Torrii Hunter: Homophobe

[twinsnorth49]

Indeed, the comparison is quite loose. Not impossible to compare, but silly to do so. There are many things, accidental to human nature, which are not a choice. Height, would be an example. Odd number of hairs also. And yes, these are not just like or properly comparable to discrimination based on color.

 

You're trying way to hard to sound smart.

[PseudoSABR]

Indeed, the comparison is quite loose. Not impossible to compare, but silly to do so. There are many things, accidental to human nature, which are not a choice. Height, would be an example. Odd number of hairs also. And yes, these are not just like or properly comparable to discrimination based on color.

No, the comparison would not be "quite loose," as I suggested earlier I'm sure any legitimate study would find a statistically significant correlation bigotry of racism and homophobia.

[luke829]

Notre Dame football commit Torii Hunter Jr.?s devastating injury caught on film | Prep Rally - Yahoo! Sports

 

Karma can be a you know what

[glunn]

I cannot wait for spring training to start -- this hot stove talk is getting tiresome.

[Jim Crikket]

Great, balanced piece by Morosi

 

Detroit Tigers outfielder Torii Hunter was quoted as saying his Christian beliefs would make it ?difficult and uncomfortable? for him to accept an openly gay teammate. - MLB News | FOX Sports on MSN

[howeda7]

Wow. 11 pages on this? Impressive. This is not like asking Trevor Plouffe his views on abortion. Torii was asked what it would be like to have a gay teammate. Big difference.

 

Of course he's entitled to his opinion, but 'free speech' means the government can't arrest you for speaking your mind, not that you deserve to have your view 'respected' and treated as equal and valid no matter what it is, which is what some of you seem to be asking for.

 

We don't give Westboro Baptist Church 'equal' platforms to spout their views. Why not? Because their views are abhorrent to the vast majority of folks. 40 years ago, they weren't. Clearly this issue has not yet reached that level of consensus. But the way that changes isn't so much in changing the minds of the bigots. It's by taking away their microphone and marginalizing their views for what they are.

[TheLeviathan]

But the way that changes isn't so much in changing the minds of the bigots. It's by taking away their microphone and marginalizing their views for what they are.

 

You achieve that how exactly? Force? Threats? Please explain "taking away" and "marginalizing" in a way that isn't a good sound bite.

[PseudoSABR]

You achieve that how exactly? Force? Threats? Please explain "taking away" and "marginalizing" in a way that isn't a good sound bite.

Shame. We don't need to impede people's rights to make them look stupid and shallow.

[TheLeviathan]

Shame. We don't need to impede people's rights to make them look stupid and shallow.

 

We all agree that what we want is for bigotry against homosexuals to end and for them to have equal rights....correct? That is a practical objective, so let's talk practical. Shaming Torii Hunter does not keep the microphone out of his face. If that was the case, no one would have asked him this question after he was shamed for his racist comments a few years ago. I assure you, this won't be the last time someone asks him a question on this topic no matter how much shame you pile on. As for marginalizing, the only people who agree that his opinion is marginalized by shaming him are the people already sympathetic towards gay rights. You aren't marginalizing it with anyone else by shaming him. They have to care that the opinion is wrong before shame accomplishes that.

 

Maybe this analogy will help, maybe it won't. Bigotry is a very stupid, childish thought. When a child does or says something wrong, shaming them is a response you can have, but as the go-to it is highly ineffective for altering behavior. We are, in this case, truly trying to alter behavior. Shaming, no matter what spiffy titles we put on it to make our rejection of his comments empowering, will not change anyone's behavior. All you're doing is preaching to the choir. Note: That doesn't mean shaming can't be part of the process, but it isn't the central thrust because it has no real power without more effective practices being employed with it. (Like....reason, positive relationships, etc.)

[flpmagikat]

We all agree that what we want is for bigotry against homosexuals to end and for them to have equal rights....correct? That is a practical objective, so let's talk practical. Shaming Torii Hunter does not keep the microphone out of his face. If that was the case, no one would have asked him this question after he was shamed for his racist comments a few years ago. I assure you, this won't be the last time someone asks him a question on this topic no matter how much shame you pile on. As for marginalizing, the only people who agree that his opinion is marginalized by shaming him are the people already sympathetic towards gay rights. You aren't marginalizing it with anyone else by shaming him. They have to care that the opinion is wrong before shame accomplishes that.

 

Maybe this analogy will help, maybe it won't. Bigotry is a very stupid, childish thought. When a child does or says something wrong, shaming them is a response you can have, but as the go-to it is highly ineffective for altering behavior. We are, in this case, truly trying to alter behavior. Shaming, no matter what spiffy titles we put on it to make our rejection of his comments empowering, will not change anyone's behavior. All you're doing is preaching to the choir. Note: That doesn't mean shaming can't be part of the process, but it isn't the central thrust because it has no real power without more effective practices being employed with it. (Like....reason, positive relationships, etc.)

 

You do recall Hunter coming out like the next day and saying he was misquoted or taken out of context, without actually correcting that misquote? Like people tend to do when they're embarrassed or say, ashamed of what they've said.

[TheLeviathan]

You do recall Hunter coming out like the next day and saying he was misquoted or taken out of context, without actually correcting that misquote? Like people tend to do when they're embarrassed or say, ashamed of what they've said.

 

But he didn't change his mind. He's still "uncomfortable" with it and disapproving of homosexuals. All he did was soften the perception of how he'd react based on those feelings, his feelings didn't change at all.

[flpmagikat]

But he didn't change his mind. He's still "uncomfortable" with it and disapproving of homosexuals. All he did was soften the perception of how he'd react based on those feelings, his feelings didn't change at all.

 

 

Theres a saying that many addicts use, "fake it til you make it." I dont expect anyone to change their deeply held views and bigotry overnight.

[TheLeviathan]

Theres a saying that many addicts use, "fake it til you make it." I dont expect anyone to change their deeply held views and bigotry overnight.

 

No, but that's why shame isn't a go-to tactic. Shaming over and over and over again isn't going to change anyone. In fact, I'd argue at some point it becomes counter-productive. All the shame tactic does is give them an initial shock, the meat of changing a deeply held view/behavior comes in what has been said by Richard, myself, and others in this thread. I think that's the disconnect here. Shaming only goes so far (as in: not very).

[flpmagikat]

No, but that's why shame isn't a go-to tactic. Shaming over and over and over again isn't going to change anyone. In fact, I'd argue at some point it becomes counter-productive. All the shame tactic does is give them an initial shock, the meat of changing a deeply held view/behavior comes in what has been said by Richard, myself, and others in this thread. I think that's the disconnect here. Shaming only goes so far (as in: not very).

 

Well yeah, obviously there's more to winning hearts and minds than just making people feel like asses. But what you and moreso Richard are arguing seems to be trying to reason with irrationality, and never having any bite as its offensive to the people with bigoted views you're trying to reason with. I know the intellectual argument is more honest and meaningful, and sometimes more effective. But you're really downplaying the emotional and real life components to this issue, and really that has been more offensive to me in thus thread than hunters original statement.

[TheLeviathan]

Well yeah, obviously there's more to winning hearts and minds than just making people feel like asses. But what you and moreso Richard are arguing seems to be trying to reason with irrationality, and never having any bite as its offensive to the people with bigoted views you're trying to reason with. I know the intellectual argument is more honest and meaningful, and sometimes more effective. But you're really downplaying the emotional and real life components to this issue, and really that has been more offensive to me in thus thread than hunters original statement.

 

The problem with the kind of emotions you're emphasizing (aggressive, shaming, etc.) are they they don't effect change. If anything, they'll get people to dig in deeper. I don't deny the emotions, I'm focusing on the need to keep those emotions in check to result in meaningful change. Which, ultimately, is the goal. It might make you feel better now to lash out at people like Hunter, but long-term you're hurting things that matter much, much more.

[flpmagikat]

The problem with the kind of emotions you're emphasizing (aggressive, shaming, etc.) are they they don't effect change. If anything, they'll get people to dig in deeper. I don't deny the emotions, I'm focusing on the need to keep those emotions in check to result in meaningful change. Which, ultimately, is the goal. It might make you feel better now to lash out at people like Hunter, but long-term you're hurting things that matter much, much more.

 

Yeah my point was that Hunter did the opposite of what you're claiming and sort of retracted his remarks, not dug in deeper. My guess would be he'd go out of his way to show just how not a bigot he really is given the opportunity. Fake it til you make it. And I don't consider calling hunter a foolish bigot to be aggressive lashing out.

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah my point was that Hunter did the opposite of what you're claiming and sort of retracted his remarks, not dug in deeper. My guess would be he'd go out of his way to show just how not a bigot he really is given the opportunity. Fake it til you make it. And I don't consider calling hunter a foolish bigot to be aggressive lashing out.

 

That language isn't very constructive, it's confrontational. "Bigot" has some strong associations. I wouldn't call it inaccurate, but it's certainly not constructive. The problem for gay rights is that you do need to win hearts and minds and non-constructive dialogue hurts that. As Richard said well - it's far more powerful to expose a bigot with reason than it is to get into a shouting match.

[flpmagikat]

That language isn't very constructive, it's confrontational. "Bigot" has some strong associations. I wouldn't call it inaccurate, but it's certainly not constructive. The problem for gay rights is that you do need to win hearts and minds and non-constructive dialogue hurts that. As Richard said well - it's far more powerful to expose a bigot with reason than it is to get into a shouting match.

 

Most people are aware that homophobia is wrong on some level. There are plenty of facts and reason that are used on a macro level to win the minds if not the hearts of the majority of the public. I don't think torii hunter is a hateful person, but that doesn't make what he said any less bigoted. Sorry that word offends you, faggot kinda offends me, but you know, I deal. Anyway when someone who's a public figure says something dumb and bigoted, them getting called out I would argue is effective as they can reflect on what they said or their views and view them in a broader context. I mean, it's not exactly like hunter was getting shouted down in the street or threatened or people asking for him to be reprimanded by MLB. Some people online just pointed out how ridiculous and hypocritical what he said was.

[TheLeviathan]

Sorry that word offends you, faggot kinda offends me, but you know, I deal.

 

Jesus christ dude. I never said it was offensive to me, I said it comes with heavy confrontational overtones that makes dialogue difficult. What's offensive is your constant need to be offended and twist what I'm saying to make it that way. You have every right to use strong language, but there are consequences to the productivity of the dialogue if you do so.

 

Jim Cricket's article is very reasonable and a much better guide to how to respond to this issue than what you are suggesting IMO. You're absolutely right that most of the people impeding gay rights know they shouldn't hate gay people. In fact, it's actively a part of many of the political movements that are suppressing gay rights. (Think: "I don't hate gays, I just want to protect marriage") If you're content with people faking it out of one corner of their mouth while they actively suppress gay rights out of the other, fine. I'm not. I'd much rather we have lasting change through changed minds.

[PseudoSABR]

Shame has nothing to do with changing the mind of the bigot; it's about sending a cultural message. But we've gone over this.

[TheLeviathan]

Shame has nothing to do with changing the mind of the bigot; it's about sending a cultural message. But we've gone over this.

 

"Sending a message" does not take the platform away nor marginalize his perspective as I indicated in response to you the first time.

[PseudoSABR]

"Sending a message" does not take the platform away nor marginalize his perspective as I indicated in response to you the first time.

No one wants to take the 'platform' away, it's about placing comments such as these in greater context. In any case, as flp noted, Hunter issued a (half-hearted) retraction. That's meaningful, if small, victory. And it probably wasn't soft-spoken syllogisms that motivated Hunter to respond...

[TheLeviathan]

No one wants to take the 'platform' away, it's about placing comments such as these in greater context. In any case, as flp noted, Hunter issued a (half-hearted) retraction. That's meaningful, if small, victory. And it probably wasn't soft-spoken syllogisms that motivated Hunter to respond...

 

So, you're happy your strategy achieved a half-hearted, save-face retraction? I guess if that's your aim, congrats.

[PseudoSABR]

So, you're happy your strategy achieved a half-hearted, save-face retraction? I guess if that's your aim, congrats.

It gets better results than bigot-coddling methinks.

[howeda7]

You achieve that how exactly? Force? Threats? Please explain "taking away" and "marginalizing" in a way that isn't a good sound bite.

 

Neither. Perhaps not the best choice of words. But if CNN, etc. is doing a story on the issue, are they obligated to bring on the head spokesperson from the 'American Family' this or that to hear the 'other side' about how gays are icky and dooming America? I'm inclined to say no. If the writer of this story was prompted by a player saying he'd support a gay teammate does he need to run to Torii for the 'other view'? Again no. Obviously they can still do as they wish.

[TheLeviathan]

It gets better results than bigot-coddling methinks.

 

Yeah, what was MLK thinking using reason and compassion. What a coddler!

 

I guess I aim higher than half-ass non-apologies. But to each their own.

[TheLeviathan]

Neither. Perhaps not the best choice of words. But if CNN, etc. is doing a story on the issue, are they obligated to bring on the head spokesperson from the 'American Family' this or that to hear the 'other side' about how gays are icky and dooming America? I'm inclined to say no. If the writer of this story was prompted by a player saying he'd support a gay teammate does he need to run to Torii for the 'other view'? Again no. Obviously they can still do as they wish.

 

Well in that much I totally agree. We can certainly limit how much we listen or pay attention to these people and encourage the media to do the same. I didn't get that tone from your post though.

[PseudoSABR]

Yeah, what was MLK thinking using reason and compassion. What a coddler!

 

I guess I aim higher than half-ass non-apologies. But to each their own.

MLK? How pathetic. No one is begetting violence. MLK shamed and decried and sang on a ****ing mountain top the wrongs against his people. He didn't use violence to do that, but goddamn he shamed racists, every chance he got.

 

You're POV is nothing like MLK; and the fact that you coined him is utterly insulting.

 

What exactly is your point of view? It sounds to me that you're suggesting we should give space and voice to cash-heads like Hunter, and not shame them, because really if we listen to them, we'll get to some noble place. It's stupid. And comical. And absolutely insincere.

 

Honestly, and I'm sure everyone sees it, but you've been communicating this: 1) We should shut up about gun control (too soon!), and 2) we should talk about the possible legitimacy of homophobia.

 

It's godawful phony bull****.

[twinsnorth49]

MLK? How pathetic. No one is begetting violence. MLK shamed and decried and sang on a ****ing mountain top the wrongs against his people. He didn't use violence to do that, but goddamn he shamed racists, every chance he got.

 

You're POV is nothing like MLK; and the fact that you coined him is utterly insulting.

 

What exactly is your point of view? It sounds to me that you're suggesting we should give space and voice to cash-heads like Hunter, and not shame them, because really if we listen to them, we'll get to some noble place. It's stupid. And comical. And absolutely insincere.

 

Honestly, and I'm sure everyone sees it, but you've been communicating this: 1) We should shut up about gun control (too soon!), and 2) we should talk about the possible legitimacy of homophobia.

 

It's godawful phony bull****.

 

And moreover it's been ridiculously patronizing.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't know what happened to your reading comprehension lately but I won't dignify that confused, twisted post with a direct reply. I never said shame can't be part of it. Back up and remember the course of the discussion. Howeda made some strong claims that I asked him to clarify (which he did and I totally agree with) you wedged into that and interjected "shame" as the answer. I called out how ineffective shame is to accomplish what howeda posted and now you are generalizing further. Friggin follow along or stop, good god.

 

Shame is perfectly fine if combined with a genuine effcort to change someone's mind. Shame and then celebrating a half-ass non apology as a victory is stupid. Many reasonable, well stated attempts have been madxe to try and show you howtruly effective, lasting change is best accomplished through reason, building new relationships, and exposing bigotry through thoughtful dedication. Essentially - what MLK did. You have taken a more militant position which has not historicaly been very effective at lasting change. Bigotry is best used as a weapon against itself, exposed by reasonable people for what it is.

 

If you insist on being obtuse and hacking up this point again with a seemingly deliberate atempt to fail at comprehending - go nuts. Otherwise howeda answered my question without skewing or slanting it.