Calendar

April 2014
M T W T F S S
« Mar    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Latest Articles

Categories

Archives

We’re Here, We’re Queer, We’re Kinda Intolerant

Witch Goose Hunt

I knew this was coming. For the past couple of years, I’ve been warning that this would happen.

See, I don’t have cable TV, and before yesterday, I had not even heard of the show “Duck Dynasty”.

Because of the following article, now I have:

Link to Article

The suspension of Phil Robertson from A&E’s Duck Dynasty nasty is outrageous in a nation that values freedom, according to social critic and openly gay, dissident feminist Camille Paglia.

“I speak with authority here, because I was openly gay before the ‘Stonewall rebellion,’ when it cost you something to be so. And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech,” Paglia, a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, said on Laura Ingraham’s radio showThursday.

“In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as well as they have the right to support homosexuality — as I one hundred percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right of religious freedom there,” she added.

Robertson has been suspended from Duck Dynasty due to comments he made to GQ that have been deemed “anti-gay.” According to Paglia, the culture has become too politically correct.

“To express yourself in a magazine in an interview — this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic Party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades,” Paglia said. “This is the whole legacy of free speech 1960’s that have been lost by my own party.”

Paglia went on to point out that while she is an atheist she respects religion and has been frustrated by the intolerance of gay activists.

Frankly, I don’t know how anyone can disagree with this and call themselves “tolerant” or “diverse”. I haven’t known how they could do so for a long time.

As so often happens, I took a great deal of criticism for saying so, and as so often happens, said criticism was followed by an avalanche of evidence proving me spot on.

Such is life. Mine at least.

It’s often been said that there are no innocent people, and the longer I’m alive, the more I realize it’s true. Oppression is not an ethical conundrum, it’s a crime of opportunity. We all love stories of picked-on underdogs coming into their own, but more often than not, the reality is that they are one and the same. That one is the victim and the other the victimizer is solely the result of power, not moral failure.

Given sufficient numbers, all groups of humans act in the same manner. History is replete with examples of powerless people rising up and casting off the shackles of their oppressors, only to turn around and clamp those same shackles on others. It’s the very story of the United States itself.

I tried my best to warn folks when the hypocrisy began ratcheting up in recent years … I begged and I pleaded … but unless political groups such as GLAAD could find it within themselves to heed the warnings, it was only a matter of time before the conclusion was reached by others.

Alas, this is now starting to happen.

That a reality show would be the catalyst for any kind of social awareness doesn’t say much for us as a citizenry, but at this point, not even that is surprising.

The question is, now that the ire of the masses has been raised, will the LGBT community finally start practicing the tolerance and diversity they’ve been preaching for years?

I’m afraid the question is rhetorical, for we all know the answer.

Not that it matters.

Oppressed groups come and oppressed groups go. They rise to power, fade from power, become fashionable, and become scapegoats. Along the way, they are given many names, chosen by those with the most political power. Witches, communists, homosexuals, negroes, racists, immigrants, homophobes, christians, atheists, conservatives, terrorists, druggies, liberals, this, that, and the other.

No matter what they’re called during any given snapshot in time, one thing remains the same.

We’ll always hunt them. We’ll declare war on them and we’ll kill them, and if we can’t do that, we’ll do everything in our power to make their lives miserable.

Despite oft-stated goals to the contrary, this will never end. It cannot end. Like blinking our eyelids and drawing our breaths, it is not something which we can control. It’s in our DNA. After survival and procreation, hunting witches, by whatever name, is probably the strongest instinct the human animal has.

Right before denial.

Enjoy the hunt.

7 comments to We’re Here, We’re Queer, We’re Kinda Intolerant

  • mike_ch

    The Bill of Rights defends your right to free speech from government tyranny. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed it by ruling on the side of the nation’s most reprehensible religious protest outfits.

    It does not defend you from reprisal from private parties. It does not mean you can say whatever you please with no consequences. It does not mean that the general public can not decide to look down on certain types of speech as reductive and unhelpful to social progress. If you have libertarian views on speech then you should believe in the public opinion shaping the cultural landscape rather than a government order.

    Washington DC did not take this guy off television. His network, which has no obligation to host him, did. His First Amendment rights are as invalid in this scenario as mine would be if you decided to delete this post/ban me from posting comments. It’s your board, it’s your right to allow comments or not. It’s their network, it’s their decision if they want a guy who talks about the sinners burning in hell on their schedule.

    As far as tolerance, it has to be a two way street, and right now one group thinks the other group is less-than-human and should be barred from marriage/adopting/teaching/etc. Let me know when either religious fanatics raise to the level of treating queers as people they just don’t like, or queers lower to the level of demanding that religious fanatics be kept away from children or have their marriages invalidated. Then things will be ‘even’.

    • The Bill of Rights defends your right to free speech from government tyranny. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed it by ruling on the side of the nation’s most reprehensible religious protest outfits.

      Just asking, where did you see the Bill of Rights mentioned anywhere in this post?

      It does not defend you from reprisal from private parties.

      Why not?

      It defends other people from reprisal from private parties.

      It does not mean you can say whatever you please with no consequences. It does not mean that the general public can not decide to look down on certain types of speech as reductive and unhelpful to social progress. If you have libertarian views on speech then you should believe in the public opinion shaping the cultural landscape rather than a government order.

      First of all, let’s cut the shit. The whole “the government doesn’t put you in prison, corporations just make you and your family homeless, therefore you haven’t been oppressed” is a wad of diseased jizz smack in the eye.

      You accept that view in this case only because the people being oppressed are people whom you don’t like.

      If homosexuals were losing their privately-held jobs because of their beliefs, you’d be up in arms and you know you would. In fact, correct me if I’m wrong, but private companies are banned from firing people for all kinds of things, by the government, so this being the case, you could make a legitimate argument that failure to protect certain groups while protecting others is the same as governmental oppression and provides unequal protection.

      You’d have to be unbiased to make that argument, though. You’d have to be, dare I say it, tolerant.

      You claim that “public opinion should shape the cultural landscape rather than a government order”, yet, I don’t see anywhere where you call for the repeal of government orders which have already shaped the cultural landscape on the issue.

      Isn’t that a little bit disingenuous?

      It’s illegal to fire someone for being gay, but not for being anti-gay, and in your opinion, this is the government staying out of things and letting the people decide for themselves, right?

      Come on, man.

      As far as tolerance, it has to be a two way street

      No, no it doesn’t. It absolutely does NOT have to be a two-way street. In fact, Mike, it’s almost never a two-way street.

      Tolerance:

      1.a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.

      2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.

      3.interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one’s own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
      4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.

      There is absolutely no “two-way street” about it. I can be tolerant, while others are not. You can be tolerant, while others are being downright assholes. This is, more often than not, exactly when tolerance is needed.

      Does it suck?

      Yes.

      But nobody said it was supposed to be easy.

      Let me know when either religious fanatics raise to the level of treating queers as people they just don’t like,

      Okay.

      Never.

      There, I just let you know when.

      I was 100% accurate too.

      or queers lower to the level of demanding that religious fanatics be kept away from children or have their marriages invalidated. Then things will be ‘even’.

      Oh yes, your intolerance isn’t as bad as everyone else’s intolerance. Hey, what a coincidence, that’s the same position that the demographic known as “everyone” holds.

      And you’ll be tolerant when the rest of the world is.

      Sounds reasonable.

      Funny how “tolerant” people tend to leave out the clause about how their tolerance is conditional and only valid when an occurrence that will never happen, happens.

      If tolerance were easy, Mike, everyone would be tolerant.

      That fact that exactly nobody is, is a pretty strong indicator of just how difficult it truly is.

      If you’re (generic “you’re”) going to claim to be something, though, and berate others for not being it … don’t blame me (or anyone else) when it turns out that you’re not, and never were, what you’ve pretended to be.

      The backlash should be expected, and if you could be objective for a moment, even you would have to concede that it’s well-deserved.

      If you’re going to talk the talk, walk the walk, and have the integrity to admit it when you fail.

      When it comes to tolerance, as of late, gay groups have conducted themselves abhorrently. Feel free to shoot the messenger, but that’s the truth, Mike.

      And no, pointing to others and saying “they did it too” is not an excuse. It’s a cop-out.

      I’ve supported gay causes for the vast majority of my life, and I live in one of the gayest neighborhoods in one of the gayest cities in the USA if not the world. I refuse to go along with hypocrisy because it’s the popular thing to do, though. I’m not going to expect less from my friends and neighbors so they’ll reward me with their approval.

      If they run around shouting TOLERANCE 365 days a year, then goddammit, I expect to see tolerance. The most tolerance I’ve ever seen from anyone. That’s what I expect from the tolerance torch-bearers.

      Frankly, it’s what you should expect too.

      The moral high ground is a hard-won hill and integrity is always the first casualty of self-interest.

      Resist taking the easy way out because those around you will give you a pass. Hold yourself to a higher standard, even when you can get away with not doing so.

      Faux progressives have gone unchallenged for so long that they’ve become ethically lazy. They’ve become teflon hypocrites, wealthy and politically-connected, free to frame discussions at their leisure because few boys risk the Emperors’ wrath when he turns up naked in public.

      Well, Mike, the Emperor’s naked. And it’s nobody’s fault but his own.

      • mike_ch

        Okay, so, let’s throw a few things out there:

        What type of person you are has no bearing on your ability to have socially unacceptable positions or not. A gay person was one of the most racist people I’ve ever known.

        From what I can tell, the government has an incentive to keep people employed and productive. As far as being anti-gay goes, there are companies/organizations/etc who promote an anti-gay, and there’s nothing illegal about it. I don’t think that Pat Robertson and “The 700 Club” have a lot of gay staffers.

        If that’s the way you want your business to be run, then that’s your perspective. I’m pretty sure there’s some religious networks out there that wouldn’t mind running this TV show, but this network has at least for now decided to go this route and it’s legal for them, too. Both the network and the people on the show knew what they were getting into.

        As for all this noise about tolerance, I’m kind of surprised hearing it from you. You’re the guy who used to talk about how all the uppity white folks in Henderson have probably never seen a black person in their life. You blogged about finding a black man on the street in need of assistance and later regretting getting Metro involved because of what they might do to him. I know you might make a race joke here and there, but you’re generally sympathetic, so let me ask you: do you think civil rights would have gone anywhere if the only pressure was a ‘charm offensive’? What if minorities didn’t demand some respect but hoped if they just tried to do good they’d stop being seen as part of the problem? Would that get anywhere?

        Obviously, I bring this up not to suggest the same kind of suffering is in effect here, because obviously it isn’t, but instead as context to learn from the country’s largest rights struggle. We know from history it’s impossible to make prejudice disappear, but you can do what you can to “sweep it under the rug.” It’s kind of half-assed and shitty, but it’s the most legal, tasteful solution we’ve managed to come up with so far.

        We had let racism fester so long without concern that when we did start to implement some regulations, it reached the point of having to deploy the National Guard to escort black students to schools that were de-segregated against their administrator’s wills. And I’m sure at the time there was some guy saying “but what about their right to not want to have any black students?” But today, things are not that bad. Do you think the laws had a role in that, or is it just that ‘people came around’?

        • As for all this noise about tolerance, I’m kind of surprised hearing it from you.

          Eh?

          You’re surprised hearing me call out the hypocrites who have been flying the “tolerance” banner for the last decade while practicing bigotry?

          I’m surprised that you’re surprised.

          You’re the guy who used to talk about how all the uppity white folks in Henderson have probably never seen a black person in their life.

          Damn straight.

          You blogged about finding a black man on the street in need of assistance and later regretting getting Metro involved because of what they might do to him.

          You’ve got the right person.

          I know you might make a race joke here and there, but you’re generally sympathetic, so let me ask you: do you think civil rights would have gone anywhere if the only pressure was a ‘charm offensive’?

          Fuck no. I thought Martin Luther King was a Grade A pussy, and I’ll tell that to anyone who wants to listen. If I was around in those days, I would have been more interested in what Malcom X had to say. Suburban white people love MLK because he advocated turning the other cheek. Oh yes. Black folks turning the other cheek to white folks. Oh boy, did they love that. And how.

          Malcom didn’t spout off any bullshit about “tolerance”, though. To the contrary, he was a rather intolerant fellow. Truth in advertising.

          You starting to draw straight lines here?

          You ever wonder why the media and government chose the black hero they did?

          What are you doing on Malcom X day this year? Damn, I lost my calendar, what day is that on again?

          What if minorities didn’t demand some respect but hoped if they just tried to do good they’d stop being seen as part of the problem? Would that get anywhere?

          See above.

          Obviously, I bring this up not to suggest the same kind of suffering is in effect here, because obviously it isn’t, but instead as context to learn from the country’s largest rights struggle. We know from history it’s impossible to make prejudice disappear, but you can do what you can to “sweep it under the rug.” It’s kind of half-assed and shitty, but it’s the most legal, tasteful solution we’ve managed to come up with so far.

          #1 There is no such thing as a non-predjudiced person.
          #2 In my rather extensive experience, those who claim to be the least prejudiced, are almost always the most prejudiced.

          Now, who decides to sweep whom under the rug?

          Well, historically, it’s those who can offer the most cash and/or votes to the reigning political structure.

          In the latter part of the 20th Century, homosexuals began to exceed their heterosexual brothers and sisters in average income, disposable income, and thus, political representation in large cities/coastal states.

          If you think all the gay-friendly laws we’re seeing recently are the result of some kind of moral or ethical awakening, then my friend, do take a picture of the sky on your planet and email it to me, because I’d love to know what color it is.

          We had let racism fester so long without concern that when we did start to implement some regulations, it reached the point of having to deploy the National Guard to escort black students to schools that were de-segregated against their administrator’s wills.

          Yeah, but, check this out.

          The party of slavery = Democrat.
          The party of the KKK = Democrat.
          Primary opponents of the Civil Rights Act = Democrat.

          We’re not taking ancient history here, we’re talking like, when Fleetwood Mac had already started a band.

          Yet, Gay groups = Democrat.

          Wait, what?

          In the last 30 years, the standard of living for most black people has decreased, while the murder and incarceration rate has skyrocketed.

          And your argument is “gay folks are doing what worked so well for black folks”?

          I dunno, man. As a group, on average, in the last thirty years, gay folks have done better than just about any other demographic in this country. They enjoy, on average, a standard of living well in excess of the average american. Way, way, in excess of the average black person.

          I don’t think think we’re talking apples to apples here.

          The gay and black struggles being two sides of the same coin has been sold to us for some time, but I never bought.

          And I’m sure at the time there was some guy saying “but what about their right to not want to have any black students?” But today, things are not that bad. Do you think the laws had a role in that, or is it just that ‘people came around’?

          Who opposed the laws?

          We’ve departed quite a bit from the point of the post, which basically calling GLAAD a bunch of hypocrites who are pushing a morally indefensible and bigoted position, which they absolutely are.

          As for the struggle of the black person in this country, that’s quite a different story.

          Here’s a fact … few people in the course of history have escaped persecution. As a whole, whoever, affluent people have generally been persecuted a bit less, except in the case of some jews for a period of time, but the exception does not invalidate the rule.

          Not calling civil unions “marriage” is not persecution when you look at marriage in a historical context, which was more or less created to make children legitimate. And then of course, there’s the whole “procreation of the species being paramount” thing, and that can only happen with a partner of opposing genders yada yada yada.

          Point being that, even though I support gay marriage, I don’t think not supporting gay marriage is up there with slavery or racism … or really even close.

          As for laws, however, I bring us back to your original point, where you opine that people’s rights aren’t violated so long as the government itself does not violate them.

          I continue to disagree, and frankly, so do you. If private companies were able to exercise their private right to fire people because the employees were gay or pro-gay, I think you’d cry foul. Ergo, you recognize the ability of oppression to occur when it occurs at the hands of the corporate entity and not just the government. Which is reasonable, because in this country, they’re quickly becoming kind of the same thing.

          Therefore, supporting the right of corporations to fire people because they’re anti-gay is hypocritical.

          Sure, the benefactors of the above one-sided paradigm have a million rationales as to why it’s perfectly fair, and they have the political clout to keep the laws as they are, but it’s still hypocritical in my honest opinion.

          If I didn’t make the point well, I apologize, but that was what I was getting at.

          • SPRUNT

            I’d just like to point out, Rex, that from what I remember studying (which, granted, isn’t much), over the decades, the Democratic and Republican parties have gone so far to either side of their parties that they have circled around to the other side. The Democratic party of today is closer to the Republican party of 100 years ago, and vice-versa.

            As politics has grown into the monster it currently is (politicking for the sake of politicking), the polarity change has happened a few times. Parties are so concerned about being in power, regardless of actual position and beliefs, that when they see that their image has been tarnished beyond repair, they begin to tout the opposing opinions that they held just years earlier (sometimes just months earlier) in hopes of getting their party back in power.

            It doesn’t seem to be working as effectively in the current day and age thanks to the massive availability of both current and archived information where any individual can take a modicum of effort and find the inaccuracies of what is being said. Unfortunately, the shifts can, and will, still happen because the unwashed masses do not want to put forth that effort. The celebrity du jour tells them the position they should have, and, if they were really good in that one movie where that one thing happened, and they Tweeted about all their meals, that position is gospel. Thank Jesus the shortstop that Biggie and 2-Pac didn’t have the mass social media we have now, or I fear the retarded gang warfare I remember hearing about growing up (remember the movie “Colors”?) would have been much worse. Gangland hits carried out in 140 characters or less.

            Anyway, I just wanted to point that out in response to your “The party of slavery = Democrat. The party of the KKK = Democrat. Primary opponents of the Civil Rights Act = Democrat.” statement.

            Also, I just wanted to say that I miss the way you used to spoon me and cup my balls ever so gently. Sometimes I weep at night…

  • Nathan W

    I understand why they put him on leave. The problem is that in a big corporation such as theirs they have clients. This isn’t about free speech, gay rights, or anything really relevant to what happened. They took him off of the air because he rocked the boat. He expressed an opinion that “may” conflict with some of their clients. This is about the bottom line; the dollar. Right and wrong don’t exist in the corporate structure. There is only one thing and it’s about making money. The problem has been as you stated above, those with power oppress those without it. The people with power are the ones that have money and has nothing to do with doing the right things. They want to keep the money and the power. Someone high up in the company decided they thought it would hurt their income and that is why he was taken off the air. I think the right thing would have been for them to keep him on the air. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that concept needs to be upheld. No one has to agree with it and it certainly won’t stop anyone from having said opinion. I think that Phil was hired to do a job and he was doing it. What he said has no bearing on his ability to do his job and thus he should be allowed to continue doing his job. I don’t have to watch and I don’t really care what he believes. They created a thing called the power switch and I will use it if I don’t like it. That get’s the attention of the people pulling the strings behind the curtain more than anything.

  • Jay

    I’m quite a bit late to the party, but I’m gonna dive in anyway.

    I agree with the overall idea of what you’re saying. I think you’re dead on in fact.

    When it comes to Phil specifically, the whole thing was an obvious publicity stunt first and foremost.

    As far as his rights are concerned I think it might be important to split the hair of whether his first amendment right was violated. Which I have to agree with Mike that it was not. He was most definitely shouted down, abused, and vilified by those who pride themselves for “tolerance” in a most hypocritical way, but the facebook memes crying about the first amendment drove me to a few too many drinks.

    Finally I think the difference that the GLAAD see between firing a redneck for voicing opinions and firing a homosexual for voicing theirs is that they insist on the fact that they were “born that way” (which I neither accept nor reject categorically) and therefore it is discrimination based on natural traits and akin to racism.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>