War Against Miss California USA Continues
This is becoming pathetic. The left and its allies continue to smear Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean. Most of you will remember that she became famous after she told gay activist Perez Hilton during Miss Teen USA that she opposes same sex marriage. Her views, she said, were greatly influenced by her Christian religion.
Immediately after the show, Hilton made a video of himself blasting Prejean. One of the nicest things he had to say about her was that she was “a dumb bitch.”
His allies continued the war he began, resulting this week in reports saying that Prejean posed naked. How can “a religious Christian” pose for such ‘pornographic’ photos, her attackers who have nothing with religion asked hypocritically?
The Dirty published one such photo, saying it “exposed” her as a fake Christian. Well, the photo is indeed very, very shocking. Unbelievably shocking even.
Or not.
You can see the photo to the right.
Perhaps it’s just me, but this is ‘normal’ for a photo model. How this can be used against her is beyond me. It’s not as if she’s entertaining herself with a sex object. Heck, she wears underwear and covers her breasts with her arms.
MSNBC joined the fun – of course – calling the photos “racy” and asking a judge on the Miss Teen USA pageant about it. This judge, Alicia Jacobs, said: “I can assure you they were quite inappropriate, and certainly not photos befitting a beauty queen.”
Oh my, of course. Because beauty queens cannot be photo models. Even someone living in Saudi Arabia would not be shocked by the photo published above. You see more ‘exposing photos’ on the average billboard in the average city.
Meanwhile, Prejean felt forced to react. “I am a Christian, and I am a model,” she said in a statement released overnight to the media. “Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos. Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid Web site that openly mocks me for my Christian faith. I am not perfect, and I will never claim to be.”
She should not even have responded. Just ignore these idiots.
And MSNBC should be ashamed of itself. Then again, this is the same network that employs Keith Olbermann… who expected anything less?
There is no way she is 17 in those photos and I find them very shocking and obscene. The fact that you find it such an innocent photo speaks as much of your lack of decency as it does of hers.
Carrie Prejean is a fake Christian.
So, an underage privileged girl has nude photos taken and they are made public to “mock her Christian faith”. She’s not a Christian, is she?
Mocking her Christian faith? Well, none of my Christian friends go around posing nude. Maybe my friends are not Christian enough? I’m not sure anymore.
It’s amazing — the GOP put up a horrific mother with an underage teenage daughter that got knocked up outside of marriage as our VP candidate. A model Christian?
It seems all Christians are fake these days. Is no one in the public authentic? Say you are Christian and somehow that becomes the truth?
What about morals
– Prejean IS NOT want I want my daughters to look up to.
She is Simply White Privileged Trash.
It appears there are five more photos coming out. What will be the response when the fully nude photo is published?
Philip: Oh,no? How old do you think she was, then? A lot of girls look like that at age 17.
Sarah: firstly, we don’t know whether those nude photos actually exist, secondly, we don’t know what those photos looked like. Thirdly, she already said she “made mistakes” – if she posed nude for, say, playboy, I’m sure that’s one of the mistakes she refers to.
That doesn’t make one a “fake Christian.” Your “Christian friends” will tell you that they too did things they are not proud of now, but found forgiveness from God. That’s true religion, not what you’re doing.
BTW: interesting that two who normally obviously have nothing with religion now suddenly feel they can tell others what is and what is not “Christian.”
Panties that ride half way up her butt and into her butt cleavage, an arm that BARELY covers her nipple, and an over-the-shoulder look suggesting inviting someone into the bedroom. Hmmm. I think it’s just you. These are not simply lingerie photos. They are what is commonly referred to as soft porn.
She keeps claiming to be a Christian. So did Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Jesse Jackson and Ted Haggard. I guess she did warn us that she wan’t perfect.
Whats sad in this is the smear job the GAY Rights activists embarked upon to totally destroy her and her career because she simply stated her opinion using her constitutional right to do so.
The evil in this is Perez Hilton. The source of shame is upon the Gay rights activists that feel so threatened that they have to destroy someones life to make a point.
Fear mongering anyone who would dare to speak out in public. Fascism once again rears its ugly head as the nationalist agenda is endangered by someone who would dare to speak out.
Michael,
Thanks — that is my point; “now suddenly feel they can tell others what is and what is not “Christian.”
Christians in the media seem to continue to redefine what is and isn’t Christian like. If the religious crowd “likes” you, you are a Christian (maybe in need of forgiveness), but if they don’t like you, well, there is no hope.
It’s all fake these days. The louder they speak, the less I trust them….
Okay Doomed — So it’s the GAYS now? Give me a break. She took her cloths off. I doubt the GAYS made her do it. It was her EGO, Doomed.
If we’re going to promote and put a face on the Christian message, we need authentic people, no ego driven pretty girls or boys, but real Christians promoting the message of Christ.
I didnt say the Gays made her do anything.
I said whats lost in this is the smear job that this particular activist and most likely with help has embarked upon to destroy this girl simply because she does not agree with Gay marriage.
Im sure that someone could destroy me. Ive made mistakes in my life. Im sure someone could destroy you for the mistakes you made in your life. Does that give them the right simply because they dont agree with my position on something??
The evil here is this gay activist. Not Ms. Prejean.
Pronouncing yourself a Christian doesn’t give you special protection when it comes to heated public debate. Carrie got in the middle of a political fight and politics ain’t beanbag. You have to MODEL the behavior that your group promotes, or else be deemed a hypocrite. Forgiveness in this matter is between Carrie and God.
Doomed — so the gay activist are evil? Is that your judgment?
We’ll leave it at this: I don’t want my daughters to view this girl as role model.
Period.
Also, where were her PARENTS when she was running around naked and underage as the camera was flashing? In Church is suppose.
I don’t care what she thinks about gay marriage (I don’t agree with it, but that’s my opinion not what others should believe). As I think about it, I really don’t care what she thinks about anything.
What I dislike is the consistent “I’m a Christian” so you can’t touch me!” attitude.
Now we learn she lied on three occasions when asked if she had ever posed semi-nude or nude. She lied. If, and I mean IF, it was nothing more than an “underwear” advertising photo, she should not have been ashamed and LIED (like a Christian).
Sarah.
I did not indict Gay Activism. I said THIS particular gay activist…and the reason I pointed it out was that he made a film in which he then touted his anger over her answer.
There pretty much is a double edged sword here. A self professed Christian girl who made a photo shoot which she is scantily clad is being systematically destroyed but the guy who is destroying her is let off the hook?
It doesnt add up in my fairness book.
I make no judgement about her Christianity. That is Gods job. I simply am pointing out that the real evil taking place here is the systematic destruction of a womans career by someone who did not like an answer she gave in a beauty contest.
How sad.
Sarah Getty, your daughters should be viewing you as a role model not some stranger who’s main claim to fame is that her parents produced a good looking kid. It doesn’t matter if she went streaking in the middle of downtown LA or told a million lies to a million different people we are not her judge. If she considers herself a Christian then that’s good enough for me because in the end the only one who can truly judge what’s in her heart is God.
I personally find this whole affair to be sickening. She doesn’t agree with gay marriage and therefore she deserves to be attacked in the media, verbally abused by that moron who should have never asked the question in the first place and have her career and future destroyed before it even really begins? Who made these rules? What’s next a scarlet letter? This has gone on for far too long and this vendetta against a girl for doing no more than exercising her right to freedom of speech is turning into a national embarrassment.
What’s sad is the inability of for Miss Prejean to take responsibility for her soft-porno pictures. Deflect the attention seems to be the plan of the day. It sounds like to you buying into her ploy.
IF her life is “destroyed”, it was with her own hands (and naked body). Quit looking for others to blame.
and yet again, I can’t help but to wonder, where were the Parents during the soft-porno shoot?
Well let that be a lesson to anyone who dares speak out against gay marriage.
They are coming for you and they will destroy you because you dared exercise your constitutional rights to speak up. The national agenda will not be triffled with.
Thats what this is really about. The feinted outrage at her Religion is nothing more then one more attempt at belittling Christianity by the proponents of Gay marriage because almost all religions stand opposed to gay marriage.
Thats really what this is about.
Belittling Christianity by posing nude and claiming to be a Christian — quit looking for others to blame.
Nope sorry Sarah the bad person here is not Ms. Prejean.
The bad person here is this activist who then embarked upon destroying this womans career simply because he did not like what she said in a beauty pageant. I think even Gay rights activists would agree with me here. 99.98 percent of all Gay rights activists would never do what these people have done to Ms Prejean because they are good, decent and honorable people.
She is not a politician. She is not campaigning against gay rights. She is not running for office. She is an American Citizen who was asked a personal question in a beauty pageant.
Thats what is the real travesty here.
Any attempts to claim the photo is unbecoming of a Christian are hyperbole at best, and hypocritical at worst. There was about as much a controversy coming from the Miley Cyrus photos, who, I understand, is about as strong a Christian as Prejean. Of course, Cyrus wasn’t berated by Perez Hilton because she supports gay marriage.
There is a non-religious precedent for wondering about these photos, after the Tara Conner scandal a couple years ago. But Connor was doing drugs and didn’t get her title thrown out, so I see little reason to think anything will happen now.
It was inevitable that pictures would be found and other tawdry details about her past (i.e. breast augmentation) would be uncovered.
I’m no fan of beauty contests but it should be pointed out again, she was asked what she believed; she gave an honest answer. Apparently it was the WRONG answer. And she will be punished for that answer.
Please people, its 2009 in America, and Mr. Hilton is joining in on the fun. Its the Chicago way. Get used to it.
I HOPE everyone is enjoying the CHANGE.
@Sarah Getty Jesus said of a woman about to be stoned that “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” Being a Christian does not mean we are perfect, just forgiven. She spoke her mind. She modeled underwear previously. If everything any of us was made public for everyone to view, would any of us be casting the stones? I think not.
My best friend’s son is gay. I have loved this child from birth. I know what he has gone through in his life to come to terms with his own sexuality. But, this young man would be the first to tell anyone to be true to their own belief. God I love who gave HIS Son for me is the ONLY ONE who we truly answer to. God has proven that to me time and time again. If you do not want to hear an answer, do not ask a question that the answer may offend you.
I have been a fan of the Miss USA Pagents for years; however, if Miss California is stripped of her crown, I will have the choice never to watch the pagent again. If every free will Christian does the same, how many viewers will be left. Donalt Trumpt may have to find another way to watch young women model skimpy bikinis.
I say this: she should not be so ready to take the bible into account regarding the status of marriage if she is not ready to impose the bible on herself (but I can forgive her for not doing so, considering the bible’s actual words on women). I also think that in the same sense that she would have been shuffled away for saying people of different races shouldn’t marry fifteen years ago, she is now found provocative for saying gay marriage isn’t OK when she gets the mike. Times change, and she and her defenders have to accept that.
(I also think beauty pageants are inherently horrible celebrations of gender roles, but that is not relevant here.)
But these photos and the way they are presented against her is inherently misogynistic – the photos should not be proliferated, at most they can be mentioned *with* an explicit comment on how the photos are only relevant in the strict christian perspective she saw fit to take on gay people and their rights. Without mentioning that the mention of the photos amounts to the most basic and petty slander that is leveled against pretty women who stick their heads up. Also, Hilton should shut the heck up if he can’t voice his anger in a way that doesn’t resort to gender-exclusive pejoratives.
Garland;
I’m heartened that you see something negative in the pursuit of dirt on Ms. Prejean. However, you stated “she saw fit to take on gay people and their rights”. She didn’t “taken them on”. She was asked what she believed and she answered. Would this be any different if this was a far-right neocon and she was asked if waterboarding was torture and she answered “I understand that people disagree about this but I believe its torture”. I’m assuming if that scenario occurred you would have been upset with those who responded with stateements such as “she supports terrorists” or she’s “soft on terrorist” etc.
” She was asked what she believed and she answered.”
Aye, and she decided to use her personal beliefs as a guide to her political positions, even though she doesn’t live according to the bible. I’m not only talking about the photos – according to the bible people aren’t allowed to divorce. But of course, christianity evolves and it has to consider some parts of the text outdated so that it can fit with society. Here’s my rub: if christians have decided they are allowed to have divorces, gambling, etc., for what reason do they still consider the bible’s decrees on gays to be a weighing factor against church marriages? On what grounds can’t they be flexible there, considering they have been flexible otherwise?
Until christianity as a whole addresses that strange contradiction, I’ll be extremely wary of people like Prejean and will approve of any non-violent, civil but meaningful repercussions that non-inclusive and political soundbites like hers result in. Attitudes change – for long, it has been impossible for anyone in a situation like Prejean’s to say that marriage shouldn’t cross ethnic differences, (but once, further in America’s past, she would have gotten away with it). Now, there are repercussions for saying it shouldn’t be same-sex. The former position was a result of racial prejudice, the latter of religious prejudice, and now society is no longer OK with either. Attitudes change, and Prejean is behind the curve. No one prosecuted her or threw bricks at her – they just voiced displeasure and she was no longer in the running for a beauty pageant (a contest where everyone involved lose, in my opinion). I can’t see what’s so sinister here.
“Would this be any different if this was a far-right neocon and she was asked if waterboarding was torture and she answered “I understand that people disagree about this but I believe its torture”. I’m assuming if that scenario occurred you would have been upset with those who responded with stateements such as “she supports terrorists” or she’s “soft on terrorist” etc.”
I can see what you mean, but I can answer your analogy in the same way – some people find some views or positions to be controversial or upsetting. Whenever an employer, beauty pageant organizer or any entity considers prospective selections of people, they have their own interests in mind. A person with poor looks is, in this superficial era of ours, less likely to be chosen as a receptionist. A person who has to meet with people face-to-face isn’t an interesting prospective employee if his face has shown up in a criminal prosecution case followed by national media. It’s prejudiced and petty, but its true. Now, it used to be in several states that employers could fire employees if they outed themselves, for that reason only.
Now, Prejean is no longer flavor of the month in the eyes of pageant judges or pageant sponsors because she gave an honest answer to a question and it was the wrong answer. I think it is an absurd and superficial development, but it could be said that it is the fault of her and others who share her position that the issue and the referential question leveled at her existed in the first place. Society changes, and the repercussions she has suffered here is evidence that it has changed for the better. People make fun of SUVs and their drivers, people ogle confusedly at boys with painted nails and bus drivers get warned if they command a woman to remove her veil if she wants to step on to the bus. It’s a quilt of tribal prejudices and social pettiness, but here a person was marginalized for being non-inclusive, discriminating and hypocritical and christians should be glad that the religious origin of her stance was *not* an ameliorating factor.
Nobody lives according to the Bible. It is basic Christian doctrine that all persons are sinners. If you really want to apply Christians’ own standards, apply Eph 2:9. If liberals want to just concoct whatever political spin is a convenient weapon of the moment, of course, they should keep on doing what they have been doing without modification. Of course, then they cannot claim to be either principled or honest. (Of course, I also understand the unwritten rule of the blogosphere that requires that liberals be forever exempt for any and all criticism because the horrible evilness of conservatives justifies everything liberals might do to combat it, including tolerating without negative comment other liberals’ blatant reversals on issues of supposed principle while at the same time screaming bloody murder about every single apparent reversal from conservatives. You among many others have made that clear, Garland.)
If liberals were not so busy trying to personally destroy the lives of everyone who disagrees with them on any issue they personally find important, they might have the time and integrity to at least get the underlying facts right about what the other side does and does not believe.
The real hypocrites here are not Christians that fall short in the eyes of God, since they acknowledge all along that they do so. The real hypocrites here are liberals who preached about freedom of expression and protection from the punitive politically-motivated methods of employers after 9/11 but now magically reverse on a dime when the ideological winds blow the either way. It is despicable and I have contempt for the liberals and faux moderates who play along with it.
I would be interested in hearing you specify what “repercussions” you are willing to endorse to enforce your personal opinion of Required Thought. Should everyone who disagrees with your views about what is “inclusive” be fired from their jobs? Should their homes and churches be subject to vandalism? Should the government charge them special taxes? Should their newspapers be stolen and destroyed while law enforcement stands by and does nothing?
All of these things are status quo, of course, but I am interested in which of them you are willing to explicitly endorse in your campaign to appoint yourself and your fellow liberals the Thought Police of the 21st Century.
“Nobody lives according to the Bible.”
And yet christians think they can choose which couples are eligible for church marriage (some even want to have a say about civil marriage and the many perks involved in an officially recognized union) based on what the bible says. Heck, the pope probably doesn’t follow the bible perfectly, and he still gets away about dictating what women should do with their bodies.
“The real hypocrites here are liberals who preached about freedom of expression and protection from the punitive politically-motivated methods of employers after 9/11 but now magically reverse on a dime when the ideological winds blow the either way. It is despicable and I have contempt for the liberals and faux moderates who play along with it.”
What are you even talking about here? Did people have to show support for Bush’s actions as CiC or face repercussions or something? I realize you’ve built up a repertoire of different points of contention and acerbity but I’m not intimate with this stockpile.
“Should everyone who disagrees with your views about what is “inclusive” be fired from their jobs?”
Employers have their own establishments and if they want to discriminate then that’s on their tab. At least, that’s what I’ve heard from some libertarians who want the government to step off. As I said, employers could (I’m not sure if they still can) fire employees at the drop of a hat if said employees outed themselves, but other employees enjoyed a degree of protection from being fired on insubstantial grounds. If you want to protect people who disagree with my Liberal Thought Decrees (I know it’s trademarked, but I thought I’d be liberal with using it) then you also have to protect all employees from being fired on irrelevant grounds.
Racially charged newsletters aren’t allowed in the newspaper stands of Wal-mart, neither are magazines that feature “unorthodox” families on the front page (because Wal-mart have a “family-friendly” policy). Society changes, as I said. Not long ago a woman couldn’t even get a job as a secretary if she was not wearing fancy skirts, was permed up to the nines and tolerated extensive pinching. Now a boss who makes a certain type of joke in the company of fellas could find himself in a serious pickle.
“Should their homes and churches be subject to vandalism?”
Obviously neither civil nor non-violent. Are you just skimming through my posts? Are you in a hurry?
“Should the government charge them special taxes? Should their newspapers be stolen and destroyed while law enforcement stands by and does nothing?”
No. I merely remarked that once “sodomites” got lashed in the Queen’s Royal Navy and today a naval captain can’t get away with a homophobic joke or religiously motivated demotions of subordinates. Sometimes society changes for the better.
“All of these things are status quo, of course, but I am interested in which of them you are willing to explicitly endorse in your campaign to appoint yourself and your fellow liberals the Thought Police of the 21st Century.”
I’m not saying christians should be mistreated by default. I’m merely saying that if we live in a society were beauty school pageants and their sponsors think certain views are not kosher then it is good that views like Prejean’s fall in the non-kosher category. She couldn’t have given the thumbs up to communism either.
As for these acts you consider Status Quo (special tax? really? Are you sure you are not just talking about some church that is whining about no longer being tax exempt because it walked out of line?), none of them. Hey, what about the thought policing that results in teenagers not being capable of revealing their loved ones to parents? What about the thought policing that stops human beings from being allowed to enter the hospital rooms where their loved ones are bedridden? What about the thought policing that results in millions of American loving couples being denied the special tax codes or rights to adoptions their peers have been given by the *state*? I know who are responsible for that though policing. No, it’s not your first guess, try again.
This from the commenter who frequently complains about sweeping pejorative interpretations of liberals.
If you read what Prejean actually said, you find that she repeatedly emphasized that her comments were her personal opinion. You will find no sign that she endorsed enforcing them through law. You will also find no sign of the cross-application to the abortion issue that you dragged in here as part of one of your typical efforts to make inflammatory stereotypes about anyone and everyone you disagree with about anything in the world.
Even for you, the honesty meter is hitting a new low, Garland.
Liberals claimed that those who dissented from Bush’s policies faced potential retaliation from employers. Those same liberals have not shown any reciprocal concern about Prejean, and some of them have actively endorsed her being targeted both personally and professionally for her Thought Crime. Your call for “repercussions” against her can be seen as in that genre.
With regards to anti-Prop 8 protesters in California vandalizing Mormon churches, you previously commented that vandalism was “non-violent”. Apparently, you change your principled positions so frequently that even you lose track, Garland.
Sure. But sometimes change “for the better” that is enforced through “repercussions” involves authoritarianism, Garland. I think your attitudes tend in that direction, especially when you start openly and explicitly endorsing limits on free expression and punishments for Thought Crimes.
Actually, endorsements of socialism and just about any left-wing cause is routine at Hollywood events, like the Emmys. No one faces personal or professional retaliation for being too left-wing. Also, in spite of all the liberal paranoia about retaliation during the Bush administration, the regular cast of far-left actors and college professors saw their careers flourish. But only NOW, AFTER they hold the power, do we see the left starting to endorse “repercussions” (your own word). Convenient, that.
And you ARE saying that Christians should get mistreated by default. After all, they hold beliefs you disagree with and, in your own words, that means they should face “repercussions”. Oh, of course, you said that those would be “non-violent” and “civil”, but since you also retain the right to use shifting standards as to what is and is not “non-violent” and “civil”, that’s not much of a protection against the underlying authoritarianism of your position.
There you go, trying to CHANGE THE SUBJECT again, Garland. You really are a cowardly arguer. As soon as a point gets scored against your side, you just try to change the subject.
Pathetic.
The bottom line is that you can’t defend your demand for “repercussions” against everyone who holds political opinions you don’t like. You slipped up and exposed your basically authoritarian and even totalitarian political impulses. And you can’t escape it by trying to shift the subject back to bashing conservatives or bashing me personally. You’re trapped by your own words and I’m not going to let you escape with your usual little bag of tricks.
Until christianity as a whole addresses that strange contradiction, I’ll be extremely wary of people like Prejean and will approve of any non-violent, civil but meaningful repercussions that non-inclusive and political soundbites like hers result in
Of course you will. Its the new way of the left to get their way. Destroy the lives of people who stand in the way of their agenda. This woman is not a politician. Is not running for office. Is not an activist. She is a model who was in a beauty pagent.
The travesty is not this womans Faith. The travesty is that a woman was asked a question and she now has an untold legion of people trying to destroy her life.
FASCIST AMERICA. BE afraid, because you might be next.
“If you read what Prejean actually said, you find that she repeatedly emphasized that her comments were her personal opinion.”
It’s still in a larger context. If we espouse a position in a legal matter it no longer is personal – she just made a statement, and that statement was that gay people don’t get to be married in church based on christianity’s view of them. That didn’t sit well with the zeitgeist.
“You will find no sign that she endorsed enforcing them through law.”
“I think non-left political parties should be banned from America. Why is that so controversial – it’s my personal opinion!” That personal opinion classifier didn’t make what she said anything less than a statement about an essentially legal matter.
“You will also find no sign of the cross-application to the abortion issue that you dragged in here as part of one of your typical efforts to make inflammatory stereotypes about anyone and everyone you disagree with about anything in the world.”
Bringing in the pope and his dictations toward women (or under-aged girls) is perfectly analogous – it’s another example of an arbitrary, mundane and therefore utterly non-credible basis for the application of the supposedly infallible and divinely originated text of the bible. Divorcees can get re-married in church, gays can not. The pope hasn’t bothered to explain that, and that is why I consider it damning and worrying that he holds such authority.
“Liberals claimed that those who dissented from Bush?s policies faced potential retaliation from employers.”
Wasn’t aware of this.
“Those same liberals have not shown any reciprocal concern about Prejean, and some of them have actively endorsed her being targeted both personally and professionally for her Thought Crime.”
I don’t think she should have been followed, if you are worried that I am endorsing such acts. I approve of her being seen as radioactive by a beauty pageant, but no one should actively hassle her. If you show your disapproval calmly but solidly she will not be able to do high-profile work and she will not dictate what gays should and shouldn’t do in the future. A pair of black athletes who dared to do a civil rights salute at the Olympics lost all their sponsorships, but no one hassled them – their sponsors just saw them as radioactive. Society has now changed, for the better. Phelps’ sponsors got in trouble for abandoning him when it appeared he had once smoked marijuana, so the battle continues. Had they left him because he said something homophobic, I would have approved. Case by case.
“With regards to anti-Prop 8 protesters in California vandalizing Mormon churches, you previously commented that vandalism was ?non-violent?”
Never. I may have approved of demonstrations outside the premises, but nothing illegal. Vandalism is intrinsically violent, and illegal.
“But sometimes change ?for the better? that is enforced through ?repercussions? involves authoritarianism, Garland.”
Such as the authoritarian, state-sanctioned measures of denied rights and statuses that millions of gay people suffer from and that all freedom-loving conservatives in America work so hard to stop? Once again – the zeitgeist was once a tool of the prejudiced, self-righteous or bigoted, now it is wielded against them, because society has changed. I don’t approve of anything illegal or violent. If I say something racially prejudiced near a mike, I should expect negative reactions. I wouldn’t (and shouldn’t have to) expect bricks at my window or anything like that. Prejean now decided her faith was a reason to make a statement regarding the legal status of gay people. Not okay.
“Actually, endorsements of socialism and just about any left-wing cause is routine at Hollywood events, like the Emmys.”
Zeitgeist. I guess this loses these celebrities some ticket sales or respect in certain circuits. I don’t think they lose any sleep over that though.
“No one faces personal or professional retaliation for being too left-wing.”
You would if you tried to rise in the ranks of the GOP. Different clubs, different strokes. Eastwood is very much respected, and he was extremely right-wing before.
“Also, in spite of all the liberal paranoia about retaliation during the Bush administration, the regular cast of far-left actors and college professors saw their careers flourish.”
Tell that to the Dixie Chicks.
“But only NOW, AFTER they hold the power, do we see the left starting to endorse ?repercussions? (your own word). Convenient, that.”
Depends on the repercussions and the target. I can approve of getting Fred Phelps boycotted and demonstrated against, but i do think the self-correction in academia has gotten out of hand in other cases. The zeitgeist is fickle and an evidence of a bad side of humanity – that doesn’t mean it can’t be a good factor.
“And you ARE saying that Christians should get mistreated by default. After all, they hold beliefs you disagree with and, in your own words, that means they should face ?repercussions?. Oh, of course, you said that those would be ?non-violent? and ?civil?, but since you also retain the right to use shifting standards as to what is and is not ?non-violent? and ?civil?, that?s not much of a protection against the underlying authoritarianism of your position.”
If they are saying that they can cherry-pick parts from the bible as an argument in political matters, I think they should start feeling unwelcome in certain venues, yes. If we are going to make it unpalatable for employers to employ certain people to high-profile jobs, it should be people who are being unreasonable and divisive. The Dixie Chicks lost out on a few gigs, Prejean couldn’t “win” a beauty pageant – the former did not deserve the repercussions and the latter did, but I can’t say anyone’s rights were being trampled. People voiced displeasure and employers/sponsors followed suit either immediately or later. That happens in all societies – it’s who feel repercussions, which repercussions and why that matters.
“There you go, trying to CHANGE THE SUBJECT again, Garland. You really are a cowardly arguer. As soon as a point gets scored against your side, you just try to change the subject.”
I consider it unavoidable that some people are marginalized for their views and some are not, depending on the context. I can argue who deserved to be marginalized and who were not. Society isn’t perfect, and right now very left-wing professors can get away with some things in academia I don’t approve of. However, I do not think it is unfair that certain views do not have repercussions at the Oscars and some do not – society and its many strata are markets of ideas, and I can’t see why anyone who approves of free markets would complain about Hollywwod insulation and conformity. But I don’t see a side here – when it comes to victims of zeitgeist I think one has to go case by case and reserve approval and disapproval accordingly.
“The bottom line is that you can?t defend your demand for ?repercussions? against everyone who holds political opinions you don?t like.”
Sure I can, there are many legal, reasonable and acceptable ways one can make certain churches think twice before sending money across state borders to have people divorced by plebiscite. Changing the zeitgeist for example.
“You slipped up and exposed your basically authoritarian and even totalitarian political impulses.”
If I have given the impression that I approve of vandalism of homophobic churches I apologize for any misunderstanding. I approve of making said churches as influential or respected as, say, Fred Phelps but I will not have any measures taken against them that I as a member of society would not expect myself if I had a chance to give an impression to society in general. But I will wave my hand dismissively to the notion that I approve of authoritarian or totalitarian impulses – that accusation is best leveled at the party that mostly considers it acceptable to socially engineer millions of Americans towards a “special” status in society while claiming any measures taken against the resulting ostracizing and ignorance towards gays among people to be “indoctrination” or “social engineering”.
“And you can?t escape it by trying to shift the subject back to bashing conservatives or bashing me personally. You?re trapped by your own words and I?m not going to let you escape with your usual little bag of tricks.”
Yeah, and I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn’t for you meddling Managing Directors. I can’t recall saying vandalism was okay but if I have due to lack of clarity or misunderstanding I have to retract. Same thing with changing taxes or stealing newspapers. If I say something racist or get arrested I get to keep my newspaper unmolested. I do not, however, expect to be in the running for a reality show or get to be applicable for all kinds of jobs. Prejean shouldn’t expect that either, even if it was just her “personal opinion”.
“This woman is not a politician. Is not running for office. Is not an activist. She is a model who was in a beauty pagent.”
And she thought she’d give her two cents regarding the lives of others based on her faith, which she wasn’t ready to live up to herself. Apparently that doesn’t fly anymore.
“The travesty is that a woman was asked a question and she now has an untold legion of people trying to destroy her life.”
And he asked him, “What is thy name?” And he answered, saying, “My name is Legion: for we are many.” The Gospel of Luke, Luke 8:30
“FASCIST AMERICA. BE afraid, because you might be next.”
Relax, we’ll just round up the right-wingers and christians and… Educate them a bit. Persuade them to our side.
Relax, we’ll just round up the right-wingers and christians and… Educate them a bit. Persuade them to our side.
This would be funny if its not exactly what the left has in mind. A little moral persuasion as in “We will destroy your lives and careers” because you dont agree with us.
Good Job Garland. I really didn’t think I could actually find someone who would verbally commit to this but it seems you have. It seems you find this behavior acceptable because she chose to steep an answer in her faith.
I can only shake my head and repeat. FASCIST AMERICA. 1984 is a bit late in arriving.
“This would be funny if its not exactly what the left has in mind. ”
Now THIS is funny, though.
“A little moral persuasion as in “We will destroy your lives and careers” because you dont agree with us.”
Gay people have their lives destroyed and altered by the state as decreed by most of the GOP and most of the soc cons. What happened here is that Prejean’s career in beauty pageantry (wow is that an oxymoron) didn’t work out because she couldn’t say what gays can or can’t do when she had an opportunity do so. The state didn’t do anything against her, and no left-winger in congress is attempting to make views like hers illegal. Free speech doesn’t mean “speaking freely without anyone taking offense”.
“It seems you find this behavior acceptable because she chose to steep an answer in her faith.”
I see christians as people. Which is why I don’t think their faith should count for anything when they dabble in politics that have effects on other people’s lives.
The Dixie Chicks picked up far more additional gigs than they lost, I believe. Being political (or left-wing political, at least) is nearly always a winning gig in the entertainment industry. Or is your argument that the entertainment industry was pro-Bush? Either way, I never defended “repercussions” against the Dixie Chicks’ ability to make and sell their music, so I’m consistent here in a way that most liberals definitely are NOT at this point.
But let’s leave aside the hypothetical and deal with a scenario which has been all too real for me lately (unless you are once again prepared to accuse me of lying): Do you, Garland, believe that a blogger who writes a political opinion that a commenter disagrees with should legitimately face the “repercussion” of that commenter sending an email to the blogger’s employer asking that the blogger be fired from their non-blog-world job?
If yes, please be prepared to react to a number of other specific scenarios inquiring as to exactly what degree you believe that people’s employment should depend on their expressed coherence with a preferred political ideology. Please also be prepared to distinguish how your preferred policy in making people’s employment dependent upon their political expression would be any different from the policies of the Soviet Union in that area.
The authoritarian left has quite a history in this area, as a matter of fact. The Vietnamese Communists called them “re-education camps”, the Soviets called it the “gulag” and, of course, the famous Lubyanka “insane asylum” for people who held political beliefs that diverged from the mandatory party line. So Garland is not suggesting something entirely of his own creation, though I doubt he has thought through fully where the road he is on actually leads.
So you argument is that whatever wrongs are committed against gays are now just fine to commit in the other direction?
If so, your principle is nothing more than mere vengeance and has the unpleasant side effect of endorsing the very same standards you object to in the other direction.
If not, your constant attempt to change the subject is just more irrelevance and evasion on your part.
I would say that anyone who was fired or denied advancement based on their political opinions or sexuality was wronged and I would support compensating that person if I were on a jury.
It appears that you would say, Garland, that anyone who was fired or denied advancement based on their sexuality was wronged BUT if they were fired or denied advancement based on their political opinions, that might be ok with you, provided of course that their political opinions were conservative in some way.
See how completely unsustainable your position is, when the fluff and overheated rhetoric is put aside?
Well, no, of course you don’t. But I think others do.
“ither way, I never defended “repercussions” against the Dixie Chicks’ ability to make and sell their music, so I’m consistent here in a way that most liberals definitely are NOT at this point.”
I do, just like I defend Prejean losing out. That’s unavoidable anyway, so I look at each case and wonder what I think is reasonable.
“Do you, Garland, believe that a blogger who writes a political opinion that a commenter disagrees with should legitimately face the “repercussion” of that commenter sending an email to the blogger’s employer asking that the blogger be fired from their non-blog-world job?”
It is in the capacity of the commenter to do so, but I don’t think that form of demand is a good way to put pressure in any case. Of course, a society with free speech is a market of ideas and some ideas can fall out of favor with too many a people. So if one is inclined to make a career in voicing ones opinion, one is more vulnerable to this market. While I consider petitioning via mail to be overly intense and potentially dangerous, I also think it is legitimate to make sponsors or companies be aware of your disapproval when they associate themselves with certain individuals.
It all boils down to context – in your case a venue would be closed to you if you managed to harm the site or something, but individuals demanding this or that would have been disregarded – contributors in magazines or newspapers aren’t fired unless someone manages to boycott the newspaper with the condition that a contributor is fired, and even this is rare. I think demanding for your leave via mail is over the top, but at the same time I think this is a price to be paid in a society with free speech and free markets where customers hold power. All you can do here is defend people from suffering undue or undeserved repercussions in the market. Not all examples of society’s view on certain views or individuals making a person lose out on a job are an example of societal progress, but some are. Your case is not an example of anyone being sensible or taking a good stance in the market/market of ideas.
“The authoritarian left has quite a history in this area, as a matter of fact. The Vietnamese Communists called them “re-education camps”, the Soviets called it the “gulag” and, of course, the famous Lubyanka “insane asylum” for people who held political beliefs that diverged from the mandatory party line.”
Franco. Pinochet. Thatcher making it illegal to mention homosexuality in schools. Should we trade more factoids?
“So Garland is not suggesting something entirely of his own creation, though I doubt he has thought through fully where the road he is on actually leads.”
“Haha, let’s ironically pretend we think Garland isn’t being jocular, that will give him food for though.”
“So you argument is that whatever wrongs are committed against gays are now just fine to commit in the other direction?”
No, just reminding the doomsday oracle that Prejean’s example takes place in the market of ideas were racists and homophobes once succeeded but not anymore, while my case is one of religious prejudice being forced down people’s throats by the state via most of the GOP. That’s actual fascism and totalitarianism, while Prejean is an example of the fluctuating expectations of public speech in society, not anything about thought crimes or some shibboleth like that.
“I would say that anyone who was fired or denied advancement based on their political opinions or sexuality was wronged and I would support compensating that person if I were on a jury.”
So let us make that the law, then. My issue with all of this was that gays have not and still do not enjoy the federal and state-level privileges Prejean has. All or none, in my book.
“It appears that you would say, Garland, that anyone who was fired or denied advancement based on their sexuality was wronged BUT if they were fired or denied advancement based on their political opinions, that might be ok with you, provided of course that their political opinions were conservative in some way.”
See above, I think nothing of the sort – if employees should be protected from being fired due to their lack of synchronization with the general market of ideas, then all should be protected from being fired on an irrelevant basis. This might open up another bundle of worms, but my point of contention was that gays are treated particularly by the state, while Prejean thinks she should be protected from the market of ideas/the zeitgeist.
No, just reminding the doomsday oracle that Prejean’s example takes place in the market of ideas were racists and homophobes once succeeded but not anymore,
So allowing Mr. Hilton and his legions to succeed is counter productive to your agenda. This should fail. Period. The wrong here is what was done to Ms. Prejean and 1 million words of debate will not make what they did to her right.
Ever.
So one idiot gets to define the entire gay population?
I’m not happy with happen to Miss Prejean. But what do you expect? Really?
When are we going to STOP beating down our gay citizens?
If America would have provided Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships at a Federal level, all of this would be a mute point. But, NO, the Christian Extremest had to beat them down until they have no rights. If a gay person can be fired because they are gay, why not allow Christians to be fired because they are Christian? There is no good ending here. Common Ground, and REASON, needs to prevail.
So one idiot gets to define the entire gay population?
Careful he might get your IP address and come after you next.
It’s now being reported that there are topless shots. Which would be more shocking than the photo already released.
And now that makes me hope that she broke the commandment about not lying when she said that she was just 17 when she took them, because she already broke it when she said that there were no other photos. And I think she’ll be done if it turns out that she did underage topless work.
In the end, this is just one more example of people being used by groups or organisations without being properly vetted first.
Prejean announced this week that she will star in a TV ad campaign from the National Organization for Marriage, aimed at convincing voters in states where gay marriage could soon become legal that they should speak out against it. The ads will air in New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and elsewhere.
I was just able to dig this up. This changes the entire equation and while I find offensive what was done to her by this activist she is now entering the ground where I can no longer support her actions.
While I do not oppose gay marriage I found their treatment of this gal offensive and over the top. However now that she is choosing to enter the fray and make it political then she is fair game and so I say to Ms. Prejean “I hope the road you just chose is worth the career risk.”
Doomed. Signing off the Ms. Prejean bandwagon.
Cool Doomed.
So, I just want to make sure it is absolutely clear before I react accordingly — you are advocating FOR commenters trying to get bloggers fired for no other offense than their political disagreements?
Doomed: I’m still unconvinced even some ads are worth affecting her career.
And I also await Garland’s answer to Jason’s last post. Since if his thoughts are indeed representative of the left, it may also affect some job options for myself. I do videography and editing for a living, so I think you can see where this is going.
To put it more plainly: should I avoid even thinking of working at an NBC property because my political views gear more toward the center?
I think political disagreements aren’t enough to actually seek anyone getting fired. A newspaper won’t print everything their contributors offer either out of political slant or fear of loss in circulation and advertising should the text prove controversial. Once the article is printed and released, there can still be an adverse reaction to the entire newspaper with explicit demand of the firing of the contributor, but I can’t imagine this happening when there are editors around. A newspaper in India could write an article in defense of untouchables, and then the editor would be a coward if the reaction of psychotic, self-entitled rage from the higher castes led to him letting the writer of the article be fired – it was the editor’s decision and responsibility, ultimately. No, explicitly demanding for one person’s loss of livelihood is too much. Boycotting a company is another thing, but I have no memory of a boycott being instigated based on the actions or beliefs of any person other than the CEO.
Garland, why do you keep changing the focus of the question to news media professionals who might be held accountable for their expression of political views? That’s obviously not what Jason is asking about- he is describing an attempt that was made to get him fired from his NON-BLOG related job, based on his blogging of opinions which didn’t set well with a reader. Do you really think there should be any discussion whatsover short of condemning that kind of retaliation over political disagreements?
“Garland, why do you keep changing the focus of the question to news media professionals who might be held accountable for their expression of political views? That?s obviously not what Jason is asking about- he is describing an attempt that was made to get him fired from his NON-BLOG related job, based on his blogging of opinions which didn?t set well with a reader. Do you really think there should be any discussion whatsover short of condemning that kind of retaliation over political disagreements?”
Non-blog related job? Now that I wasn’t aware of. Yeah, that is a plain chaotic move on the aggressor’s part. Prejean’s problems are a result of the general environment, but in Jason’s case it seems like a personal vendetta, completely indefensible. You could call Prejean’s predicament a result of bigotry, but then you’d have to apply the label of bigotry to who knows what else.
But at the point that socially-unpopular opinions should have “repercussions”, Garland, where do you draw a clear line between what you are willing to endorse and what you would oppose as a “vendetta”?
It seems to me that if freedom of conscience and freedom of speech (supposedly liberal principles, by the way) are to have any real meaning whatsoever, that people should almost NEVER face “repercussions” other than opposing speech. Once we start leveling actual sanctions (especially with the use of government power, as in college campus speech codes), we are essentially destroying basic rights for no other purpose than preventing a majority from hearing opinions they disagree with.
It’s now being reported that there are topless shots.
Yes, PJ, there are indeed topless photos of that outspoken anti-gay-marriage beauty contest winner frolicking in the surf.
Freedom of speech has never been a left- or right-wing thing.
” if freedom of conscience and freedom of speech are to have any real meaning … people should almost NEVER face “repercussions” other than opposing speech.”
The thing is that that is probably not how society works. You won’t rise in the ranks of a political party if you say this or that even if you fulfill more relevant criteria, because it is up to another person to select you. You can get away with some jokes in a military barracks, especially if there aren’t any female soldiers around. Also, if you make a committed, conscious effort to impose your political program on others, even across state lines, you’ve definitely approved of a certain degree of committed protests leveled against you by those you sought to imposition. It was perfectly legal for the LDS to sponsor Prop 8, and it was equally legal of gay protesters to demonstrate back in response (not vandalize or steal newspapers or anything of the sort) and ask the LDS what their beef was. Demonstrating outside of premises and mentioning the LDS in politically charged terms is definitely serious, but the LDS drew first blood – the aspect of the backlash that was legal was not an escalation, but self-defense (however, I can’t side with any protesters that used consciously escalating or generalizing rhetoric).
Likewise, the fact that Prejean found herself amiss doesn’t seem like the result of active petitioning to have her out of the running – it was merely the pageant holders’ response to the immediately negative reaction to her decision to use her religiously motivated views on the legal rights of others when asked a question. Then it all turned into a “PC-liberal-thought-crime-the-lions-are-entering-the-colloseum” debate with the usual suspects on both sides, and now Prejean has gladly let herself be a spokesperson for a bunch of “our outdated idea of the family first” organizations and things escalate again. I blame the fact that the damned question was asked in the first place.
I’m sorry, but I can’t allow this dishonest characterization of what happened to stand unchallenged. SHE WAS ASKED HER OPINION. HER ONLY CRIME WAS THAT SHE DIDN’T LIE.
And what has happened in reaction goes FAR beyond merely downing her score in the pageant. I have no problem with people writing editorials and blog posts condemning her opinion. I have no problem with protests and even picketing, providing it does not cross the line into vandalism and intimidation. Speech is legitimately countered by speech. But she has been targeted for total personal destruction by a dedicated crew of researchers. This is a price being imposed that is FAR beyond a mere spoken reaction of disagreement to her words. This is being prosecuted not as a debate or a discussion, but as a THOUGHT CRIME — an Orwellian concept with extremely dangerous implications for the future, especially as the government claims more and more leverage over individual lives.
I have total confidence that if the partisan tables were reversed, this “politics of personal destruction” would be condemned by liberals. How do I have total confidence? Because condemnation was EXACTLY their reaction to the Clinton impeachment. The term “politics of personal destruction” was coined by Bill Clinton.
But now liberals try to find ways to endorse what they once complained about. And I call “hypocrite” on that.
P.S. I notice you completely evaded my question by changing the subject again. Just didn’t want you to think you got away with it without being noticed.
P.P.S. Unfortunately, your claim that “free speech is not a left or right issue” is just not true any more. Free speech is under concerted attack from the left on college campuses all across America for over a decade now. The liberal movement that was born as the “free speech movement” at Berkeley in the 1960s has completely betrayed its supposed principles and become the very image of that it once protested. And the refusal of most liberals to face up to that problem with intellectually honesty makes them individual complicit as far as I am concerned. That is definitely the standard they would apply to conservatives (e.g. your frequent tainting of all conservatives with the Coulter brush), so they have to live with reciprocity.
Jason;
I do appreciate your patience and perseverance but you can’t get blood from a turnip.
Here’s one Christian’s present take on the Prejean affair. First the aftermath. I expected photos to be found and other dirt to be found. Haven’t we had enough examples of beauty queens who later are embarrassed by previous activities to guess that many have done such things in the past. Certainly the idea of a woman parading in scanty clothes is “at the edge” of biblically-supported/biblically condemned behavior. There has been, in fact, discussion in the “Christian blogosphere” about her questionable behavior. Having said that, I was not at all surprised that certain conservative Christian groups latched onto her as the new cause celebre. (Didn’t we go through this with Joe the Plumber).
But what is surprising and at the core of this controversy is that someone was asked publically how she viewed gay marriage. That person answered what they believed a marriage was between a man and a women (explaining that was how she was raised) but also expresses that that is only her view and that other disagree with her. And for that answer she received much public retribution. Frankly, I would feel the same way if she had said nothing about any religious background and made the same statement. I would have been happy if Mr. Hilton had stated he was upset and disturbed at her comments and left it at that. He did not. He called her a “stupid b**ch” and proceeded from there.
I would hope those on both sides of the gay marriage debate would agree that this would/should be no different than if she stated “I have a sister who is gay and is in a stong committed relationship and I support her” and the conservative judge went on his website and called her a “sinful harlot going to hell” and then proceeded to encourage other dirt be found.
But according to Garland,I guess I don’t understand the Zietgest
Only people that throw around pretentious and self-reifying terms like “Zeitgeist” can ever really have enough arrogance to claim to speak for it.
All it is underneath is a naturalistic fallacy — the claim that because the self-righteous mob believes something, it must therefore be valid social truth. Liberals used to object to things like that and used to seek to protect minorities against mob action. Now they are the mob.
I can absolutely guarantee that the reaction would not have been the same, either from Garland or from the rest of the liberal and faux moderate blogosphere. The double standards in play are particularly blatant here. But have you noticed that every single time anyone tries to point that out, Garland (or someone like him) immediately changes the subject?
“I’m sorry, but I can’t allow this dishonest characterization of what happened to stand unchallenged. SHE WAS ASKED HER OPINION. HER ONLY CRIME WAS THAT SHE DIDN’T LIE.”
And her opinion is philosophically untenable. A system of beliefs that you really don’t expect anyone to uphold in the fullest, yet you seek to use it to make decisions and endorse a political position in an issue that will affect the lives of others? Why does the US have a jury of peers? Because you should be judged and subjected to loss of freedom by people who share your mundane situation. Prejean saw fit to tell gay people what they can’t do based on a biblical notion of homosexuals and marriage that apparently takes precedence over the basic matter of equality. If the bible was indeed seen as an impeccable ruler of all society she wouldn’t even participate in a beauty pageant. That is not “conservative” or a “thought crime” – that is plain nightmarish. It can’t go unchallenged either. The question shouldn’t have been asked. The answer was unfortunate and didn’t meet the expectations of the situation and the people involved. We are a species that treat people differently depending on their explicit views and positions. Seeing as her position is essentially untenable, self-righteous, divisive and hypocritical, I see this as a case where a person was -at first- slighted in the right way (once, in the context of her explicit position-taking) for the right reason. I still consider it a sign of respect of christianity in general that the irrational and self-righteous implications of her utterance were not excused by their religious origin.
” But she has been targeted for total personal destruction by a dedicated crew of researchers.”
Yes, the images are uncalled for, as is the focusing of attention on her. She made her views explicit once, that doesn’t make her a threat to anyone or a committed pursuer of a certain policy. Further scrutiny has troubling implications for all, not just Prejean. Now, however, she has decided to take the opportunity to become a spokesperson for her cherry-picked idea of faith. One could say that it wasn’t she that took things to a larger level of politics, and I think one would be right.
“P.S. I notice you completely evaded my question by changing the subject again. Just didn’t want you to think you got away with it without being noticed.”
Wanted to illustrate the notion of quid pro quo in the social sphere with an issue that is dear to me. Notice away.
“I would hope those on both sides of the gay marriage debate would agree that this would/should be no different than if she stated “I have a sister who is gay and is in a stong committed relationship and I support her” and the conservative judge went on his website and called her a “sinful harlot going to hell” and then proceeded to encourage other dirt be found.”
I distinguish between religiously motivated views and non-religiously motivated views. Seeing as the former leads to shaping society based on what you can not possibly know, I think it is dangerous and self-righteous to mix religion and politics. Gay humans are provenly real and that has serious metaphysical implications. What one believes they can do based on a supposedly holy text (that no one lives up to to its fullest) is irrelevant. Prejean’s position is not the problem – it’s the very dangerous notion that a world we can not possibly prove exists should have sway over the world we actually have to live in that is the problem. And yes, Hilton should have made verbal his understandable ire in another way.
Humans should govern themselves and others based on axiomatic morality first and empirical experience second. If the decision-making Prejean espouses actually made sense then I could hypothetically start my own religion were I get to have all the money, and endorse that people vote for such a result, while not losing any credibility or suffering any repercussions in any context. I wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell, but should the success and spread of a religion really decide whether it is rational to shape ones political and legal surroundings according to it?
“Only people that throw around pretentious and self-reifying terms like “Zeitgeist” can ever really have enough arrogance to claim to speak for it.”
It’s not a reification for anything – it is an inescapable part of human interaction, and so we have to consider it case by case. Hilton was wrong to use uncivil language, and Prejean being out of the running in the beauty contest should have been the end of it for all involved.
“All it is underneath is a naturalistic fallacy — the claim that because the self-righteous mob believes something, it must therefore be valid social truth.”
The “mob” will always believe something, and what it believes (and when, where, how and why) is a sign of the times and the state of society. In this case it believed the right thing, but then the matter became an issue, blogs got involved and now we have another spokesperson against recognizing legitimate expressions of love.
And the entire question was irrelevant to a beauty contest. The question never should have been asked in the first place. Prejean had no reasonable expectation that she would be asked about her opinion on gay marriage and she was given no notice that there was a right and a wrong answer to the question and no similar political trap was laid for the other contestants. No matter how much you try to spin, cover up, inflame, change the subject, etc, Garland, this was a purely unethical ambush that you would be objected to in a heartbeat if the partisan tables were reversed.
Sure. But the problem with you is that you endorse the mob when it suits you but object to mob tactics when it doesn’t. That is hypocrisy by any definition.
“Prejean had no reasonable expectation that she would be asked about her opinion on gay marriage and she was given no notice that there was a right and a wrong answer to the question and no similar political trap was laid for the other contestants.”
No one knows whether the concept of right and wrong even went into the reasoning for having the question in the first place.
“No matter how much you try to spin, cover up, inflame, change the subject, etc, Garland, this was a purely unethical ambush that you would be objected to in a heartbeat if the partisan tables were reversed.”
Yes, because I believe I can judge when a person is the receiver of due or undue reactions/repercussions for what s/he has said. Here, Prejean was at fault, but the sponsors’/pageant holders’ decision to not consider her a candidate for a winner should have been the end of it – they don’t want to be associated with her. The sponsors behind the beauty pageant can be boycotted in return by those who feel Prejean’s example is an attack on them. I would not think the boycott was good. I think it is right to boycott a corporation for one reason, and wrong to boycott a corporation for some other reason – if boycotts have to take place to begin with, and I believe that is a given in human society. This was not a partisan table to reverse, it is a philosophical one. In the future, another case of repercussions leveled at a person will be discussed with respect to the context. These things will happen and the parameters can vary immensely.
“But the problem with you is that you endorse the mob when it suits you but object to mob tactics when it doesn’t.”
Mob tactics/repercussions/hijinks – these things will happen and not all of them will be warranted. One has to argue for which repercussions are acceptable or not. It is acceptable to not want Prejean to be the most prominent face following a pageant you’ve organized. Scanning the internet for photos of her after the fact in order to “incriminate” her probably says more about the investigator than the subject of investigation.
This entire debate can be summed up in a few words.
The USA is rapidly becoming a secular humanist nation. God is dead. man is god.
No conscience is a good thing. No conscience means we can do what we please without repercussions.
It is the Secular humanists intent to destroy Christianity within the borders of this nation because it offends them.
The war has been raging for 2000 years. Nothing is changed. These attacks are to be expected. They have unrelented for 2 millenia. No thought at stopping them now.
Yeah, thanks for making everything clear, well-represented and nuanced for us.
Now Doomed, take another look and I think you will see that the “Christians” are destroying Christianity.
Christians look insensitive and hypocritical. Why?
Take our new soft-porno queen, Miss Prejean; her religious convictions guided the now famous answer, but where were those convictions when she lied to the pageant officials about her naughty pictures? Oh, wait, SHE wanted the crown. Oops.
People can’t talk out of both sides of their mouth and be authentic.
The Christian Extremest insist on vilifying gay folks in a non-stop drum beat, year after year.
The Christian Extremest are simply intolerant of gay people. If it was really a religious-marriage issue, no church would allow marriages after the first one.
Two, three, four marriages would not be tolerated. But then again, they would find the Church empty (and without money). So today, it’s “okay” to marry as many people as you want, one at a time, unless you are gay.
They constantly play the victim card, when they are more than happy that a gay person can be fired, just for being gay. Or denied housing. Or denied basic civil rights.
The issue has nothing to do with Christianity or marriage, so let’s not pretend.
It’s simple hate. That hate, will in fact, destroy Christianity.
There is no reason to think that the destruction of Christianity will be the results of others. It very well could be done with their own arrogance. They seem pretty far down that road to me.
“Take our new soft-porno queen, Miss Prejean; her religious convictions guided the now famous answer, but where were those convictions when she lied to the pageant officials about her naughty pictures? Oh, wait, SHE wanted the crown.”
Did she actually lie in order to enter? Also, I don’t think you have to make her out as a soft-porn anything – it doesn’t help anyone to somehow use that aspect of her life in a mocking manner. It makes her a hypocrite, but it’s nothing to hold against her in general.
“They constantly play the victim card, when they are more than happy that a gay person can be fired, just for being gay. Or denied housing. Or denied basic civil rights.”
Well, yes, but I don’t think Prejean is sinister enough to be an extremist. She is being religious in a pretty clueless way, it would seem, but I don’t think she can be associated with the hypocritical strain of christians who call for marginalization of gay people and then scream about oppression and a war on (their selective application of) christianity when people start to react adversely.
“There is no reason to think that the destruction of Christianity will be the results of others. It very well could be done with their own arrogance. They seem pretty far down that road to me.”
Be careful – it could seem to a person that you are no longer talking about the provenly paranoid and self-indulgent christian extremists but rather about christians in general, which I most definitely hope you are not implying.
Garland — you are correct, I am not talking about your run of the mill Christians. I’m referring to James Dobson that bunch.
“I think it is dangerous and self-righteous to mix religion and politics.”
I mean how dare Martin Luther King suggest that in God’s eyes all men are created equal.
How dare Mother Theresa chose to live her life following Jesus’s call to love the unlovable, to “do unto the least of these”
How could John Brown suggest that slavery if wrong and ungodly (We won’t talk about William Wilberforce and the terrible injustice he imposed on England).
Here’s an outrageous example of the dangerous self-righteous mix of religion and politics:
“We do what we do because God is with us. When Moses was first called to lead people to the promised land he said ‘I don’t think I can do it Lord, I don’t feel brave and courageous’”
How dare our President use such words.
(http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2008-01-21_obama_faith_2.jpg)
“I mean how dare Martin Luther King suggest that in God’s eyes all men are created equal.”
If that argument has to be used, then something is sprained in the world. I derive the worth of my fellow man from my own need for self-preservation. Empathy in all cases is perfectly possible to be derived from one’s own existence. God may have been available to King as an important factor in his important political struggle. God also slew millions in the course of the bible and has been exploited by people who prioritize the happiness and societal worth of gay people *below* their own capacity to shape society according to their beliefs. The bible is a fickle factor in society – I am ready to accept a King who has to fight without the religious aspect of his campaign if that means that homosexualiyt becomes a completely irrelevant and integrated fact in society.
“How dare Mother Theresa chose to live her life following Jesus’s call to love the unlovable, to “do unto the least of these”
Mother Theresa? That sweet old girl who converted the dying to catholicism and left people to die in agony because “Christ loves suffering”? Yeah, no.
All the sweet things your religious figures have said have already been said by philosophers, and their work is strong, lasting and axiomatic while being independent from a book that contains dangerous and archaic decrees for man. The bible is a tainted fount of ideas and values. It cannot protect us from nihilism and the challenges our imperfectly evolved inner nature pose. Humanity deserves better.
Secularly Humanist where man depends upon man without thought or concern for those who depend upon Christ and in fact find it necessary to marginalize their faith in order to achieve your agendas.
I do not want any citizen to have their rights trampled upon. Christians have failed many times in the course of human history in divining the true will of God.
God does not butcher man. Man does. God has said that my kingdom is NOT of this world yet man has made this world the defacto kingdom of God. When and if Religions who follow God realize that God only says render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render to God that which is Gods then we will all be better off.
It is the right of Christians to make their feelings known but I believe that it is not what God wills for them to tear down and destroy another human or group of humans “In the name of God.”
So when you point to people like James Dobson you do not point to the mainstream Christians. When a rally is held 250 million Christians in this nation do not march in the streets opposing Gay marriage. When these same people Who do NOT march in the streets are asked at the privacy of the polling station if Gay Marriage should be allowed….they vote with their constitutional rights…..NO.
Do not blame Christianity. Blame America because it gave us the right to exercise our opinion in Private. Ms. Prejean shows us what happens if we all had to walk up on a stage and vote in the open.
“Secularly Humanist where man depends upon man without thought or concern for those who depend upon Christ and in fact find it necessary to marginalize their faith in order to achieve your agendas.”
Our agenda has the strict explicit goal of being designed according to the world. Our agenda stems and can be logically derived from the consciousness within all of us. Our agenda is therefore intrinsically dependent on truth and love of thinking well. A religious agenda presumes and proselytizes in order to survive, and has to make the real empirical world submitted to a higher order that is by definition impossible to ascertain and empirically experience. A religious, non-secular agenda is by definition incompatible with the real world, by definition false in its assessment of mankind and by definition exclusive – it requires submission to teaching (or indoctrination) from a source not available to everyone rather than the hard work actual philosophy involves. Humanism can err. Religion is intrinsically erroneous.
“I do not want any citizen to have their rights trampled upon. Christians have failed many times in the course of human history in divining the true will of God.”
Yet the christianity of the past (and a significant part of christianity today) is responsible for making the average gay person who outs himself outside of his own havens and circuits subject to more heckling and prejudice than Prejean has experienced. If there is a true will of god, humanity cannot possibly divine it anyway. The horrors of the inquisition are no more incompatible with the bible than the bravery of MLK. The bible is a man-made text that threatens those who treat it as such with hellfire, cheating skepticism and the scrutiny we normally subject any man-made theory to. Religion is nothing but ideology that has taken a shortcut.
“God does not butcher man. Man does.”
Tell that to the first-borns in Egypt or the innocent in Gehenna. The savagery of past christian kingdoms and institutions simply read from the same book that MLK saw differently. It is christianity’s context that made impossible the excesses of the inquisition and the witch-hunts – christianity itself would not have evolved left only to its own devices. If it weren’t for the demands and limitations of the mundane world christianity would not have been the mostly harmless force it is today.
“When and if Religions who follow God realize that God only says render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render to God that which is Gods then we will all be better off.”
Yet christianity today has not even matured to the point where the pope can explain why divorcees may marry in god’s house while homosexuals may not. Yet catholicism can not explain why women may not join the ranks of the vatican’s far-reaching institutions. Yet christinaity does not make it a divine mission to ease the pain and otherness of gays and transvestites worldwide while gladly posing christians of different ethnicities together, using MLK as an example of the intrinsic power and goodness of christian faith. I can see through all this abject hypocrisy and petty, self-righteous cherry-picking from the supposedly impeccable book, and I rely solely on my own mind and thought. All the complexity and obfuscation in religion falls apart in front of the eyes of a beginner in elementary epistemology.
“When these same people Who do NOT march in the streets are asked at the privacy of the polling station if Gay Marriage should be allowed….they vote with their constitutional rights…..NO.”
As long as divorcees and other sinners are allowed to marry in church, this right should not be extended to christians, or anyone for that matter.
Yet christianity today has not even matured to the point where the pope can explain why divorcees may marry in god’s house while homosexuals may not. Yet catholicism can not explain why women may not join the ranks of the vatican’s far-reaching institutions.
All of these things have been given ample explanation. Whether or not you agree with the explanation is your own choice, but your claims are either blatant lies or based on ignorance of Catholic theology. If you’d like to educate yourself, I’ll refer you to some sources.
“but your claims are either blatant lies or based on ignorance of Catholic theology. If you’d like to educate yourself, I’ll refer you to some sources.”
I’m not interested in educating myself on this subject, but I’ll gladly be corrected regarding the catholic view of women’s participation in the many different posts and offices. As for the explanations of what parts of the bible can be used to dictate who gets married to whom, I’m honestly not interested and will gladly be called ignorant for it. To me the bible is all or nothing – if you aren’t ready to consider every word divine truth then none of the words can be considered divine truth. I appreciate the extensive work christian scholars have done to detail and assess the evolution of the bible, but I still must consider the book itself to be a poisoned fount.
Ah. The signature line of prejudice.
I’m not interested in educating myself on this subject
OK, that’s your prerogative- but thanks for clarifying for readers exactly how much weight to put on your discussions of the topic- zippo.
All I was saying was that I wasn’t interested in being given links to a larger corpus of knowledge regarding the issue, but I was willing to have CStanley make clear where I was being misinformed/ignorant of that of which I spoke. That is, I’m only interested in being corrected on the errors I made regarding the choices for women in the ranks of catholic institutions – I don’t want to pursue further. If that is prejudiced or makes my words redundant, so be it. As for how catholicism/some other denomination can explain how only parts of the bible are usable for christians (gays can’t marry in church) but some are not (men with long hair and previously divorced heterosexuals are hunky-dory), I’d like to see that explained in the same sense that I would like to see someone trying to turn a sphere inside out.
All I am saying is that if a conservative ever said that they had no interested in being educated on an issue relevant to their condemnation of another group, they would be immediately and loudly condemned for bigotry.
But apparently, when a liberal is hostile towards a group (like your frequently hostile and pejorative comments indicate that you are towards Christians), that requires a more charitable standard (at least in the opinion of other liberals). Because everyone knows that liberals could never be bigoted about Christians and, even if they were, that Christians deserve it.
Garland, Catholic theology has a very detailed understanding of gender roles, so without a willingness to understand any particular teaching in that context, I can’t explain to you where you are misunderstanding the details. I imagine that if you did take the time to read it, you’d come away basically feeling that the separate roles of men and women in the Church amount to a ’separate but equal’ argument, which you’d most likely reject. And again, that’s your prerogative. But it’s still not OK to claim that there is no thought behind it, while also admitting that you can’t be bothered to read what certainly has been thought out and written to explain the topic.
Same with the relative literalness of Scripture. If you really did respect the scholars who’ve studied the Bible, you’d know for instance that Jewish writers almost always used certain forms of allegory (this is illustrated, for instance, in the two different and conflicting versions of the creation story that appear in Genesis, as each version explains the story in a different metaphorical way.) Since the Bible pretty much opens with this style, it’s not unusual to take the idea then that literalness was not intended (since it’s clearly not possible for the creation to have happened in two different, conflicting orders.)
So, Catholic theology looks at the greater truth of the text when taken in its entirety, and that’s how individual passages are interpreted (in light of the broader ideas presented, not each passage taken out of context.)
“All I am saying is that if a conservative ever said that they had no interested in being educated on an issue relevant to their condemnation of another group, they would be immediately and loudly condemned for bigotry.”
What I gathered CStanley was only quoting what she felt was a result of ignorance. I have no problem being corrected, but unless someone explains to me why I am wrong I can’t assume I am – otherwise I wouldn’t have written it. I may have spoken out of line regarding women in catholicism – then by all means I may be corrected. If she objects to anything else on the grounds that I haven’t done my homework, then she has to show how I haven’t done my homework. I can say that religion is inherently erroneous and dangerous without being a theological scholar.
I still haven’t heard a single explanation for how the bible can be impeccable and true in some of its text and outdated in others, how it can be considered a better inspiration for humankind than actual philosophy when it is riddled with decrees all its believers consider archaic and impossible to live by. Therefore I say that christianity and catholicism has not supplied a coherent answer to this day. I’m not saying that all christians are contaminated with the inarguably obsolete and violent sentences of the bible – far from it – but invariably those sentences are still there and are transitively given more credibility when the book itself is called god’s word or the more humane and graceful parts of the bible are given such import and trust.
“I imagine that if you did take the time to read it, you’d come away basically feeling that the separate roles of men and women in the Church amount to a ’separate but equal’ argument, which you’d most likely reject. ”
Yes, because basic logic shows that men and women are constructed concepts that no philosophical system can credibly base anything on. There are only human males and females, and I am not interested in any discussion of gender roles no matter how exhaustive it is. “Separate but equal roles” is obvious crock, and the situation for women in catholic parts of South America is an example of how assigning a supposed metaphysical equality to a role doesn’t make the role any less constricting and a cornerstone of inequality in every sense of the word. Either women can become the pope or they aren’t actually equal in the empirical world.
“So, Catholic theology looks at the greater truth of the text when taken in its entirety, and that’s how individual passages are interpreted (in light of the broader ideas presented, not each passage taken out of context.)”
As much as the painstaking work has been done, the contradictions and the possibility of the more extreme passages taking hold will always remain. This is why the idea of the divine and religious must be discredited and considered inherently problematic considering the unyielding carnal, dangerous and strictly empirical nature of the universe. I hear plenty about the power of the spiritual and unexplained, even from avowed atheists, but this still doesn’t hide the fact that if something can’t be understood, then it doesn’t exist but is simply imagined. If there isn’t a possibility of an answer, it’s not even a question.
This is, of course, a much easier statement to stand with when one has already announced in advance that one is uninterested in listening to the various alternative answers or criticisms of the question.
And none of your deeply-felt grievances against Christians and Christianity change the fact that you are once again using a self-serving double standard.
“This is, of course, a much easier statement to stand with when one has already announced in advance that one is uninterested in listening to the various alternative answers or criticisms of the question.”
I said I wasn’t interested in pursuing an investigation at some URL as to why women can’t hold certain positions in catholicism but would rather be corrected with direct information. Of course, CStanley later explained that gender roles in catholicism are seen as separate but equal, which is of course as credible as the adage from “Animal Farm”. I said explicitly that I wasn’t interested in “educating *myself*” but would rather be educated. The idea that there is a credible explanation as to why one set of “immoral” people can marry but another set can not is ludicrous. The bible may have been written in stages, but there it is today, all the text bound in the same corporeal jacket (that also functions as a delineation between the mundane and the divine origin of the text), and with some parts viable for guidance of life and society and some apparently not being viable. That doesn’t compute over here.
“This is why the idea of the divine and religious must be discredited ”
I seem to recall an earlier discussion regarding militant atheism.
I’m beginning the think that Garland had more of a problem with Ms. Prejean’s allusions to her Christian faith than her personal feelings about gay marriage.
“I seem to recall an earlier discussion regarding militant atheism.”
Putting “militant” in front of words is about as inane as it gets. It is rarely used with any consideration for what words actually mean.
“I’m beginning the think that Garland had more of a problem with Ms. Prejean’s allusions to her Christian faith than her personal feelings about gay marriage.”
I explicitly said that I intensely disapproved of her having and then espousing a position to a real-world issue, with consequences for people and their situation in society, based on a faith that she and any other of her fellow believers can’t even live up to. Real-world problems approached with a philosophical and moral system that claims truth but ultimately hinges on that which cannot even be included in the set “everything” – that has to be discredited. I do have a problem with religious faith (it’s actually the other way around in the longer run – my hostility to religion amounts to self-defense), so you can stop insinuating that I do, as if that was something extreme that I was trying to conceal. Regarding her position on gay marriage I am more serious in my desire to discredit.
Based on what he has said calling for “repercussions” against anyone that disagrees with him on any issue he finds important and other anti-free-speech positions he has taken, I would conclude that Garland pretty much has a problem whenever anyone is allowed to express publicly an opinion that disagrees with his proclamations of Required Thought. Garland is providing a very useful showcase of the current state of latent authoritarianism that rules the so-called “new left” and has resulted in things like speech codes on college campuses and other efforts to declare dissent from liberal orthodoxy illegal or at least subject to punishment, either by the government or the mob, whichever is most convenient at the moment of induglence.
But of course, we’re only allowed to talk about authoritarianism and other sins from Republicans. Discussing the flaws of Democrats and liberals is a Thought Crime.
“Based on what he has said calling for “repercussions” against anyone that disagrees with him on any issue he finds important and other anti-free-speech positions he has taken, I would conclude that Garland pretty much has a problem whenever anyone is allowed to express publicly an opinion that disagrees with his proclamations of Required Thought.”
A sentence as truthful as it is short. Quotation marks aren’t necessary. I’ve already defined these repercussions and related issues, how these repercussions are part of society and when they are fair. You can well bring up these examples of taking anti-free-speech positions now that you have made the accusation – I wish to defend myself or retract accordingly. I have a problem with opinions that are stupid, irrational or immoral – and I will decide for myself what is immoral, irrational or stupid even if it is seen as vehement or arrogant – but the fact that people are allowed to have them is not a problem to me. Fighting back against thoroughly false or malignant speech isn’t the same as fighting back against the speech itself. It’s merely a way of using my freedom to shape society so that no one *wants* to spread false or malignant speech. The market of ideas is malleable.
“Garland is providing a very useful showcase of the current state of latent authoritarianism that rules the so-called “new left””
I’m providing nothing that could fit in your theorizing. Just because I don’t play according to your rules doesn’t make me an authoritarian, and I have no affiliation with any political entity/movement other than myself as an individual. I reject speech codes on campus unless they very strictly and curtly limits certain hateful or inflammatory verbiage or imagery – speech codes should only serve to silence those who would tear apart the basic premises of any social/academic environment.
“other efforts to declare dissent from liberal orthodoxy illegal or at least subject to punishment, either by the government or the mob, whichever is most convenient at the moment of induglence.”
Which I don’t support either. I merely like the idea of living in a society where a politician is immediately devoid of credibility if he or she has undeniably stupid or irrational conceptions. That can be accomplished without resorting to legal or violent limitations to speech. It can be accomplished by making the market/culture of ideas hostile to stupid, thoughtless, sociopathic and irrational opinions and ambitions. Some opinions will always be grounds for repercussions in any society, but the sieve can be modeled better.
“But of course, we’re only allowed to talk about authoritarianism and other sins from Republicans.”
It might be wise to do so considering the fact that war crimes – cheered on by the usual ring of puppies protecting their “alpha” – might have happened in the last administration, but I am willing to investigate the problem of speech codes as well while we are at it.
“Discussing the flaws of Democrats and liberals is a Thought Crime.”
Said discussing isn’t always linked with a mental process that could be described as “thought”, but this blog is certainly capable of discussing said flaws in an intelligent way.
Actually, no. Your clarifications were vague and, at the point you endorsed whatever the mob might want (as long as you agree with it), your clarifications were also meaningless and unreliable because the limitations on action vary according to the ideology that motivates them.
Yes. And once you have decided, you declare debate over and you blindly endorse any mob action that might agree with your decision, even if it has the effect of punishing the speech of people who disagree with you. And that is authoritarian at its core.
Since you declare that anything you disagree with is, by definition, hateful and inflammatory, the limitations on repression that you claim to hold are not in fact limitations at all.
And off you go trying to change the subject again. Pathetic as it was predictable.
And, of course, the obligatory personal insult — anyone that disagrees with you is automatically stupid.
“Your clarifications were vague and, at the point you endorsed whatever the mob might want (as long as you agree with it), your clarifications were also meaningless.”
I said that “the mob” should only respond with the same commitment that the offending entity in question had in its actions against “the mob’s” interests. Say something once at a farcical contest – lose out in the contest and that’s that. Make a political, organized effort against the interests of a group, see yourself facing a political organized effort. However, “the mob” must be subject to an irrational attack and not step down to the offending entity’s level etc. It depends case by case – I am willing to say there are times when I will support “the mob” and times when I will not, but that beyond a few basic guidelines I am not willing to say anything until I can look at the case and its context.
“And once you have decided, you declare debate over and you blindly endorse any mob action that might agree with your decision, even if it has the effect of punishing the speech of people who disagree with you.”
If the slight or injury inflicted by the speech is minor and off-hand, the response should be reciprocal and never illegal. Skinheads can’t get employed everywhere, people who got arrested setting Minks free have some doors closed for them – why should hypocritical christians get away with using their faith as a basis for what others can legally do just because they were asked and they were honest? Speech is always punished somehow – sincerely homophobic jokes gets you reproachful looks (but no unwarranted or committed repercussions) in my previous school (I never heard a single one), and that was good for all involved. Another important factor in society and how it chooses to make certain speech/ideation inappropriate/unattractive is the idea of proportionality (in the same sense that security personnel must respond appropriately to a threating situation). Digging up the photos was not proportional.
“Since you declare that anything you disagree with is, by definition, hateful and inflammatory, the limitations on repression that you claim to hold are not in fact limitations at all.”
Prejean wasn’t hateful, just arrogant and naive in her deference to her faith. It was inflammatory in a philosophical perspective and was essentially a declaration of irrelevance of gay people’s equality weighed against a “higher level of consciousness” but the response was in kind to the context. She should still be able to make her opinion explicit because she wasn’t saying anything that really deteriorates the fabric of society, but the opinion is still political, stupid and self-satisfied enough to be discredited and subject to appropriate repercussions/punishments/whateveeerrrrr.
Thank you for proving my point. The ONLY necessary condition for something to be declared “inflammatory” and therefore legitimately eligible for censorship and punishment in your view is that you disagree with it. That is exactly the same method used by the enforcers of very broad speech codes on college campuses. They say that they are only trying to limit speech that is “hateful” or “inflammatory”, but surprise-surprise it just happens that every single political view that they disagree with winds up getting classified as “hateful” or “inflammatory” in some way.
Your method of interpreting what is and is not subject to “repercussions” is exactly the same as that used in Maoist China during the “Great Leap Forward”, by the way. We have seen where your preferred path leads — insane asylums for political dissenters who deviate from Required Thought with their “inflammatory” opinions. Don’t expect me to back down from pointing it out as long as you stay on the path to ruin that so many idealists before you have trod with exactly the same self-righteous certainty in their own moral and intellectual superiority that you embrace.
Prejean may have been naive, but you’re doing no better than she did. Your presumption of moral and intellectual superiority isn’t based on much more than just your blind faith in liberal dogma that matches her blind faith in Biblical dogma. As least Christians admit that their faith lies outside of the empirically provable. Your delusions of intellectual grandeur arguably make you even worse off, especially in light of your ignorance about the fate of people and societies that have previously walked the authoritarian path you have set yourself upon.
It is worth remembering that all totalitarian movements have featured noble rhetoric about honor, equality, and dignity. The fact that you claim to hold to noble principles about gay rights or other important human rights does not validate the intolerant, abusive, and repressive methods you are endorsing. Liberals’ words almost always feature paeans of fealty to exalted principles of tolerance and diversity. But unfortunately, their actual political behavior seems often to directly oppose those principles. Your comments repeatedly display that fatal flaw.
Garland;
I hate to say this but the more I read of your responses the scarier it gets.
And how appropriate that the captcha words for this comment are “Crusades” and “Pavlov”
“The ONLY necessary condition for something to be declared “inflammatory” and therefore legitimately eligible for censorship and punishment in your view is that you disagree with it.”
There you come with that “censorship” again, a word I have not uttered or implied. Telling people to stop being damnably stupid isn’t censorship – they’re still allowed to come back and say the same stupid thing but they may not be so inclined if one reacts properly. As long as I make a good case for what I consider inflammatory and disagreeable, why can’t I argue for a well-argued and measured negative reaction to some speech?
“That is exactly the same method used by the enforcers of very broad speech codes on college campuses.”
Then they are apparently doing a worse job than I would. Limiting some speech on one’s premises is arguably OK, but it takes fingerspitzgefühl and awareness.
“They say that they are only trying to limit speech that is “hateful” or “inflammatory”, but surprise-surprise it just happens that every single political view that they disagree with winds up getting classified as “hateful” or “inflammatory” in some way.”
They could be so enlightened that this could actually be the case, of course, but it isn’t. There should be more strictness and stringency as to who can limit what speech and why. The sieve/zeitgeist/yaaaawwwwn will always be a necessity, the matter at hand is to figure out when it should be wielded, who can wield it and in which circumstances.
“Your method of interpreting what is and is not subject to “repercussions” is exactly the same as that used in Maoist China during the “Great Leap Forward”, by the way.”
A cop who appropriately detains a person could think along the same lines as a cop who is found guilty of excessive violence. Just because Lmao had the same ruler as me doesn’t mean I will stab people with it like him. The sieve will always be a presence in society and while its use is arbitrary we can do it with rigorous care in design and application.
“We have seen where your preferred path leads — insane asylums for political dissenters who deviate from Required Thought with their “inflammatory” opinions. ”
We share roads and sliding scales with some pretty horrible people. Doesn’t mean we will graze their shoulders as long as we start using our brains for once.
“Don’t expect me to back down from pointing it out as long as you stay on the path to ruin that so many idealists before you have trod with exactly the same self-righteous certainty in their own moral and intellectual superiority that you embrace.”
You’re pointing out humanity here. My desire to actively figure out which opinions are moronic and then spread the notion that they should be subject to ridicule and discrediting when they pop up isn’t idealistic – it’s an intellectual affair. There cannot be a perfect decision outside of moral conundrums, and so while there is no human that can dictate perfectly which speech should be lauded and which should be lambasted, there is a possibility to attain a superior capacity of judging in such matters. Think of the entire corpus of information in a society as a great body of water. We all spread pigments around us. The prospect of halting the spread of a certain pigment or discouraging its addition to the water is difficult but should be pursued with more and more certainty the further one has scrutinized and criticized oneself to the point where one can call oneself morally and intellectually superior.
Since philosophy is pure criticism, that’s how you go about figuring out which anti-pigments to spread and if you are fit to spread them. I argue that I can be safe in the knowledge that combating the pigment of racism is good, the same for the pigment of bullying tendencies or that of self-serving and inconsistent application of a book that is given importance because it is a supposedly impeccable *whole*.
“Your presumption of moral and intellectual superiority isn’t based on much more than just your blind faith in liberal dogma that matches her blind faith in Biblical dogma.”
I think I argued as to why spreading pigments that combat positions obtained through “reasoning” like Prejean’s is OK, as long as the measurements are arguably appropriate. I fail to see how my reasoning regarding the folly of sitting idle while religion is mixed with politics included any liberal tropes. I think arguing for stringent secularism comes from skepticism and pessimism, which are seen as conservative guidelines.
“As least Christians admit that their faith lies outside of the empirically provable. ”
Your definition makes it clear that their faith is a product of the imagination. Yet many see it fit to proclaim as valuable for decision-making in the empirical world. For themselves and sometimes others.
“Your delusions of intellectual grandeur arguably make you even worse off, especially in light of your ignorance about the fate of people and societies that have previously walked the authoritarian path you have set yourself upon.”
By your definition every human being is on that path you talk about. I just think it is a good idea to figure out how to use the “authoritarian” notion of not abiding idiocy and malignant thinking without going down the wrong direction of the path.
“It is worth remembering that all totalitarian movements have featured noble rhetoric about honor, equality, and dignity.”
And people believed it, because they didn’t have a strong enough tradition of laughing at poseurs and people who can’t argue and reason as strongly and impressively that they can orate. In the same sense that the catholic church gets away with promising equality between sexes but can’t argue diddly as to why men and women should have separate roles. Or why the concept of “men” and “women” shouldn’t be a source of debilitating laughter of derision in the first place.
“The fact that you claim to hold to noble principles about gay rights or other important human rights does not validate the intolerant, abusive, and repressive methods you are endorsing.”
Tolerance of intolerance, an open palm offered to abusers of truth and information, lifting the pressure on repressing speech and decrees – that’s what happens if all the measures/repercussions I’ve considered appropriate given the circumstances are considered invalid. The methods Prejean and the LDS church faced can be seen everywhere in society – what must be done is to make people realize that they have a duty to use these methods as an extension of their own consciousness and mind at all times. Laugh at that joke or not? React like so to that person with the megaphone, or like this?
“Liberals’ words almost always feature paeans of fealty to exalted principles of tolerance and diversity. But unfortunately, their actual political behavior seems often to directly oppose those principles.”
Diversity doesn’t mean treating all the colors of the rainbow as equally tolerable or deserving of prominence and luster. Of course, if a person can argue capably and philosophically as to why s/he should be able to dictate which colors should feature more or less, I don’t give a flip about his or her politics. The problem here wasn’t necessarily liberalism but the fact that liberalism was applied by fallible people.
“I hate to say this but the more I read of your responses the scarier it gets.”
I love to say this but: BOO!
I once got the captcha words “poknutser” and “hammock”. Captcha is a real scamp sometimes.
At the point you endorse speech codes that target anything deemed to be “hateful” or “inflammatory”, you are endorsing censorship.
The belief that any person can be relied upon to wield power to interpret terms that allow them to censor another person or to punish them by stripping them of their employment or by authorizing the mob to harass and threaten them intrinsically leads to authoritarianism, since such redefinitions will always be subjective and therefore subjectively applied according to the biases of the person doing the interpretation. Liberals realized this during the Bush administration, but have a suspiciously self-serving blind spot with regards to the exact same principle when the scope is college campuses or when a Democrat happens to occupy the White House.
No one is suggesting you should treat all views as equal. I am only objecting to your endorsement of using coercion (either by the government or the mob) to shut down views instead of just arguing against them.
“At the point you endorse speech codes that target anything deemed to be “hateful” or “inflammatory”, you are endorsing censorship.”
No – the hateful or inflammatory things can be said, even printed, they just won’t be welcomed or encouraged.
“The belief that any person can be relied upon to wield power to interpret terms that allow them to censor another person or to punish them by stripping them of their employment or by authorizing the mob to harass and threaten them intrinsically leads to authoritarianism”
What I endorse can’t be censorship because nothing is forbidden or made legally hindered by any power-wielding entity. The stripping of employment happens everywhere because the employer or customers took offense or something to that effect – we could possibly make legal fail-safes here, but that too is tricky. No one authorizes the mob either except in the personal sense – you see clearly defined entities, but I talk about fluids. I don’w want to order a mob around – I want to spread the notion that a relevant group of people can react relevantly and appropriately in a given situation.
“such redefinitions will always be subjective and therefore subjectively applied according to the biases of the person doing the interpretation.”
Exactly. The thing is that I see this as unavoidable and try to work and think from there instead.
“Liberals realized this during the Bush administration, but have a suspiciously self-serving blind spot with regards to the exact same principle when the scope is college campuses or when a Democrat happens to occupy the White House.”
Self-improvement and love of thinking well is just as human as erring.
“I am only objecting to your endorsement of using coercion (either by the government or the mob) to shut down views instead of just arguing against them.”
The government is only authorized to censor or discourage in cases of national security, abject espousing of violence etc. As for the mob, I see the act of telling Prejean that we don’t want poliligion in beauty pageants or elsewhere amounts to discouraging rather than shutting down. Boycotting a company on moral grounds because the CEO was caught with a sizable part of Colombia’s covert GDP in his nose is something I would not endorse – let the shareholders deal with him.
I’ll go to bed after saying this – what you and I are doing when we disapprove of the speech codes on campuses is that we are actively telling those affected to actively discredit and criticize the idea of speech codes on their own. If enough people do this we can make the very idea of extensive speech codes a source of mirth and those that laud it will not be likely heads of student bodies. I see this as comparable to making the mixing of religion and politics at beauty pageants inappropriate to the point that it disqualifies.
Well, that is a welcome shift from your position as previously stated above.
No one is suggesting that dissenting views be welcomed with social acclaim or that counter-protest is invalid. But what I think you still don’t get is how quickly counter-protest can cross the line into coercion and repression when the mob is armed with transcendent self-righteousness that manifests itself as a complete lack of scruples. This becomes especially dangerous if the mob is tacitly backed by the government, a possibility that liberals were concerned about a great deal from 2001-2009, but which they seem to have completely forgotten about (or at least agreed not to discuss) since last January 20.
At the point that the U.S. government is claiming control over industry to the point of dictating who the CEO of GM is allowed to be, I think the line between government coercion and employer coercion might eventually become unsustainable.
And shouldn’t employers only be allowed to hire and fire based on factors relevant to job performance? Or do you endorse making every political dissenter unemployed?
The problem is that I don’t think you realize that what is “relevant” or “appropriate” is subjective. Without some legal limits on how far a mob can push their subjective determinations of what is “relevant” or “appropriate”, we lose the rule of law and any meaningful concept of free expression.
Pretentious arrogance and the presumption that all who disagree are stupid may be a typical liberal failing, but it is still a failing.
That process has not worked well so far. In spite of over a decade of exposure and opposition from the folks at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, speech codes continue to proliferate on college campuses all across America. One major cause of this is liberals’ failure to oppose them. Because liberals control academia (surveys reveal upwards of 95% liberal predominance in the largest and most powerful departments, and administrators are overwhelmingly liberal as well), there is no way to effectively counter speech codes without getting opposition to them inside the liberal echo chamber. Yet thus far, liberals in academia seem to be the ones initiating and enforcing the speech codes, using rationalizations and excuses remarkably similar to those you articulated above about the supposed need to shut down anything and everything deemed “hateful” or “inflammatory”.
So if your position has really changed from that and you really want to join the fight, reassuring me should be last on your list. First on your list should be confronting your fellow liberals over their behavior.