different from his usual appearance in a conservative suit, and something clearly in contrast to the typical outfit of mine or any of my neighbors or friends back home.
Then we have this movie, that 5 years ago had a very big impact on particularly the urban American view of rural western America, that dealt with sexual repression in a segment of society that is very self-willed and proud. This image, for people like me who are, quite admittedly, "out of touch" with rural America, is quite reminiscent of that film, which has been the most lasting recent image of that part of America's ethos, especially since the waning of the western film genre during my own lifetime.
Now, what I am saying, is that for *me*, and I posit probably for many people of similar backgrounds, this ad, particularly as it is specifically *about* appealing to people who are uncomfortable with sexual self-expression, is jarringly reminiscent of the theme of that film. I do not claim the image being presented is "fake", but merely intentional. And that given this intention, the unintended association with the film suggests to me that the makers of the ad, and Perry, are themselves quite out of touch with, or perhaps simply not concerned with, the values of Americans like me. I would be the first to admit that had perry appeared in a suit and tie and talked in academic jargon, others would feel he was out of touch with *them*, and that would make sense. The fact is, though, that this is a blatant appeal to a smaller base than is typical for a presidential candidate, and as such, it *does* show a disregard for many outside that base who will view it. People like me, who aren't from rural areas, have no taste for cowboy culture or clothing, and are not Christians, or failing that, not against equal rights for homosexuals.
I am not making *any* comment about homosexuality in rural areas. None. I am commenting on my own experiences, and my own limited knowledge of the south and the rural west. And I am pointing out that I am probably not uncommon as a sampling of that experience. And that is all I am qualified to say.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I hasten to add: I am quite ignorant of rural America. I do not claim this as a particular virtue. My mother is from a very poor rural background, and had an aversion to it that kept her from sharing that part of her heritage with her children. But I do know that perry very pointedly claims his aversion to urban American values as a positive personal quality. I would submit that that fact is evident in this ad, inasmuch as in what is said, as implied.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, that is because you are not a real American and therefore your opinions do not matter.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Re: Perry On the other hand, outspoken Republican against gay rights, certain rumours over the years, it would make certain possible future developments less than surprising.
I remember a day when it was considered vile bigotry to speculate that men who were dancers, beauticians, fashion designers, or nurses were gay.
But you know that really has nothing in common with speculating that an anti-gay rights conservative like Perry is gay , because some of them really are gay.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And I hasten to add: I am quite ignorant of rural America. I do not claim this as a particular virtue. My mother is from a very poor rural background, and had an aversion to it that kept her from sharing that part of her heritage with her children. But I do know that perry very pointedly claims his aversion to urban American values as a positive personal quality. I would submit that that fact is evident in this ad, inasmuch as in what is said, as implied.
I hasten to add that I was not defending Perry, his gay bashing, his religion or this ad. I was only defending his choice of coats.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh...I think it comes down to Gov. Perry (and his stylists) made a costume choice that would appeal to a certain demographic. Those of is who notice some smidge of irony in that choice were not ever going to vote for him anyway.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was nothing inherently wrong with his choice of coats. His choice of words offends me, and his coat adds to the flavor. I wouldn't have commented on his coat had it not been accompanied by anti-gay rhetoric.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Perry cut that add precisely so that we would comment on these sorts of things and thus get his name back in the media.
I honestly resent and hate it when people say in regards to a presidential candidate "There goes the country". It always seems so melodramatic. But I'd be lying if I didn't admit to thinking that if Gingrich is given the Republican nomination and goes on to win, that that speaks to something incredibly wrong with our country.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think Perry cut that add precisely so that we would comment on these sorts of things and thus get his name back in the media..
The post Palin landscape has at least taught us that in politics, any publicity is not necessarily good publicity. Now, if perry s actually only interested in making lots of money as an ex politician, then you're absolutely right. This will not win him the presidency, nor any higher office than he has already held, I think.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Gingrich... Sigh.
He's a little old for you, don't you think?
I was posting on my phone so I couldn't elaborate, but basically the "Palistinians are a ficticous people" statement is le sigh even if technically true back in 1948 isn't likely to be true now.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think Perry cut that add precisely so that we would comment on these sorts of things and thus get his name back in the media.
I honestly resent and hate it when people say in regards to a presidential candidate "There goes the country". It always seems so melodramatic. But I'd be lying if I didn't admit to thinking that if Gingrich is given the Republican nomination and goes on to win, that that speaks to something incredibly wrong with our country.
Gingrich according to 538 actually makes a viable amount of sense according to history of the GOP for the last two decades or so, old voters remember him as virtually ending the New Deal democrat hold on the White House and the GOP has voted consistently more rightwing and vastly so since he became Speaker. Honestly he does make sense.
However what is indicative of being wrong with politics in your country is how the fudge you got so many crazies to be in the primary and front runner. Bachmann and Sontorum in particular with Perry following closely behind.
I imagine in a primary today how it would've looked with politics of 30 years ago it would be Romney, Huntsman, Gingrich and Paul.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Wouldn't the brokeback mountain comparison only really be obvious among urban voters anyways while it being indicative of rural rugged individualism only indicative to rural dwelling hobbits?
IP: Logged |
quote:Gingrich according to 538 actually makes a viable amount of sense according to history of the GOP for the last two decades or so, old voters remember him as virtually ending the New Deal democrat hold on the White House and the GOP has voted consistently more rightwing and vastly so since he became Speaker. Honestly he does make sense.
Gingrich only approaches a semblance of sense if you don't give a crap about morally what a bad person he is.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Gingrich only approaches a semblance of sense if you don't give a crap about morally what a bad person he is.
Perhaps it's the tendency for people to like the bad guy? Something akin to "yeah, he's bad, but he's on our side!"
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I remember a day when it was considered vile bigotry to speculate that men who were dancers, beauticians, fashion designers, or nurses were gay.
Yeah, I'm having a tough-time parsing what you're trying to say here, probably because you have a different perspective as to what happened here.
First, it sounds like you're implying that people are cutting down on speculation (I could be wrong) because they don't want to be seen as bigots. I'm not sure that I can agree with that. For example:
quote:DAN SAVAGE: When I was a kid, and I was odd, the default assumption was that I was odd, not that I was gay. Now when a kid is odd in a Greensburg, gay or straight, the default assumption is gay. Because my job requires me to be in constant communication with people all over the country who are writing in to "Savage Love," calling the podcast, I think I'm a little more conscious of what's going on out there in the boonies -- but even I didn't see that. And that's a bitter pill for those of us my age to swallow. Us out there leading our lives and being successful have actually kind of made it worse for 14-year-old gay kids in Greensburg, Ind.
But let's assume that that "a day" happened and unpack it. Well, it seems to me that the issue was that the profession of say, dancer, was made unpleasant by people because being a dancer was seen as being effeminate and thus dancers were seen as being more likely to be gay, and thus treated as if they were gay, i.e. badly and unequally.
The real problem isn't the speculation, the real problem was that people didn't treat gays equally.
So when it comes to the Rick Perry's of the world, the potential "problem" isn't that we speculate about whether or not he's gay based on his rhetoric (like how Dan Savage speculates whether Marcus Bachmann is gay based on his dancing), but whether we treat him equitably if he was gay.
I suppose it's possible that people may mock Rick Perry if he entered into, say, a gay marriage. But it seems to me that the mockery would be about his hypothetical hypocrisy rather than his sexual orientation, so I don't think that the parallel holds.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think most core Republican voters care how their candidates behave in their private lives, as long as they are publicly the right sort of Christian and are willing to push Christian issues.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't think most core Republican voters care how their candidates behave in their private lives, as long as they are publicly the right sort of Christian and are willing to push Christian issues.
Doesn't that go without saying for everybody? Presumably if it's in their private lives we don't know about it and can't feel one way or the other about it.
If Gingrich was soliciting prostitutes I think there would be more of a scandal. But then again, David Vitter is still a senator.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Y'know, there are plenty of personal moral failings that can make someone seem ineligible for president to me, but soliciting prostitutes isn't really one of them. Now, a married man soliciting prostitutes without his wife's consent, that indicates poor moral fiber.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Gingrich... Sigh.
He's a little old for you, don't you think?
I was posting on my phone so I couldn't elaborate, but basically the "Palistinians are a ficticous people" statement is le sigh even if technically true back in 1948 isn't likely to be true now.
Israel is just as much a "fictitious" people. Then again, I'm probably the wrong person to comment on this. After reading Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities," I'm not sure any people aren't totally fictitious.
But based on the same definitions we use to define Israel as one people in one country, Palestinians meet the same arbitrary requirements. If anything, their trials over the last 50 years have created for them a new identity that probably didn't exist in 1949, but that's neither here nor there. They are where they are, and they aren't going anywhere, so philosophical arguments over their right to exist as a people are pretty silly. Not that I expect any better from Newt.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, it seems to me that the issue was that the profession of say, dancer, was made unpleasant by people because being a dancer was seen as being effeminate and thus dancers were seen as being more likely to be gay, and thus treated as if they were gay, i.e. badly and unequally.
No that's not the problem. Yes it is certainly a problem that gays are treated badly, but stereotyping gays would be a problem even if gays were treated like royalty.
Stereotypes dehumanize people. They are limiting and leave little room for individuality. Even positive expectations are hurtful because they create expectations that people can't live up to. They make people feel like there is something wrong with them, like they don't really belong to any group because they can't live up to the stereotype.
As for "the day" I was remembering, I doubt it ever happened among some narrow minded groups, but I lived through it in the 80s on liberal college campuses. It wasn't as much about the acceptability of homosexuality as it was about harmful gender stereotypes. When I was in grad school I had two gay friends who were also working PhDs in Engineering. They were both very openly gay and both of them struggled with the fact that working on a PhD in a technical field was very incongruous with the gay stereotype. They got a lot more grief from the gay community for being being mathematical and scientific than they got from the academic community for being gay.
You don't think being gay is a bad thing, but you pretty clearly think being a closeted gay is a bad thing. The idea that anyone who opposes gay rights is highly likely to be closeted homosexuals is a negative stereotype that's a barrier to understanding. I know that some high profile anti-gay folks have been found to be gay, but that is in no way a justification for the stereotype any more than the existence of a few Jewish bankers justifies the that negative stereotype.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
What? I mean, it's sort of sad and pathetic, but I'm not going to judge people too harshly for being sad and pathetic. I think most of us are sad and pathetic at various points in our lives, in different ways.
I'm just saying, not everyone who might vote Republican is necessarily doing it because the candidate is willing to push Christian issues. This is a common generalization, but there are lots of issues where religion doesn't enter into it at all.
It depends a lot on what issues are important to the voter. Everyone prioritizes the issues that matter to them, and I suspect everyone here has voted for someone with whom they disagreed on at least a a few issues that seemed comparatively minor against the major things they thought the candidate would do right.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Y'know, there are plenty of personal moral failings that can make someone seem ineligible for president to me, but soliciting prostitutes isn't really one of them. Now, a married man soliciting prostitutes without his wife's consent, that indicates poor moral fiber.
Errr...the flagrantly illegal part of that action isn't an impediment to a candidate's suitability?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, it seems to me that the issue was that the profession of say, dancer, was made unpleasant by people because being a dancer was seen as being effeminate and thus dancers were seen as being more likely to be gay, and thus treated as if they were gay, i.e. badly and unequally.
No that's not the problem. Yes it is certainly a problem that gays are treated badly, but stereotyping gays would be a problem even if gays were treated like royalty.
Stereotypes dehumanize people. They are limiting and leave little room for individuality. Even positive expectations are hurtful because they create expectations that people can't live up to. They make people feel like there is something wrong with them, like they don't really belong to any group because they can't live up to the stereotype.
As for "the day" I was remembering, I doubt it ever happened among some narrow minded groups, but I lived through it in the 80s on liberal college campuses. It wasn't as much about the acceptability of homosexuality as it was about harmful gender stereotypes. When I was in grad school I had two gay friends who were also working PhDs in Engineering. They were both very openly gay and both of them struggled with the fact that working on a PhD in a technical field was very incongruous with the gay stereotype. They got a lot more grief from the gay community for being being mathematical and scientific than they got from the academic community for being gay.
You don't think being gay is a bad thing, but you pretty clearly think being a closeted gay is a bad thing. The idea that anyone who opposes gay rights is highly likely to be closeted homosexuals is a negative stereotype that's a barrier to understanding. I know that some high profile anti-gay folks have been found to be gay, but that is in no way a justification for the stereotype any more than the existence of a few Jewish bankers justifies the that negative stereotype.
That's really interesting, Rabbit. I know a couple of gay libertarians who get a lot more grief from their gay friends about being "right wing" than they get from evangelical Republicans about being gay.
Also, I think I need to concede that your point on the last page was well-taken. I betrayed my big-city living with my ignorance about Perry's jacket and what a common style it was, so that was dumb of me. Happy to admit I was wrong. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Y'know, there are plenty of personal moral failings that can make someone seem ineligible for president to me, but soliciting prostitutes isn't really one of them. Now, a married man soliciting prostitutes without his wife's consent, that indicates poor moral fiber.
Errr...the flagrantly illegal part of that action isn't an impediment to a candidate's suitability?
Illegal and immoral are different things. I don't think that a single person (or a person who is in an open relationship) soliciting a prostitute is necessarily immoral. I do think that it shows bad judgment for someone in public life.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Y'know, there are plenty of personal moral failings that can make someone seem ineligible for president to me, but soliciting prostitutes isn't really one of them. Now, a married man soliciting prostitutes without his wife's consent, that indicates poor moral fiber.
Errr...the flagrantly illegal part of that action isn't an impediment to a candidate's suitability?
No more than I would be dissuaded if I found out a Presidential candidate had gone 70 in a 65 zone, or smoked pot, or forgotten to wear a seatbelt, or taken naked pictures of someone before noon on a Sunday in Arizona, or crossed a street without using a crosswalk, or engaged in sodomy in Alabama before 2003, or brought a bushel of apples across the border into California, or... the list goes on and on.
Now, many of those might indicate the person made some stupid choices (for example: smoking pot makes me lose a bit of respect for you, but no more than drinking alcohol does. I just don't really understand the appeal of either of them) but none of them are catastrophic deal breakers.
I'm not terribly concerned about the illegality of them, because I don't think any of them should be illegal. In order for us to have a society where the rule of law is respected and lawbreakers are properly castigated, we first need a society where the laws are sensible, easy to understand, and not actively harmful.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Y'know, there are plenty of personal moral failings that can make someone seem ineligible for president to me, but soliciting prostitutes isn't really one of them. Now, a married man soliciting prostitutes without his wife's consent, that indicates poor moral fiber.
Errr...the flagrantly illegal part of that action isn't an impediment to a candidate's suitability?
Illegal and immoral are different things. I don't think that a single person (or a person who is in an open relationship) soliciting a prostitute is necessarily immoral. I do think that it shows bad judgment for someone in public life.
Bad judgment in the sense that other people will judge him badly for it? Sure. But I'm not willing to jump on that bandwagon.
A female candidate who got an abortion in her youth would probably be excoriated by the religious right. If I personally don't have a problem with abortion, I don't think I'm willing say that her abortion shows "bad judgment" despite what others may think of it.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bad judgment as it is in most states, illegal and would hurt one's chances of getting and staying elected. Also, the consequences of not having an abortion are considerably more significant than those of not hiring a prostitute.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
My favorite part of this article thought is where he talks about the courts invading our private lives. Talk about a fundamental disagreement over what "invasion" and "private lives" mean. As far as I'm concerned, most of the laws that evangelicals want passed are nothing but an invasion of our private lives. Most liberals are out to make sure you can basically do whatever you want in the privacy of your bedroom.
Apparently by private lives he means the right to live comfortably in your home knowing that the neighborhood around you is as homogenous as possible. I'll bet Newt was a fan of restrictive covenants too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Bad judgment as it is in most states, illegal and would hurt one's chances of getting and staying elected. Also, the consequences of not having an abortion are considerably more significant than those of not hiring a prostitute.
You're 100% right, to the extent that my analogy fails utterly.
It does show bad judgment in that sense.
Edit: I nevertheless am not personally dissuaded by a candidate who shows that sort of bad judgment, because I fundamentally disagree with the people judging his actions.
On reflection, it may raise a legitimate question of his ability to stifle his own interests to maintain whatever facade is necessary, and that's a useful ability to have in diplomacy. So it makes sense for it to be a factor. But the deciding factor? Not even close.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Y'know, there are plenty of personal moral failings that can make someone seem ineligible for president to me, but soliciting prostitutes isn't really one of them. Now, a married man soliciting prostitutes without his wife's consent, that indicates poor moral fiber.
Laying aside the question of prostitution and illegality, I was talking about Gingrich who is married, so we are dealing with a hypothetical married man soliciting prostitutes.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You don't think being gay is a bad thing, but you pretty clearly think being a closeted gay is a bad thing. The idea that anyone who opposes gay rights is highly likely to be closeted homosexuals is a negative stereotype that's a barrier to understanding.
Hmmm, that's an interesting point. Being a closeted gay is obviously worse than a non-closeted gay. But that isn't actually one of the options. Is it "better" or "worse" than a heterosexual Republican who cynically champions these kinds of ideas to gain votes? Is it better or worse than a heterosexual Republican who does this whole-heartedly? I'm actually not sure if this is a negative or positive stereotype.
That said, I've never been one to shy away from stereotype-based humour for say Chinese people via Russell Peters, so I don't think we have common ground for the rest of the post.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
You don't think being gay is a bad thing, but you pretty clearly think being a closeted gay is a bad thing. The idea that anyone who opposes gay rights is highly likely to be closeted homosexuals is a negative stereotype that's a barrier to understanding. I know that some high profile anti-gay folks have been found to be gay, but that is in no way a justification for the stereotype any more than the existence of a few Jewish bankers justifies the that negative stereotype.
That's not an analogy I'm comfortable with.
Vocally anti-gay folks are making a public statement about their own sexuality and that of others. I don't think you can rightly call it *stereotyping* to suggest that they may be closeted gays, or may themselves have issues with sexual repression. It would be stereotyping to suggest cowboys, in general, are gay, or any other group is gay, unless of course there was some affirmed quality about that group that made it *more* likely than the usual 10% odds, to be true in any individual case. And frankly, I think being a rabid surmonizer against gay rights *totally* qualifies a person as more likely to be gay than any random individual. Perhaps even *way* more likely.
But it's a group of people who do not form a class of their own- theirs is a designation of commission. That is different from being a Jew, or a Christian, black or white. Stereotyping is about a poor understanding of a group that is more complex than supposed. I don't think that's what's going on here. I think the surmise that people who engage passionately in moralistic modeling behavior are likely internally conflicted to some degree is quite sound.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Of course you are not comfortable with it because it says that what you are doing is wrong and that's an idea you simply aren't willing to consider.
Your particular brand of bigotry is not fundamentally different than other forms of bigotry. The fact that people do one thing you disapprove of does not make them part of a class of people that are likely to share other hidden and detestable characteristics. It simply isn't justifiable rationally no matter how much you protest that it is. All bigots are convinced their stereotypes are justified. That doesn't distinguish you're attitudes in any way.
Let me offer a counter example. There is a stereotype out there that atheists are rude. I have two outspoken atheist friends who are unarguably rude. They get a kick out of yanking peoples chains by ignoring social conventions and saying shocking controversial things. I was at a party Sunday evening with one of these guys who was defending ritual clitoral mutilation to a woman who is an EU human rights and women rights envoy. The other guy gets a kick out of offending conservative women coworkers with crude sexual jokes that would be a clear violation of sexual harassment laws in the US. (I'm not making this up.)
Does the fact that there are rude atheists make it fair for me to presume that if someone's an atheist they are going to be rude? If I met someone else who enjoyed being rude, would it be fair to presume they were atheists? Is it OK for me to believe there is some causal link between the two behaviors -- that either lack of belief in God results in rude anti-social behavior or that espousing atheism is usually just an act intended to shock and offend people? Would I be justified in suspecting the first friend sexually harasses his coworkers because the other rude atheist does?
If a person thinks being an atheist is bad, is it fair of them to speculate that you are secretly doing all kinds of other immoral, unethical, dreadful things because you are an atheist?
In case there is any doubt, the answer to all those questions is a resounding "No!". I have quite a few atheist friends who do not share any of those characteristics.
[ December 13, 2011, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think most core Republican voters care how their candidates behave in their private lives, as long as they are publicly the right sort of Christian and are willing to push Christian issues.
I don't know about this-- I'm not core GOP. But I won't support Gingrich precisely because of his infidelity.
Katharina said a long time ago that if a someone shows themselves unable to honor the vow of marriage-- a vow commonly made, and generally understood to mean monogamy and sexual fidelity-- they certainly should not be trusted blithely to honor the most powerful office in the world.
There's no way in the world that I'd vote for Gingrich, not with his record. Not even if he and I agreed on every point of policy-- his history shows a distinct lack of moral discipline and character.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, when a person is loudly promoting traditional sexual morality in public it makes it far more worrisome when that person is privately cheating on his wife, hiring prostitutes, or soliciting sex in public bathrooms.
I do think sexual promiscuity shows a lack of self discipline and poor judgement. But judgement and discipline aren't a single character trait. A person can be a very self disciplined musician, but lack the self discipline to stay on a diet. A person can have the discipline and control to become a great athlete, yet be unable to control their anger or their sex drive. A person can show excellent judgement in their financial lives, and yet make terrible choices in their companions. There are people who I would trust to do surgery who I wouldn't trust to baby sit children. People are complicated and it isn't fair to say that because a person can't be trusted in a particular situations, they shouldn't be trusted in any situation.
But when a person strongly advocates something for others that he is secretly not doing himself, that person's flaw goes beyond their sex life. They are dishonest, hypocritical and lacking in personal integrity. They are either lying about what they believe to gain power and influence or believe that they are somehow special and allowed to break the rules others must follow. I think either of those two options should cause serious concerns in a Presidential candidate, even a candidate whose policies I might otherwise support.
Lying about what you believe and value in order to get power and influence means you care more about power than principle. It indicates you aren't seeking power to achieve some particular end, you are seeking power for its own sake. Those kinds of people are dangerous because they are unlikely to ever be satisfied with enough power. Sadly, I think almost anyone who has significant power suffers from this flaw to some degree or another. It's not a black and white issue.
But believing that you are special and so can break the rules other people must follow is I believe the most dangerous trait I can imagine in a politician. It's not simply a disagreement about what behavior is ethical or moral, or even an belief in situational ethics. Its a belief that ethics don't apply to you, that you are above the laws and rules that apply to other people. It is extremely dangerous to put power in the hands of people who believe they are Ubermenschen that should not be constrained by the same moral and ethical laws that apply to regular people. I think Newt Gingrich is one of those people.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Of course you are not comfortable with it because it says that what you are doing is wrong and that's an idea you simply aren't willing to consider.
.
Wow, you've become incredibly rude and increasingly sweeping and accusatory towards me. I think I'm done talking to you. Sorry, could have been an interesting conversation if you could have kept it together, and maybe not accused me of beng a vile bigot. Perhaps you need to ignore me, if you can't kee your anger under control.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know about this-- I'm not core GOP. But I won't support Gingrich precisely because of his infidelity.
Isn't that basically my point? I mean, it's not hard to show that the core GOP voters are definitely willing to support Newt Gingrich and he's a major scumbag.
And, while there are clearly many other reasons besides anti-Mormon bigotry* to not support Mitt Romney, a large part of why the Republican base won't vote for him is because he is the very wrong sort of Christian.
---
I strongly believe that character is a very important part of someone who is going to be entrusted with political power. That, along with several other things (belief in fiscal and personal responsibility, small government, support for the military, patriotism - in the "ask not what you can do for your country" way), predisposed me towards the GOP in my youth, because those are the things they claim to be about. The years have proved to me that these claims are baseless and that character and these other things are talking points, not things that the rank and file or leadership actually believe in. The last nail for me was watching John McCain, whose 2000 campaign I volunteered for because he seemed to embody those things I valued, whore himself out during the 2004 campaigns.
---
* As a connoisseur of unacknowledged irony, I find a special vintage in the LDS who are appalled at people saying that bigots make up a large part of the anti-gay movement who will then turn around and complain about virulent anti-Mormon bigots in the exact same group. Like how, from some, anti-Mormon bigotry is the only reason for GOP voters to not vote for Mitt Romney.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*snort* Orincoro, isn't what Rabbit said to you-while definitely really sharp and accusatory-not especially far from your own not-uncommon style of discussion?
------
As to the prostitution thing, I wasn't making a statement about morality-though I think the idea that prostitution as it exists in the USA can *ever* be absent any moral considerations* is flat-out wrong-but about the disparity between 'elected legislator' and 'I'm deliberately going to disregard laws I disagree with'.
It's not the same as speeding-it's arbitrary, sure, but in terms of illegality our society just views them differently. A cop is less likely to let you off with a warning if you're caugt soliciting or providing prostitution than if you were going 52 in a 45 zone.
*This isn't a country that has a history of legal sex workers who are protected by regulation and health care. *Man*, are we just not. So soliciting prostitution isn't morally neutral for some of the same kinds of reasons buying conflict diamonds isn't. Maybe that individual prostitute isn't routinely assaulted and robbed. Maybe.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Does the fact that there are rude atheists make it fair for me to presume that if someone's an atheist they are going to be rude?
That's not how stereotypes work.
Stereotypes are about likelihoods and traits that are highly common, but they never were supposed to be 100%. As a trivial example, when Russell Peters, say, jokes about Chinese-Canadians having an accent, that doesn't mean you're supposed to think that 100% of Chinese-Canadians have an accent. The idea is simply that there are enough, so that we can acknowledge the truth that, hey, it happens a lot and it's funny.
In the case of atheists too, I would have answered that as "yes." I do think atheists are way more likely to be perceived as rude. Christianity is in some ways, a social convention in the North America, and an atheist who has the ability to break through that is very likely to voice disagreements with other social norms.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
, because some of them really are gay.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
