Torrii Hunter: Homophobe

[PseudoSABR]

That is the crazy hypocrisy of this often-times. One of the things I appreciate most about liberals is what they abandon first when the subject matter gets tough.

Who is abandoning their principles? NO ONE IS FOR SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH. Stop it with that strawman. But you're goddamn right I'm going to tell-off those who use their liberty to deny others liberty.

[Shane Wahl]

No one AT ALL said anything about limiting First Amendment speech rights. Go straw-man people somewhere else.

[B Richard]

Saying we should have a "discussion of ideas" would only give creedence to those that believe homophobia is a valid option.

 

No. A discussion of ideas, among reasonable people, would lead to the conclusion that homophobia is unjustified and wrong. It would hopefully lead those who hold such beliefs to understand their misconceptions. Obama has taken numerous steps to support gay rights and many states have also taken independent measures. This country is not severely endangered by a minority of dissenters whose dissent is largely interpreted as folly. Such discussions should not only be allowed but encouraged for intellectual advancement if nothing else

[PseudoSABR]

No. A discussion of ideas, among reasonable people, would lead to the conclusion that homophobia is unjustified and wrong. It would hopefully lead those who hold such beliefs to understand their misconceptions. Obama has taken numerous steps to support gay rights and many states have also taken independent measures. This country is not severely endangered by a minority of dissenters whose dissent is largely interpreted as folly. Such discussions should not only be allowed but encouraged for intellectual advancement if nothing else

Sure. But that's not really what nicksaviking was responding to (imo). Some are suggesting that 'a market place of ideas' can lead to some 'middle road' on the issue of homophobia. It's similar to people confusing balance for objectivity--the former balances opposing ideas without truth value, the latter does not.

[FrodaddyG]

I'm frankly surprised at the amount of Hunter understanding being bandied about in here. The response to this kind of "I'm not comfortable with a gay teammate" nonsense should be the same as "I'm not comfortable with negroes marrying our white women" or "I'm not comfortable with women voting" or "I'm not comfortable with a black kid in my kid's class". And that response is not "Let's hear this person out, they may have a point." It should be scorn and shame for the type of closed-minded idiocy that it serves as an example of.

 

I somehow doubt Torii would be quite as open to freedom of speech, or understanding of the people's "opinion", if there were parents refusing to let their kids go to school in any class that his kids were in based entirely on their skin color. Hiding behind religion in this day and age is just a thinly veiled attempt to excuse prejudice.

[TheLeviathan]

Who is abandoning their principles? NO ONE IS FOR SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH. Stop it with that strawman. But you're goddamn right I'm going to tell-off those who use their liberty to deny others liberty.

 

Which I'm absolutely ok with. But here's how message boards work, you can't take my reply to one person and project it to yourself. It's a reponse to that person. So, in fact, you are employing a strawman because I'm not talking to you.

 

And for the record - this is to Fro before you prop another strawman - the middle of the road is not about view. It's about tact. There is a gigantic difference. The true strawman being propagated here is that anyone that says "He's an idiot, but he's allowed to be an idiot" is somehow saying he's not an idiot. That isn't the case at all. For me the response to this is where balance is necessary. His view itself, in my opinion, is unquestionably, completely stupid. But that doesn't mean my response has to take a similar tone and tact. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

[Ultima Ratio]

Anyone analogizing prejudices of skin color (something immediately, publicly visible) with sexuality (private, unless you choose to share it) is a stage-one-thinking idiot. Am I allowed to say that?

 

(My use of "idiot" is not name calling, but a technical use of the greek word)

[PseudoSABR]

Anyone analogizing prejudices of skin color (something immediately, publicly visible) with sexuality (private, unless you choose to share it) is a stage-one-thinking idiot.

Why? Please explain.

[twinsnorth49]

Anyone analogizing prejudices of skin color (something immediately, publicly visible) with sexuality (private, unless you choose to share it) is a stage-one-thinking idiot. Am I allowed to say that?

 

(My use of "idiot" is not name calling, but a technical use of the greek word)

 

Right back at you.

[FrodaddyG]

Anyone analogizing prejudices of skin color (something immediately, publicly visible) with sexuality (private, unless you choose to share it) is a stage-one-thinking idiot. Am I allowed to say that?

 

(My use of "idiot" is not name calling, but a technical use of the greek word)

In the sense that neither is anyone's choosing and you are born with it, yes, they can be easily compared. Or should we allow bias against certain religions as well, since you have to "share" your belief?

[Ultima Ratio]

When a black person walks into a room, you know he's black. Do you know anything about his sexuality at that point? Thus, the civil rights issues involved with sexuality are not on par with discrimination on the bases of skin color.

[PseudoSABR]

Which I'm absolutely ok with. But here's how message boards work, you can't take my reply to one person and project it to yourself. It's a reponse to that person. So, in fact, you are employing a strawman because I'm not talking to you.

 

And for the record - this is to Fro before you prop another strawman - the middle of the road is not about view. It's about tact. There is a gigantic difference. The true strawman being propagated here is that anyone that says "He's an idiot, but he's allowed to be an idiot" is somehow saying he's not an idiot. That isn't the case at all. For me the response to this is where balance is necessary. His view itself, in my opinion, is unquestionably, completely stupid. But that doesn't mean my response has to take a similar tone and tact. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

Fair, but generalizing the left or liberals is gonna get me fired up. And I agree tact matters, though that should hardly be our chief concern.

[B Richard]

And that response is not "Let's hear this person out, they may have a point." It should be scorn and shame for the type of closed-minded idiocy that it serves as an example of.

 

Disagree. The response is "let's discuss this like intellectuals in order to eradicate closed-minded idiocy" rather than shouting it down with a mere reflection of itself. Blindly opposing that viewpoint, in my opinion, is not the most effective way to eliminate it. The power of reasoning is harder to ignore than mere words without backbone. We have to initially acknowledge bigotry as an argument before we can effectively refute it. It's hard to do, and I understand that, but in the end it is the best measure.

[PseudoSABR]

When a black person walks into a room, you know he's black. Do you know anything about his sexuality at that point? Thus, the civil rights issues involved with sexuality are not on par with discrimination on the bases of skin color.

I suggest you read Passing by Nella Larsen.

 

Can I compare religious intolerance to homosexual intolerance? Because I can't necessarily tell if someone is Jewish, Christian etc. by the way they look.

[Brock Beauchamp]

When a black person walks into a room, you know he's black. Do you know anything about his sexuality at that point? Thus, the civil rights issues involved with sexuality are not on par with discrimination on the bases of skin color.

 

I'd be completely uncomfortable with a Mormon teammate.

 

Is that okay?

[FrodaddyG]

Disagree. The response is "let's discuss this like intellectuals in order to eradicate closed-minded idiocy" rather than shouting it down with a mere reflection of itself. Blindly opposing that viewpoint, in my opinion, is not the most effective way to eliminate it. The power of reasoning is harder to ignore than mere words without backbone. We have to initially acknowledge bigotry as an argument before we can effectively refute it. It's hard to do, and I understand that, but in the end it is the best measure.

Because if there's one thing intolerance has always responded well to, it's subtle, nuanced discussion.

[PseudoSABR]

Disagree. The response is "let's discuss this like intellectuals in order to eradicate closed-minded idiocy" rather than shouting it down with a mere reflection of itself. Blindly opposing that viewpoint, in my opinion, is not the most effective way to eliminate it. The power of reasoning is harder to ignore than mere words without backbone. We have to initially acknowledge bigotry as an argument before we can effectively refute it. It's hard to do, and I understand that, but in the end it is the best measure.

I think you're too hopeful about actually changing minds. I'm more concerned not with changing minds, but changing a culture that fosters homophobia.

 

And of course, people who are homophobic aren't necessarily arriving at that conclusion with reason...

[Ultima Ratio]

I suggest you read Passing by Nella Larsen.

 

Can I compare religious intolerance to homosexual intolerance? Because I can't necessarily tell if someone is Jewish, Christian etc. by the way they look.

 

Yes, that seems to be the better analogy.

[FrodaddyG]

When a black person walks into a room, you know he's black. Do you know anything about his sexuality at that point? Thus, the civil rights issues involved with sexuality are not on par with discrimination on the bases of skin color.

So basically, because the option exists that this group of people CAN live a shameful, hidden lifestyle, they deserve scorn and shame if they decide not to. Got it.

[PseudoSABR]

I'd be completely uncomfortable with a Mormon teammate.

 

Is that okay?

Actually, you'd be able to spot a Mormon in the locker room because of their funny undies...

[Brock Beauchamp]

Actually, you'd be able to spot a Mormon in the locker room because of their funny undies...

 

Only Super-Mormons. You have to be a Super-Mormon to get the undies.

 

(not bashing Mormons, BTW... I lived in Utah for several years and actually have a fair amount of respect for the religion)

[Ultima Ratio]

I'd be completely uncomfortable with a Mormon teammate.

 

Is that okay?

 

Maybe this was not clear. I'm attacking the argument some have used, not the conclusion.

[B Richard]

Because if there's one thing intolerance has always responded well to, it's subtle, nuanced discussion.

 

It's currently happening in the US. Lawmakers have discussed itheavily actually. There's not much subtlety to the current debate in our country.

[PseudoSABR]

Maybe this was not clear. I'm attacking the argument some have used, not the conclusion.

Well, you used the word 'idiot', which seems to attack the person, rather than say using the word 'idiotic' which would attack the idea. But in any case, I'll take you at your word here.

[Ultima Ratio]

So basically, because the option exists that this group of people CAN live a shameful, hidden lifestyle, they deserve scorn and shame if they decide not to. Got it.

 

Uh, no. Don't read things into what I've said.

[B Richard]

I think you're too hopeful about actually changing minds. I'm more concerned not with changing minds, but changing a culture that fosters homophobia.

 

And of course, people who are homophobic aren't necessarily arriving at that conclusion with reason...

 

 

You start a dangerous precedent if you allow certain opinions (however wrong they may be) to be stomped out by sheer volume rather than reasoned discussion.

[FrodaddyG]

Uh, no. Don't read things into what I've said.

You mean drawing conclusions from the "blame the victim" type of statement you made where you're saying "well, if they're picked on for this, it's because they told the world about it"? I think that wasn't "reading into it" as much as simply "reading".

[DaveW]

Fact: hunter is a douche bag and a bigot.

Fact: not one person is talking about taking away his right to free speech.

Sad fact: there are clearly a good number of homophobic people on twins daily. Hopefully these people are over the age of 50 and just don't want to change or whatever at this point. Anyone under the age of 35 or so who is homophobic for ANY reason including religion or "hey those queers can just keep quiet, and dont deserve the same rights a us"is a complete and utter idiot and most likely a bigot as well.

 

I have very little desire to have any sorta of "discussion" with the latter.

[flpmagikat]

Two wrongs make a right? So we should bully bigots and that will set the world right?

 

This is precisely my problem in a nut-shell. Well done, intended or not.

 

Tell me, just who the **** is bullying the bigots? You mean calling their opinions idiotic and immoral? Oh boo ****ing hoo. I feel no sympathy for someone getting their awful opinion called out. There is no violence perpetrated against these bigots that I'm aware of. So go cry your river for the bigots, and beat your strawmen, and keep patting yourself on your spineless back for taking no stand on something you disagree with. If posts like mine are equal to the problem of hateful bigotry in our society in your opinion, your opinion is bull****. And you have the right to your bull****.

[B Richard]

I have very little desire to have any sorta of "discussion" with the latter.

 

That's too bad- I feel for you. The use of dialectic is a beautiful thing- you don't need Socrates or an ivy leaguer to tell you that. I guess cooler heads don't always prevail