Thread: Torrii Hunter: Homophobe

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Normally, no it wouldn't need to be pointed out. Except that someone said it was "garbage" that he had a right to think that way. So yeah, then it did need to be pointed out. But thanks for reading.

Saying the "right to have that opinion" generally ends the discussion as though all opinions are equally true. They are not. The attitude that they are is, indeed, garbage.

Originally Posted by 70charger

"We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expressions of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death." -OWH

Now that I can get behind. And to be fair, he was always quite good on the first amendment. Doesn't quite jive with a lot being said here though.

It isn't the expression of the view that is the problem. It's the view.

Originally Posted by Shane Wahl

It isn't the expression of the view that is the problem. It's the view.

That's a statement completely without substance. If the view is the problem, and no one is allowed to have a certain view, then any possible controversy over something stated has already been precluded and cannot exist. So in this world, where everyone agrees, of course it's true that the expression of a view isn't a problem. After all, everyone agrees.

Unfortunately, real life doesn't follow our rules.

Originally Posted by 70charger

"We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expressions of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death." -OWH

Now that I can get behind. And to be fair, he was always quite good on the first amendment. Doesn't quite jive with a lot being said here though.

I don't see anyone here arguing that Hunter should be legally silenced. Publicly shamed, yes. Yelled at for having an inane opinion, yes. Silenced? Not so much.

Originally Posted by 70charger

That's a statement completely without substance. If the view is the problem, and no one is allowed to have a certain view, then any possible controversy over something stated has already been precluded and cannot exist. So in this world, where everyone agrees, of course it's true that the expression of a view isn't a problem. After all, everyone agrees.

Unfortunately, real life doesn't follow our rules.

Allowed? No one is talking about disallowing Hunter's viewpoint. We're saying it's a contemptible viewpoint that's worthy of public scorn. I think your penchant for legalese is obscuring the points that people are trying to make. No one's confused about legality, but where there's nuance is in the discussion about how we handle Hunter's comments socially and ethically, about how the public ought to respond to such comments.

TwitLonger ? When you talk too much for Twitter

Just to, you know, in the spirit of both sides of the story that we started with, this is what Torii said via Twitter. Not saying whether this was just damage control or if what he said was misconstrued, just wanted his thoughts about it on here.

Originally Posted by snepp

I'd like this post a thousand times if I could.

Dawwwww <3

Originally Posted by syves

TwitLonger ? When you talk too much for Twitter

Just to, you know, in the spirit of both sides of the story that we started with, this is what Torii said via Twitter. Not saying whether this was just damage control or if what he said was misconstrued, just wanted his thoughts about it on here.

Thanks for posting this. Hopefully this is a more accurate representation of Hunter's views on the matter.

Originally Posted by syves

TwitLonger ? When you talk too much for Twitter

Just to, you know, in the spirit of both sides of the story that we started with, this is what Torii said via Twitter. Not saying whether this was just damage control or if what he said was misconstrued, just wanted his thoughts about it on here.

For the lazy:

I'm very disappointed in Kevin Baxter's article in which my quotes and feelings have been misrepresented. He took two completely separate quotes and made them into one quote that does not express how I feel as a Christian or a human being . I have love and respect for all human beings regardless of race, color or sexual orientation. I am not perfect and try hard to live the best life I can and treat all people with respect. If you know me you know that I am not anti anything and to be portrayed as anti-gay in this article is hurtful and just not true

Whether damage control or not, I'm glad he tweeted this.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Allowed? No one is talking about disallowing Hunter's viewpoint. We're saying it's a contemptible viewpoint that's worthy of public scorn. I think your penchant for legalese is obscuring the points that people are trying to make. No one's confused about legality, but where there's nuance is in the discussion about how we handle Hunter's comments socially and ethically, about how the public ought to respond to such comments.

Perhaps, but I am skeptical inside and outside of the legal system. If a non-governmental, non-legally-sanctioned collective says of an individual "let's publicly shame this person who disagrees with us until he agrees with us!" I'm not going to get behind that sentiment. I also wouldn't get behind it if it were done under the color of government or law.

I think there's a slippery slope here. Feel free to disagree. (I would never try to stop you.)

Originally Posted by 70charger

If a non-governmental, non-legally-sanctioned collective says of an individual "let's publicly shame this person who disagrees with us until he agrees with us!" I'm not going to get behind that sentiment.

So you don't feel it's right to publicly disagree with anyone, ever. The mere act of disagreement and saying "you're wrong for having this belief", no matter how wretched that belief may be, is somehow a bad thing? If that's the case, how are we to operate as a society? How on earth would it be possible for humanity to reach an agreement and progress on anything?

Was it wrong for northern society to circle around the south and its support for Wallace and declare "You people are wrong, you people are bigots"? Should we have quietly suggested that they have a right to express their opinion and resigned ourselves to racism, despite it flying in the face of a rapidly-changing social environment and the foundation of this country (as interpreted during that time)? What about suffrage? Should we have let that slide, too? In a republic/democracy, this is how social change is enacted.

Originally Posted by 70charger

Perhaps, but I am skeptical inside and outside of the legal system. If a non-governmental, non-legally-sanctioned collective says of an individual "let's publicly shame this person who disagrees with us until he agrees with us!" I'm not going to get behind that sentiment. I also wouldn't get behind it if it were done under the color of government or law.

I think there's a slippery slope here. Feel free to disagree. (I would never try to stop you.)

Again, sanctioning should be a non-issue here. As far as the issue, it's precisely the opposite that has taken place--that homosexuality is publicly scorned so as to somehow limit it. That's not sanctioned by any government entity, that's a cultural dynamic.

Look, no one wants public scorn to change someone's mind, we want reason to change their mind. No one here wants to bully people into righteousness. (I find that just as reprehensible as you, and I'm sure others feel the same way). In my view, publicly scorning these kind of comments aren't important in that they change, say, Hunter's mind, rather it's important to publicly scorn homophobia, so it's not normalized and does not remain the status quo. You won't change any minds, but perhaps we can change the public discourse in a way that fosters less bigots.

Intolerence of Intolerence is Hypocritical. There is no other way to slice it.

To debate or feel differently than someone is one thing... To dispise someone for contrary opinion is quite another and that intolerence is no different than the intolerence you are railing against.

Considering the statement came from a black male from Arkansas, It's fairly safe to say statistically... The opinions expressed by Torii Hunter is a majority opinion in consideration of being Black... Male and from Arkansas. 3 groups of human beings that statistically are above average when it comes to having that viewpoint. Ask the Question... Get an honest answer... can any of us real be surprised statistically?

What I really want to know is this... Why the hell is Kevin Baxter of the LA Times asking this social question of Torii Hunter is the first place?

An honest answer is just going to get you quoted our of context and punched in the face. Kevin Baxter is the one who decided to write this article and go around looking for examples of his thesis... It's the slant of Kevin Baxter... If Kevin Baxter wants to go around MLB and ask every opinion from gays to gun control to abortion from every major league baseball player. Well, you can start crossing off the list all the names of players you no longer want to cheer for... Because the majority of us are: Yes... Intolerent of Intolerence...

We are all wrong!

President George Herbert Walker Bush says he doesn't like Broccoli and after that he had no chance of winning Oregon. His tastes in vegatable has nothing to do with being President. Torii Hunter's social viewpoints have nothing to do with baseball. Thank goodness he is being asked to play baseball and not being asked to determine social policy!!!

Those lines really shouldn't be blurred but yet here we are.

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

Intolerence of Intolerence is Hypocritical. There is no other way to slice it.

If you say so. I don't see why so many are having difficulty in parsing the difference between disagreeing with an individual and disparaging an entire group of people whose lives are not impacting yours in any way. Hunter isn't suggesting he dislikes a specific homosexual on his team, he's suggesting that he dislikes the idea of homosexuals, period.

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

Torii Hunter's social viewpoints have nothing to do with baseball. Thank goodness he is being asked to play baseball and not being asked to determine social policy!!!

He chose to play baseball and he chose to be in the public spotlight and he chose to make the comments he did. No one forced him to do any of those things involuntarily. Therefore, he reaps the consequences of saying things people don't like.

And maybe all those players that yelled "n*****" at Jackie Robinson were okay, too. After all, they were only baseball players.

I feel like I should respond, although I'm getting deeper and deeper into something I wanted to ignore in the first place. Ah well. I'm weak.

My value system puts individual liberties over collective comfort. If someone wants to say something stupid, I won't stop him. Likewise, it is not inconsistent to say that the racism of the Jim Crow south should have been stopped, because that trampled the individual liberties of the southern blacks in the name of the comfort of the dominant majority of whites.

Nor have I ever said that we aren't free to disagree, whether publicly or not. By all means, do so. Disagree with me, too, if you want. But I think public shaming tends to lead to mob mentalities that are ultimately destructive, and I also think it's likely counterproductive. Psychological studies show that people are more likely to dig in when presented with a strong contrary viewpoint.

I disagree with Torii Hunter, but I doubt he cares, and even if he did, he'd respond negatively to my calling him a bigot, and he'd probably dig in his heels on the issue. It doesn't matter whether I disagree with him alone or with a pitchfork-wielding mob behind me.

Society moves the way it wants to move, in an individual, bottom-up way. What's right to "society" today won't be right tomorrow. Imposing viewpoints from the top down is often counterproductive in both the short and long term.

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

Intolerence of Intolerence is Hypocritacal.

Intolerance of intolerance is the only way to facilitate social change.

Originally Posted by syves

TwitLonger ? When you talk too much for Twitter

Just to, you know, in the spirit of both sides of the story that we started with, this is what Torii said via Twitter. Not saying whether this was just damage control or if what he said was misconstrued, just wanted his thoughts about it on here.

You almost sound apologetic. Don't. It's refreshing to see someone who actually does some fact checking instead of just whipping out the tar and feathers.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

One could argue the latter is exactly what is happening to "people like Torii" in the tone of some of the comments here. It's a reflection of something I worry about in society - how ugly the pro-gay movement is in regards to the anti-gay people. Now, in my opinion, anti-gay opinions have no moral value and are ugly in and of themselves, but I fail to see how reciprocating that ugly does anyone any good.

Yeah it's pretty ugly. My heart breaks every time I hear about one of those kids who gets bullied for being a homophobic bigot and ends up taking their own life.

If people had continued to say "everyone has the right to their opinion" instead of voicing their outrage, the South would still be segregated.

Originally Posted by nicksaviking

If people had continued to say "everyone has the right to their opinion" instead of voicing their outrage, the South would still be segregated.

Or to go a step further back, Torii would still be someone's legal property.