Anti-gay speaker booed off stage at - CPAC?

[Robor]

Your sig vs. your post count and join date are comical. ;-)

You shouldn't post about comical sigs. Seriously.

 

[Robor]

Intolerance of intolerance makes you intolerant.

Bigotry towards bigots makes you bigoted.

I don't know how you can get out of that. I begin now to understand what Moonie means by self-hatred.

Keep justifying yourself with that...

 

[Robor]

not to stamp on your parade, but the definition of a bigot is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" so yes intolerance of bigots makes you a bigot by default.

Fail.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

If I said yes then by your logic all supporters of gay rights are prejudiced against heterosexuality and that isn't what it means at all. Now if the supporter of gay rights went on to start bashing others because they're "ignorant" etc for being anti-gay rights then yes he is a bigot. Intolerance of intolerance is intolerance. BTW I'm all for gay rights, I don't even know why it's called gay rights it should just be RIGHTS you know the kind we ALL have already, putting limitations on shit because someone is different than you is fucking retarded and backwards. That doesn't mean I should go around shitting on other people because they might be intolerant.

But intolerance of intolerance is not prejudice. That's the key word in the definition of bigotry that you overlook. If it were merely intolerance, then the word would be completely meaningless in debate, since by virtue of using it to describe someone else, you yourself would become a bigot. As soon as you realize that bigotry is intolerance centered around a specific prejudice, and not just any intolerance, you will see why this argument holds no water.

The person who does not support equal rights for gays can be said to be acting out of prejudice towards homosexuals; intolerance based around a specific prejudice. A gay rights supporter who calls this person a bigot is being intolerant of their beliefs, but it is not based around prejudice, so it is not bigotry; it is simply intolerance of a competing viewpoint. Now if the gay rights supporter began attacking his critic as a "Bible thumper," then you could say he was acting out of prejudice against a religion, and he would be guilty of bigotry.

 

[bfdd]

But intolerance of intolerance is not prejudice. That's the key word in the definition of bigotry that you overlook. If it were merely intolerance, then the word would be completely meaningless in debate, since by virtue of using it to describe someone else, you yourself would become a bigot. As soon as you realize that bigotry is intolerance centered around a specific prejudice, and not just any intolerance, you will see why this argument holds no water.

The person who does not support equal rights for gays can be said to be acting out of prejudice towards homosexuals; intolerance based around a specific prejudice. A gay rights supporter who calls this person a bigot is being intolerant of their beliefs, but it is not based around prejudice, so it is not bigotry; it is simply intolerance of a competing viewpoint. Now if the gay rights supporter began attacking his critic as a "Bible thumper," then you could say he was acting out of prejudice against a religion, and he would be guilty of bigotry.

Isn't calling someone a bigot considered an insult? So if you're insulting someone that's probably because of some prejudice, unless you're just a dick and are down with insulting people then I guess more power to you.

 

[alphatarget1]

Yes, not that surprising. Until the Republican presidential candidate doesn't have to speak out against gay marriage and gay adoption to win the Republican primary, the GOP will never get my vote nationally.

You mean like your Obamessiah who is also against gay marriage.

 

[werepossum]

Neocons are not conservatives. The true conservative position is seeing all men as created equal. That is not to be confused with a gay marriage issue, because that is a state issue as implicitly laid out via the 10th amendment. The federal government by law has no say for sexual orientation matters, nor marriage matters.

I don't disagree with that, but I think in the interest of freedom and fairness we should extend the rights I have - to marry a person of my choice as long as that person is of age and of sound mind - to a functional rather than an exact equivalent. (As giving me the right to marry Dave Justice does me no good, neither does giving a gay guy the right to marry Halle Berry - although I think that would turn a few. Maybe not, she's shallow as a puddle.) I certainly have no problems with that being done at state level - I think the federal government is far too large and intrusive as it is - but I think it is a basic matter of freedom and fairness.

Also I'd really like the love that dare not speak its name to shut the hell up for awhile. Not discriminating against them seems like a decent way to achieve that goal.

 

[werepossum]

You mean like your Obamessiah who is also against gay marriage.

That is something bizarre I've noticed, that gays tend to prefer people who oppose gay marriage from nothing more than cheap political expediency to those who have principled objections. If two people oppose me I'm always going to prefer the one who at least has the courage of his convictions - but maybe that's just me.

 

[n yusef]

That is something bizarre I've noticed, that gays tend to prefer people who oppose gay marriage from nothing more than cheap political expediency to those who have principled objections. If two people oppose me I'm always going to prefer the one who at least has the courage of his convictions - but maybe that's just me.

Really? You'd really prefer to be governed by someone who dislikes you than someone who pretends to dislike you?

The following may sound like neocon bullshit but I'll write it anyway; the real world isn't a collegial debate where honesty and integrity are the highest imaginable values. Actually, in collegial debates, justice is usually considered above the aforementioned. . . .

 

[dmcowen674]

I never used to participate in this section of Anandtech Forums until only recently, and I've been "out of the closet" since my junior year of high school, approximately 13 years.

You looking to get married or you satisfied with not be considered an equal to straights?

 

[zsdersw]

You mean like your Obamessiah who is also against gay marriage.

So was McCain, and so too will be the Republican candidate in 2012. The key difference between Obama and McCain/2012 candidate is that Obama isn't opposed to gay adoption or civil unions or allowing gay people to serve openly in the military.

Obama and the Democratic party may not be able to advance GLBT rights, but at least they're not standing in the way of or working to thwart them.

 

[zsdersw]

You looking to get married or you satisfied with not be considered an equal to straights?

I want to be able to marry my partner and have that union be recognized by government as equal to its heterosexual counterpart, but marriage is a few years away for me.

 

[Thump553]

That speech must have been a doozy to be booed by that crowd.

 

[actuarial]

Isn't calling someone a bigot considered an insult? So if you're insulting someone that's probably because of some prejudice, unless you're just a dick and are down with insulting people then I guess more power to you.

So if someone says something stupid, and I call them stupid (an insult), I am a bigot?

If someone smells, and I tell them they stink (an insult), I am a bigot?

If someone says something racist, and I call them a bigot, then I am a bigot?

Now, if someone called someone a bigot because they were a conservative (thereby implying all conservatives hate gays and are bigots), they would be a bigot. It's the evidence you use to make your claim that determines whether or not you are a bigot, not necessarily what you say.

Would you consider Hitler a bigot? Does that make you one?

 

[werepossum]

Really? You'd really prefer to be governed by someone who dislikes you than someone who pretends to dislike you?

The following may sound like neocon bullshit but I'll write it anyway; the real world isn't a collegial debate where honesty and integrity are the highest imaginable values. Actually, in collegial debates, justice is usually considered above the aforementioned. . . .

This is where our views diverge; I still think honesty, integrity and justice are all among the highest imaginable values. But I have recognized for some time that many (perhaps most?) progressives don't agree.

 

[zsdersw]

But I have recognized for some time that progressives don't agree.

You paint with too broad a brush.

 

[werepossum]

You paint with too broad a brush.

Agree, and fixed, although Internet debate practically requires a broad brush, dealing with very complicated subjects in a few sentences. I do make a distinction though between liberals (in the classic sense) and progressives. The former support the individual and freedom; the latter support the war on the individual, the replacement of freedom and free thinking with approved group think, and the growth in the power and intrusiveness of the state at the expense of the individual. Gay marriage would be a case in point, with true liberals thinking that each individual is entitled to have his or her opinion about its advisability but that the state should not be in the position of telling free individuals whom they can or cannot marry. Progressives on the other hand wish to use the power of the state to punish all who have a differing opinion; only one opinion (the current progressive opinion) should be allowed. Classic liberals see individuals; progressives see groups that should band together for mutual power and protection.

Admittedly almost no one falls completely into one category or the other, and I'm sure they look different to you than to me, a conservative.

 

[zsdersw]

Agree, and fixed, although Internet debate practically requires a broad brush, dealing with very complicated subjects in a few sentences.

Precision and accuracy remain important, no matter the venue.

I do make a distinction though between liberals (in the classic sense) and progressives. The former support the individual and freedom; the latter support the war on the individual, the replacement of freedom and free thinking with approved group think, and the growth in the power and intrusiveness of the state at the expense of the individual. Gay marriage would be a case in point, with true liberals thinking that each individual is entitled to have his or her opinion about its advisability but that the state should not be in the position of telling free individuals whom they can or cannot marry. Progressives on the other hand wish to use the power of the state to punish all who have a differing opinion; only one opinion (the current progressive opinion) should be allowed. Classic liberals see individuals; progressives see groups that should band together for mutual power and protection.

Admittedly almost no one falls completely into one category or the other, and I'm sure they look different to you than to me, a conservative.

The classic liberal and classic conservative are extinct in terms of political power. I consider myself a classic liberal, the political party with which I would most closely relate being the Libertarian party.

 

[werepossum]

Precision and accuracy remain important, no matter the venue.

The classic liberal and classic conservative are extinct in terms of political power. I consider myself a classic liberal, the political party with which I would most closely relate being the Libertarian party.

Agreed, and I too most closely relate to the Libertarian Party, although I find they are far too focused on legalized drugs, bad on defense and immigration, and unrealistic about reducing government to Constitutional limits. I don't have any political party with whom I share more than a third or so of their positions.

 

[n yusef]

This is where our views diverge; I still think honesty, integrity and justice are all among the highest imaginable values. But I have recognized for some time that many (perhaps most?) progressives don't agree.

I may have been unclear. I was trying to say that justice is more important than honesty--a judgment that, ironically, I would expect a truly honest person to accept. In this specific situation, the gay voter has the choice between someone who sincerely believes them to be unworthy of equality, and someone who thinks that civil rights for gay people is politically untenable. If the gay voter has no other preferences (on the economy, healthcare reform, foreign policy, etc.) then the choice is quite clear.

Of course, this all depends on progressives being right about Obama's opinion of gay rights. It's also possible that Obama has a principled opposition to gay marriage; which, if one follows my previous analysis, is a worse situation for those concerned with gay rights.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Isn't calling someone a bigot considered an insult? So if you're insulting someone that's probably because of some prejudice, unless you're just a dick and are down with insulting people then I guess more power to you.

No. Prejudice is a preconceived judgment towards a group of people who share a common characteristic, such as race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc. Note that it is a preconceived judgment; thinking that all black people are criminals or that all gay people are pedophiles are some (extreme) examples. If a black person steals your wallet, you would not be a bigot if you called him a thief; but if you use his behavior to justify your preconceived notion that all black people are thieves, you are being a bigot.

So getting back to the argument at hand. If someone says something homophobic and I accuse them of being a bigot, I am not inherently being a bigot myself, because I am not calling them a bigot based off of a preconceived notion about them because of a group they belong to, but based on their actions in the moment. Whether or not my labeling of that person as a bigot can be seen as an insult is irrelevant; it's not based off of my prejudice, but of tangible evidence of bigotry on their part.

So yeah, calling someone who is intolerant of intolerance a bigot is asinine.

 

[werepossum]

I may have been unclear. I was trying to say that justice is more important than honesty--a judgment that, ironically, I would expect a truly honest person to accept. In this specific situation, the gay voter has the choice between someone who sincerely believes them to be unworthy of equality, and someone who thinks that civil rights for gay people is politically untenable. If the gay voter has no other preferences (on the economy, healthcare reform, foreign policy, etc.) then the choice is quite clear.

Of course, this all depends on progressives being right about Obama's opinion of gay rights. It's also possible that Obama has a principled opposition to gay marriage; which, if one follows my previous analysis, is a worse situation for those concerned with gay rights.

Maybe. I prefer honesty, for without honesty justice is unlikely unless it happens to coincide with the person's goals anyway. But I agree it could go either way, as you're not likely to get one without the other.

You can always try to convince an honest, principled person of the superiority of your position and hence gain her support in convincing others. With a person who takes positions purely for political reasons you are screwed and will receive no help until you convince a majority of voters on your own.

 

[DealMonkey]

Conservative politicians have always had a difficult time figuring out how to react to gay people and gay advocate groups.

That's very true. Their typical reactions: 1.) Foot taps/positive body language followed by gay sex in the public bathroom, 2.) Form cross with their index fingers while quoting scripture and backing away quickly.

Maybe they can find some sort of middle ground? <shrug>