We Need To Stop Exiling People We Disagree With -- Including Gay People Who Voted For (Ugh) Trump
My mother, who uses logic and reason like Joan of Arc must've used her lance in battle, has the ability to nail and defeat all manner of weak arguments -- or even weakish arguments.
I try to remind her not to do this on those who are completely ill-equipped to defend themselves. (My mother's a Republican, and once left one of her longtime friends as the human incarnation of a wet dishrag after a, um, "discussion" about Obama.)
Perhaps because my mother is so great at debate and loves it so much, she isn't threatened by people with opposing views. In fact, she finds it interesting -- and even juicy -- to hash things out conversationally. (I share her feelings on this, and once had a girl in a cafe write to my former agent to tell her what an objectionable person I was after I won an argument with her about whether there's any meaningful evidence [answer: no] for the existence of god.)
I have long held strong views about the importance of free speech and the value of hearing opposing views. I, too, am pretty good about debating them -- though I don't go after the baby ducks like my mother tends to do.
I see a disturbing trend as of late -- from college campuses to a gay pride parade in Charlotte -- and it's to avoid hearing, debating, or even including people with views we disagree with.
It's easier to just exclude those people rather than to require yourself to develop an ability for critical thinking and debate, but it doesn't make their views go away and offers you no possibility to change their views -- or maybe see some of their points. And really, I've always found -- and I am pretty sure that Christopher Hitchens said this -- that knowing the other side's views is the best way to be able to pulverize them in a debate.
In short, we shouldn't fear people with views we don't like; we should learn the skills to counter them.
And we can't always counter them or change minds; but excluding people because of their views makes for an ugly, divided society.
I am disgusted by Donald Trump (oh, and by Hillary, by the way -- she's just a corrupt adult, as I put it in the election season). But because people voted for him, it doesn't mean they're evil. In fact, it might pay to invite them in and listen to their reasons.
What led to this post is a news piece on gay Trump supporters being denied entry into Charlotte Pride Parade. Caroline Fountain writes at Fox5NY:
Talbert, a member of "Gays for Trump, which is not affiliated with the "Gays for Trump" based in Greensboro, NC, said he and a fellow gay Trump supporter sent in an application to Charlotte Pride so they could have a float in this year's Charlotte Pride Parade."It was going to be fun. We wanted to be energetic. We wanted to show that we weren't the racist, bigot, misogynistic...We wanted to show that we are Americans, love our country and our president. We wanted to be there to celebrate gay pride. Everything fell into place except being able to celebrate who I am," he said.
[Brian] Talbert said Charlotte Pride sent him an email denying his application for a float.
"For a group of people to claim to want tolerance, acceptance, and give it to every single person you can imagine to give it to, for them to sit back and judge me for exercising my right as an American to choose my leader without judgment is hypocritical," Talbert said.
A spokesperson for the organization said in written statement, "Charlotte Pride reserves the right to decline participation at our events to groups or organizations which do not reflect the mission, vision and values of our organization, as is acknowledged in our parade rules and regulations by all groups at the time of their parade application. In the past, we have made similar decisions to decline participation from other organizations espousing anti-LGBTQ religious or public policy stances...."
...Talbert said he plans to file a lawsuit against Charlotte Pride for discrimination. Here's the link to his 'Deplorable Pride' website: deplorablepride.org where he's raising money for lawyer's fees.
There ARE gay Republicans -- gay Republicans who voted for Trump. The majority of the gay populace most likely did not -- nor did I. Shutting them out is ugly and won't change their views.
I am for freedom of association and freedom to choose who you associate with -- and also freedom to choose whom you do creative work for (like if you're religious and don't believe in gay marriage -- which I do -- I don't think you should be forced to do cakes for a gay wedding).
My complaint about their being kept out has to do with all I write above about opposing views. In short, I think we benefit from the "big tent" approach, as opposed to the "fuck you; go away" approach.
via ifeminists
This is why I voted for Trump
I got sick of adults and their asinine justifications for screwing over the electorate so I hope to see this paly out on the national level
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-G4DI9AzB8&feature=youtu.be&t=34
lujlp at June 9, 2017 8:35 AM
Adam Carolla and Dennis Prager are making a documentary about the "grievance culture" and safe spaces. I can't link directly to the website for this project, newly implemented security measures at work.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/7/adam-carolla-dennis-prager-take-aim-at-coddled-col/
My favorite part of this is Adam Carolla and Dennis Prager want to screen this at college campuses when it's finished. While I am looking forward to the finished product, I'm guessing the SJWs won't appreciate it.
sara at June 9, 2017 9:37 AM
My mother, who uses logic and reason like Joan of Arc must've used her lance in battle,
______________________________________
Um, from what I've heard more than once, those statues and paintings of her wielding weapons are misleading. She cried over the many English soldiers who were killed. Not that she wasn't brilliant at military strategy and riding horses.
lenona at June 9, 2017 11:20 AM
Your mom sounds like someone I wish I could meet.
Damn it, I do try to listen to liberal and leftist opinions. I can usually understand the reasoning behind a liberal position. I may not agree with it, but I can understand how the person offering that opinion arrived at it, and see that their chain of reasoning looks pretty solid. I think a lot of the differences of opinion between mainstream liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, can be explained by the relative importance they attach to various factors. A liberal and a conservative may agree on the facts, but arrive on different opinions on how to proceed, based on relative weightings. But their agreeing on the facts makes it easier for them to understand each other.
With leftist, it's different. Leftists seem to be constitutionally prone to disagreeing on basic facts just for the sake of being contrary. And, many leftists will argue that there are no such things as facts; that is, other than the facts that they believe in. I find that I am often unable to understand how a leftist arrives at their opinion by an examination of the reasoning. To me, what has provided me with my best understanding of how leftists arrive at their opinions has been reading up on personality disorders.
A lot of leftist opinions seem to be based on narcissism; a belief that their opinions are the right ones because they are the right people. Narcissists don't do logic very well, which is why they resort to shaming techniques as a counter-argument. Like so:
Me: "I don't understand why you think that increasing welfare benefits will eliminate poverty. Nations around the world have been trying to eliminate poverty using transfer payments for almost a century now, and not one has yet succeeded. What's different about this plan that will make it work where every other plan has failed?"
Leftist: "Because you're a racist. QED."
And here we are. It's not that we don't understand each other. We clearly do, even when we disagree, or we wouldn't be here. The problem is that the people who rule us follow an ideology that has absolutely nothing in common with ours, an ideology that serves them and them alone. We're back in 19th-century Europe, in the last days of inbred-for-centuries monarchy. The incompetence of our masters, and the people who want to be our masters, is matched only by their venality and their ability to make up crap faster than we can refute it.
Cousin Dave at June 9, 2017 12:04 PM
Have some folks forgotten how they sued to be include in other people's parades?
Have they forgotten how they sued to have others bake them a cake?
charles at June 9, 2017 5:09 PM
Can we exile the Moozlims?
Their religion is a pernicious ideology, Amy.
Crid at June 10, 2017 4:14 AM
> if you're religious and don't
> believe in gay marriage -- which
> I do -- I don't think you should
> be forced to do cakes for a
> gay wedding
Okay, what if it was a white woman married to a black man? Do I have to bake them a cake?
Okay, do I have to rent them an apartment?
What if I'm not truly religious and only say that I am so that I can skip out on the cake-baking... What are you going to do? How are you going to test the authenticity of my concern?
I mean, are these people married or aren't they? All those years you said you were for gay marriage... Did you mean it, or didn't you?
Crid at June 10, 2017 4:34 AM
Charles:
Charles, I might have expressed a different opinion on this in the past.
By the way, watch Conan go completely unhinged, because he'll insist I once had a different opinion on this subject and produce the quotes showing I had expressed a different opinion on the subject, digging up posts I made months, or perhaps years ago. Evidently, changing one's mind when presented with new facts or being persuaded by someone else's reasoning is a sin worthy of the Tenth Layer of Hell. According to Dante's Inferno, there are only nine layers of hell, but changing your mind is obviously so egregious, that there must be an additional layer for those who change their minds on ethical positions.
Personally, I think the Tenth Layer of Hell should be reserved for people at the gym who use the squat rack to do curls.
However, 47 states have what are known as public accommodation laws. You cannot discriminate in who you provide service to. At the present, there are twenty states, plus Washington D.C., that include sexual orientation as protected status.
Please note, Radwaste and lujlp, I never said how I felt about whether there should be protected status of any kind in any state; I'm merely pointing out that certain states do have such laws. My position on the issue is not settled at this time. Pointing out that certain laws exist is not an endorsement of such laws.
You have to point this out to Radwaste and lujlp, because if you don't tell them how you feel about a certain issue, now, now, now, they're going to accuse you ad nauseum of supporting that position.
Say you're a gay guy and want to have a wedding. And there's this bakery that you've patronized for years and you've decided that you're going to give them the lucrative task of baking your wedding cake.
And as it happens, you live in the one of the 47 states that have public accommodation laws. And this state also happens to include sexual orientation as protected status.
With this in mind, you present the baker, whom you know so well that you're on a first name basis with him, with your request, quite certain he would be happy to make a cake for his good buddy's wedding, especially when it means a handsome fee and another opportunity to present his work. But he -- Surprise! Surprise! -- informs you that although he has nothing against gay people, his religion dictates that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman. (I have no idea what that religion could be, since most of them support polygamy.) Therefore, he will not accept the offer to bake your cake.
Now think carefully. What do you do? Do you allow this guy to break the law and let it go?
Would you hold the same position if he were a racist and refused to bake a cake for an interracial wedding?
Or a Jewish wedding?
You could argue, on the one hand, that letting this go shows you're the bigger man and are willing to allow him the right to his prejudices and to discriminate based on those prejudices.
On the other hand, refusing to sue might also send the message that you're willing to allow yourself to be treated as a second-class citizen, an acknowledgement that your relationship is not every bit as valid as anyone else's.
There's a case to be made for either side. Suing might suggest that we're using the law to bully people into accepting us.
Not suing suggests that we're willing to allow ourselves to be treated like dirt. Especially since we know damn well that an interracial couple, for instance, would have the blessing of the world at large if they chose to sue if they were faced with this. Are we not entitled to the same treatment?
Patrick at June 10, 2017 4:48 AM
Patrick - that's all fine and well. Thank you for that.
And, I am NOT disagreeing with you.
However, I still say "have they forgotten . . ." because those who have been bullied should know better than to bully others.
charles at June 10, 2017 6:17 AM
My husband and I were discussing something along the same lines just this morning. We absolutely believe in human-caused climate change and that something needs to be done about it. However, because we believe that the solution will be found in the free market, we get lumped in with climate change deniers.
I have been an ally for many years. My masters thesis was on reducing the dropout rate among LGBT students. When I tell people that I believe a business owner should have the right to refuse service to anybody, I might as well be a member of Westboro Baptist.
When an edgy FM DJ made a crack about a lesbian just not knowing what she was missing, there were people calling for his arrest and imprisonment for instigating a rape. When I argued that the guy's incredibly shitty joke is protected under the First Amendment and came nowhere near meeting the legal criteria of instigation, I was accused of condoning corrective rape.
This bullshit is why Trump is now sitting in the White House.
Beth C. at June 10, 2017 4:27 PM
"My position on the issue is not settled at this time. Pointing out that certain laws exist is not an endorsement of such laws."
Thank you for being clear about this. If that had been the case some years ago, no issue would have been raised.
Now: should you agree with or endorse one of these laws, please speak up and say why. I am more sure of your having a reason in such a case than you imagine.
Radwaste at June 11, 2017 10:33 AM
"Would you hold the same position if he were a racist and refused to bake a cake for an interracial wedding?"
Point taken, Patrick. But let me re-re-invert the problem. Suppose I'm marrying a black woman, and she has a favorite bakery that is owned by a black family, and she wants them to do the cake. Now, they've recently gotten involved in BLM. And they are fine with baking the cake, until they discover that she's marrying a white man. Then she gets called a race traitor and thrown out of the place.
Do I sue? If I do, I stand next to zero chance of winning. And what's worse, the media will make me out to be the racist. If I don't sue, am I condoning reverse racism? Am I being the better man? Or am I just making a practical decision that recognizes the political reality?
As Beth C. said, stuff like this is a lot of the reason why Donald Trump is President.
Cousin Dave at June 12, 2017 7:52 AM
Leave a comment