Recently, Frank Rich of the New York Times wrote an Op-Ed piece about the ever explosive issue of gay rights, especially as those rights are protected or infringed upon in the military. It was called “Smoke the Bigots Out of the Closet”, and it was most concerned with finishing off those few politicians who hide behind dubious policies that mask their bigotry toward gay men and women.
While Rich’s piece is suited to the job of attacking politicians, there is the potential for collateral damage to the reader of his column. As it makes its points about the duck and dodge methods of Congressmen and other leaders, Rich’s article – in its gleeful, hunt-down-the-crippled-fox tone – does exactly what he claims to detest. He paints anyone who disagrees with repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as a bigot.
The term bigot, like the terms “racist” and “ignorant”, is one that is used like a grenade, when often, a sniper rifle would be more appropriate. People say it, write it, and exclaim it without knowing what it actually means. As a refresher, then:
(According to Merriam-Webster)
bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred or intolerance.
It is not my purpose to debate Frank Rich. I bring up his article because it speaks to what I think to be larger issues: an increased need to polarize and simplify the opinions of others, and an intolerance of dissenting opinion in general, whether because that opinion doesn’t line up with one’s own, or because it doesn’t line up with the prescribed options.
A few years ago, it was the American conservative who was usually portrayed as the most set in his ways. It was not an outlandish portrayal. The Cheney-Rove-Ashcroft-Rumsfeld (or CRAR, for the sound the unholy spawn of that union would make) years were enough to make any sane person swear lifelong allegiance to the Democratic party. But the teeter-totter of self-righteousness has tipped. Now, liberals seem just as intolerant of dissent.
This pains me. I’ve long sided with Democrats, thinking their party to be the reasonable one as I watched the hijacking of my home state by a religious right determined to scare people into thinking that a vote for a Democrat was a vote for Armageddon. And not the kind longed for by readers of LaHaye-Jenkins.
Piloting my trust in Democrats was a belief that the legislation of morality is generally a terrible idea. I rejected the Republican tone – one that I found to be shrill and alarmist – in favor of what I thought to be a more reasonable one on the left side of the aisle.
In recent years, I’ve noted that shrill is no longer (and really, has never) been the birthright of the Republican party. Both “sides” are guilty of attempting to demonize the other. It is a constant arms race – one-upmanship perfected. In my opinion, this Seussian Butter Battle serves only to hurt the chances that anyone will ever be tolerant, rational, and unbigoted. And by “anyone”, I mean sane citizens with rational views. John McCain doesn’t count.
For an illustration of what I mean, let’s return to the issue at hand: Gays in the military.
Consider a man from Illinois who I will call Barry. Barry reads in his local paper that the President is considering the repeal of an old law that discouraged gay men and women from enlisting in the military. Barry considers what he just read, and does what many people who read do: he puts himself in the position in question. Barry is heterosexual, and he hasn’t spent much time around gay people. But, to the best of his ability, he considers what it might be like to be in close quarters – in a tank, for example – with a gay man. He wonders how he’d react if he knew that a man with whom he is showering might be attracted to him.
Barry assumes that he might be a little uncomfortable with both situations but, because he’s neither in the military nor considering joining it, he shrugs and moves on to the latest news about his Southern Illinios Salukis. He has put the Gays in the Military issue to rest. Until he sees a segment on the news, during which it is intimated that, if he has any reservations about serving next to a gay man, he is a bigot, a fool, and not very smart.
If Barry is anything like the rest of us, he probably reacts like an elementary student who asks a perfectly innocuous question – like how the Earth could be only 10,000 years old or why girls pee sitting down – but is told that he shouldn’t ask such things.
He’s filled with shame, and thinks, “I don’t think I’m a bigot, a fool, or not very smart. I just think I might have some questions on this issue. But fuck you if I can’t ask them.”
And then, sadly, Barry is transformed into a person who disagrees with allowing gays in the military. Not because he actually cares about gays in the military all that much, but because someone has made him feel dumb.
Granted, this isn’t how all polarization happens. Some people were born angry or evil or hate-filled. (Like the CRAR.) But most people were not. Most people want to see the good in their fellow humans. Most people don’t really care that much about gay rights, or abortion, or race, or differences in religion. It takes a catalyst to make them care. Someone has to give them a reason to have an unflinching – and, potentially, misguided – opinion. And what better way to accomplish that than to insult them.
My friend Matt (this is a real person, not a proxy for humanity) told me recently about an outing he took with his family. He and his two young daughters were at a restaurant, where they sat down next to a black family. One of his daughters pointed at their neighbors and said, “Daddy, why is their skin so dark?” Matt said, in a patient tone, “Honey, it’s not nice to point, but it’s okay to ask questions. That’s the way they were born. It doesn’t make them bad or good; it’s just the way they are.”
Satisfied, his daughter returned to her meal. It seems likely that her developing brain has settled the race question, at least for a while. Both Matt and his daughter handled the situation correctly. That is, they handled it like human beings should. But, while I commend Matt on his parenting skills, I would rather spend more time commending his daughter on her daughtering skills. Or rather, on her being a kid skills.
Matt’s daughter was curious, so she asked a question. There was no malice behind that question. She did not intend to hurt anyone’s feelings. She only desired knowledge.
Somewhere in our quest to be grown-up, many of us have forgotten that we never stop learning. We seem to think that, because we’re over 18, we’re no longer required to be curious. Or even worse, that we’re no longer allowed to be curious.
American policies toward gay people, whether those policies are applied to the military or to marriage, will always be debated, whether we like it or not. If we hope to reach a consensus – the compromise that we were taught to value in our half-assed studies of American government – it seems to me that we’ll need to figure out a way to allow for curiosity without name-calling. For free inquiry without demonization.
In other words, unless we’d like to return to the days of McCarthyism, we need to learn to be a little less like columnists in newspapers. And a little more like kids in restaurants: Curious, patient, and tolerant of the views of others, even when those views make us want to call people names.
Tweet
Yeah, speak the truth!
Great article!
I agree, Paul.
Ostrich – I appreciate the enthusiasm.
Redline – Thanks.
I wouldn’t have a problem sharing a tank with a gay man but I would have a problem sharing one with a Saluki!
a transparent proxy for your own battle against people who called you mean names, paul? how sad. your own words and history demonstrate further that you may fit squarely within the dictionary definition that you pimp. see: http://deadspin.com/5460730/paul-shirley-has-been-down-this-road-before
unfortunately for you, you do not get to be the arbiter of others’ opinions of you by trying to dismiss the terminology. a better way would be to apologize and more carefully choose your framing, research and word choice going forward. your intent doesn’t matter.
Jeff- Ha.
Paul:
Another thoughtful article. I’ve been reading your stuff since Bill Simmons first shined his spotlight on you. I figured that there would eventually be a hubbub about something you’d write. It was inevitable; a bright, honest, and well-traveled writer with no family to support is bound to offend every now and then.
I’m curious, would you like to continue playing professionally or have you decided to put the basketball to bed? Good luck in all your future endeavors, Paul. I look forward to reading you for years to come.
Exactly… every stupid issue comes devolves into staring at it with bipartisan goggles. How can i demonize the (left/right) with this. Could we pretty please have a 3rd or 4th legit party?
Why can’t i point out that religion is man-made nonsense AND think we should deport illegal aliens?
It’s such a joke.
Pragmatism:
Intent doesn’t matter? Obviously not, when you prefer to follow what others are saying about the guy without bothering to read and understand the point he is trying to make, that there is room (a need, in fact) for open discussion when considering touchy matters like race.
Oh, and learn to use a shift key. You e.e. cummings wannabes are often so trite. Sorry, my intent was actually to say it is Fucking Lame.
Seussian Butter Battle, well done.
A great point. Writers act “outraged” just to have something to write about, and it affects the readers. I’m finding in my own quest to write, you have to take a stance even when you don’t have one. I’ll send a piece through my uncle (an editor) before I send it in to it’s outlet, and I’ll occassionally get back a comment like “what’s the point you’re trying to make?” Which is a totally good question from a reader. Fact is, my stance on very few things is actually all that polar, and it’s tough to defend the middle. It would be easy to be Skip Bayless or Woody Paige, aim in a direction and defend it (like you had to do when debating in high school), but the toughest events to cover are the ones that are reasonable.
Paul, as a trans woman and semi “leader” in our community (the lgbt community) I commend your efforts at trying to create a conversation that is based on civility. I do take issue with a few of your assumptions and conclusions though.
Your “illustration” involving “Barry” for example; I don’t believe that is how most people come to the conclusions they come to, most people don’t put that much thought into this particular issue, most people come to the conclusion you associated to “BARRY” because they have been raised to believe (many times consciously often subtly) that people who are lgbt are deviants, weak (both physically and morally), and sexual predators. I am also sure you are very aware that many hetero men (if not most) who have never been exposed to the lgbt community, believe that all gay men are going to try to have sex with them or find them sexually attractive, This is why people like “Ms.Frank Rich” (who i can’t stand btw), or myself call people like “BARRY” ignorant, stupid, and bigoted. Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade. You also have to acknowledge that it is the very small LGBT community that has been and still is on the receiving end of the vast majority of the name calling and hate since almost the beginning of written history. So I am certain you can understand why at this point in history we may are just a tad intolerant of stupidity. (kind of like how you AND I are intolerant of the stupid people in haiti who don’t know how to use a fucking condom!)
When it comes to your hope that we can discuss and debate this issue with out demonizing the other side, the problem with that hope is that our side already comes to the table demonized. Our side comes to the table with out any federal protections at all..forget gay marriage, it’s still legal to fire or not hire someone because they are LGBT in 31 states!!!
We come to the table as, at best, second class citizens, in reality third class citizens. We also come to the table making up about 10-13% of the population….taking all of that into account I hope in your infinite wisdom you can empathize and understand why “our side” calls stupid…STUPID.
In conclusion, “our side” needs fewer “Frank Riches” fighting for the LGBT community and more “PAUL SHIRLEYS” fighting for us….”Stupid” Hetero men, need to see or hear other Hetero men they relate to telling them..”Look dude, most women don’t find you attractive, and I can assure you the vast majority of gay men find you repulsive..especially if they have to sit in a fox hole with you for a week with no shower…GET OVER YOURSELF STUPID…Their Queer…their here…and they have no interest in fucking you!”
I really wish i could edit my post lol..”THEY’RE” damn it!!! “THEY’RE” lol!
jack, i think i’ll type exactly how i want to but thanks for the input.
it seems as if you and paul are limiting the sort of “open conversation” we can have by deeming specific terms off limits. oxymoron much?
if you really believe that people have to somehow mindread to determine intent during a discussion or article, i suggest you go try the following experiment: walk up to an african american with the intent of calling him the n-word to highlight that it isn’t a big deal in society. see if you get punched in the face. its incumbent upon the author to make the intent clear. despite paul’s lame attempts to say, i’m not a racist, but……, no one bought it. now he complains about it? sad.
i believe that paul intended to say exactly what he said. his other quotes and writings back this. then when the backlash hit, he tried to say that he “just wanted to make people think”. like others have mentioned, its an adolescent excuse.
its a good think paul is tall. you don’t even have to use kneepads to fellate him, jack.
I think the most important point you made was “Somewhere in our quest to be grown-up, many of us have forgotten that we never stop learning. We seem to think that, because we’re over 18, we’re no longer required to be curious. Or even worse, that we’re no longer allowed to be curious.” I’m a high school senior who sees this first hand. I’ve had teachers tell me my opinion doesn’t matter. I’ve had teachers who refuse to answer questions because they feel that the questions are irrelevant. With attitudes like that, it’s no wonder that people stop asking questions. What is especially bad is that these teachers were teaching Honors and AP level classes. And Americans wonder why so many bright kids burn out…
good article paul
it’s becoming increasingly difficult as a white male in today’s US to express any contrary opinion, especially in regards to race or sexuality. i’m not saying this to grouse about it, it’s just the truth.
i have a gay friend. when i first started talking about his position on the gay marriage platform, it was like listening to the bizzaro-world pat robertson – hostile, demeaning, and condescending. instantly! without even stating my opinion (which i’m all for), i felt immediately lectured and belittled that if i didn’t even begin to understand any point of view of his, i was a complete racist and gay basher. and we’re friends!!!
just goes back to that article you wrote about sensationalism in america – with any political hot topic or viewpoint….whomever yells loudest or shocks the most wins. it’s a sad sad state of affairs. i haven’t watched primetime news….EVER. charlie rose on public access…love it. opinions and current events in a free forum.
Jamie – Basketball is winding down, but I can’t say that it’s completely finished. Close though.
Mike D – I’ll get into religion another day, but thanks for the comment.
Justin – It is something of a catch-22. If you don’t say something crazy, no one will read…
Grace – It is true that upbringing has a lot to do with one’s views. But I do think there’s always a chance for education. It may be fleeting, but it’s there. If free inquiry is quashed, though, it goes by even more quickly. Thanks for the comment either way.
Sam – Oh, HS teachers. Have faith; it’ll get better…when you’re left to your own devices!
adelsig – I think it’s a weird time to be alive. It’s like we’ve forgotten how to have arguments. Arguments don’t have to mean fights.
Sam – Those teachers dismiss your questions because they don’t know the answers. As Paul said, don’t get discouraged.
Hey Paul!
Another good article. Even tho I still feel you’re kinda sorta holding back. I understand, but… :-D
A few of my thoughts on this topic here.
bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred or intolerance.
I think it would be groovy to dissect this grandstandingly politically correct definition.
What is a prejudice? It’s a personal thought, based usually on person’s experience, on a certain subject. Who then determines which of your thoughts are prejudiced? How can one claim your own personal experiences, which you convey in a shape of written or spoken words, are prejudiced and how did they arrive to the point of having the right to do so?
What is tolerance? Let’s take a look at few definitions of said word.
Tolerance:
1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
2. Leeway for variation from a standard.
3. The capacity to endure hardship or pain.
4. The ability of an organism to resist or survive infection by a parasitic or pathogenic organism.
Before I elaborate on all 4 definitions, would the audience here be willing to ponder on possibility that being tolerant goes against YOURSELF? That being tolerant means you have to force yourself to do something it goes against you, even hurts you?
Who would want to force tolerance on us? Does the same rule apply to them as well?
1. Why do I must have the capacity to respect the practices and believes of other people? Respect is something that is earned, not demanded or else I’m labeled as a person without capacity… some kind of capacity. For which specific believes do I have to have respect for in order to be seen as status qua silent accepting sheep? I ask this because it is clear that there are beliefs which fall under ”you’re not allowed to believe nor practice this”. Say, I have a belief that white women deserve security and subsequently I am neither recognizing nor respecting the practice of black on white rape. How many seconds before I get labeled as bigot, or the more profitable remark — racist– for practicing my freedom of belief? Should I be tolerant of black on white rape? The definition in politically correct, hypocritical and double standards having world would not only imply so, but demand.
2. If I live in the world where female genital mutilation is NOT a standard, but a leeway, to say the least, from standard and I am very vocal about NOT wanting such practice anywhere in, say, Europe, does that make me intolerant? Does that make ME the one intolerant in this story? Who claims the rule I must accept this leeway from standard, lest I be labeled as intolerant. As a bigot. As a racist?
3. The capacity to endure hardship or pain. I believe THIS one covers what tolerance really and truly is: no matter how much pain and hardship something brings to your life, you MUST accept it. Lest you be deemed a bigot, a racist. And tolerance, in all its religious glory, is wrapped in a nice package of being something noble: suck it up, bitch. And no other group but the 7% (so much for the slapping cliche of majority, uh?) of the world population gets tolerance as much beat into it.
Who says I MUST endure pain and hardship so that someone else would feel comfortable doing what they are doing?! Do I have any say in this blatant showcase of hypocrisy?!
4. Do we get to survive the House of Rothschild parasitic and pathogenic organism? For how long will we have to tolerate it, and why did we have to tolerate it (endure pain and hardship) in the first place?
So who exactly IS the bigot here? Could it, the screaming and labeling with such words as bigot and racist, actually be a clear (once you wake the hell up) case of projection, serving an ol’ plan?
And no, Paul, we’re NOT allowed to be curious. The societal rules are set on the dogma base, and are so for a reason. If you dare to steer away from these set of rules, start thinking with your own head, realize that something is VERY wrong, and ask questions — even worse if you do it publicly as you did — you will quickly get a lesson, which will be very intolerant toward your rights to think, question and doubt. And it will come from those who set these rules (like… I dunno, owners of some sport channel) and their ever faithful politically correct brainwashed intolerant discriminatory good doers in a shape of quasi liberals sheep.
As far as gays… in military or otherwise. What would happen if straight people had Straight Pride Parade?
And lastly, on the subject of Democrats vs Republicans. There’s no ”vs” between them; or in other words: it’s all a game called ”divide et impera” for the sake of panem et circenses. The sooner people realize this, the better. And the sooner a third party, with no sponsorship whatsoever from NotSoFederal Reserve gathers the balls to arise, the better.
@Pragmatism:
Ah, I knew the typical politically correct shouting in a form of ”you’re racist” would commence sooner rather than later for every Paul’s blog entry after that hot politically incorrect one (Haiti). Only this one was wrapped in a long elaboration of what the brainwashed all-inclusive hypocritically one-sided egalitarians preach.
a transparent proxy for your own battle against people who called you mean names, paul? how sad.
What exactly is sad in this case? That peaceful egalitarian quasi progressive and quasi liberal brainwashed sheep called Paul mean names for daring to exercise his freedom of speech and spoke the truth based on obvious evidence? Or is it sad he felt he has to defend his freedom of speech and himself against the rabid pacifist egalitarian progressive quasi liberals, who preach freedom, but behead anyone who does not tolerate their terroristic definitions of freedom?
your own words and history demonstrate further that you may fit squarely within the dictionary definition that you pimp. see: http://deadspin.com/5460730/paul-shirley-has-been-down-this-road-before
What is a definition of a bigot? What is definition of a racist? In the world and the times we live nowadays, it’s ”one who speaks the truth”. I’ll take it even further: ”any white person, who speaks the truth for which he/she has been conditioned against in the form of vicious psychological propaganda by the powers that be (non white, that goes without saying), mainly and mostly in the shape of white guilt indoctrination.
Or, if I lean on what you said above, about Paul’s history: Paul is white, slavery, history…
You are free to flip the words above into any demagogic politically correct statement. Al Sharpton press.
unfortunately for you, you do not get to be the arbiter of others’ opinions of you by trying to dismiss the terminology.
I would not speak for Paul here, but I will venture and dare give my opinion on what I THINK. I don’t think Paul thought or wanted to win a popularity contest when he published THAT blog entry. After all, Paul is an intelligent man, and no intelligent man would entertain, for a second, a thought to win a popularity contest for speaking the truth about a subject which must not, as per politically correct anti white propaganda machine (Trotsky&co. just blushed upon reading these words) be spoken in a politically incorrect, obvious due to clear evidence, words. I would venture to say Paul KNEW damn well that knuckledraggers would crucify him, a white man, for daring to steer away from the decades long brainwashing propaganda, and exercise his Constitutional right to free speech.
Truth needs no defense. People did not attack the truth he spoke about; they resorted, as expected, to ad hominem attacks, as a good trained monkeys.
But hey. Paul could receive even harsher sentence for speaking the truth. He could be thrown in jail for years. Yes, we’ve come so far that people, who question the propaganda, and dare to speak out and dare to speak the truth, get thrown in jail.
a better way would be to apologize and more carefully choose your framing, research and word choice going forward. your intent doesn’t matter.
Oy vey! The thought police has arrived! Bow, you slaves, and apologize! Apologize for daring to speak the truth! Apologize for interrupting the nicely oiled propaganda machine! We will not allow you to shake the sleeping sheep out of their artificially induced coma! We’ve worked for far too long to force our version of societal reality upon them to now see some Paul shake the sleeping sheep out of their sleep! There’s more money to print and sell at high rates, and more countries to enslave! We can’t be dealing with some Paul here!
We’ll take your house now, so let this be a lesson to you, Paul, the next time you entertain a thought of penning out something similar.
His intent doesn’t matter? But he didn’t even do nuthin’!
raindrop. sad in that its another indirect attempt at justifying his behavior (his previous being the “reaction” piece). i think he should apologize, you don’t. neither one of us is alone in thinking the way we do. however, you and
regarding your opinion, i beg to differ. read his reaction piece. when someone is reduced to trotting out the “i just wanted to make you think” line, they are backpedaling quickly. you really believe he would jeopardize aspects of his career to “speak truth to power”? i understand that is your wingnut fantasy but its more likely that its a miscalculation–like your boy james o’keefe in LA.
there were plenty of people who spoke to what paul believes is the truth and he admits this in his reaction piece by acknowledging that his “analysis” does not take into account the history of haiti.
back to the right wing echo chamber with you. or go teabag scott brown. \
@Pragmatism
jack, i think i’ll type exactly how i want to but thanks for the input.
Do as I say, not as I do? Oh, how mighty hilarious the hypocrisy of egalitarian freedom loving quasi liberals is.
Didn’t you just a few lines before dictate how Paul should write and what he should write about and even apologize if he does not write the way and about YOU deem as appropriate?!
unfortunately for you, you do not get to be the arbiter of others’ opinions of you by trying to dismiss the terminology. a better way would be to apologize and more carefully choose your framing, research and word choice going forward. your intent doesn’t matter.
Unfortunately for you, you do not get to be the arbiter of others’ opinions about you.
it seems as if you and paul are limiting the sort of “open conversation” we can have by deeming specific terms off limits. oxymoron much?
There’s no end in sight for the hypocrisy coming from that bag of yours, is it?
Has no Paul (and his supporters) been attacked, viciously, via typical bananisms, for daring to venture open ANOTHER line of discussion, as opposed to staying in the politically correct line of ”debate” on that subject (debate: blacks talk, whites listen and nod, or else).
Has not Paul been limited in his freedom of speech? Has Paul not been reprimanded and attacked ad hominem and still is and always will be carrying this from now on (you know, he’s white, whites used to own slaves ERGO)?
This egalitarianism and progressiveness is sexy only when it suits brainwashed sheep like you, isn’t it? The moment someone else wants to practice that equal rights thingy, we hear the bullet ”rafal” of typical non counter arguments, truth hating, profitable idiocies: bigot, racist et al.
if you really believe that people have to somehow mindread to determine intent during a discussion or article, i suggest you go try the following experiment: walk up to an african american with the intent of calling him the n-word to highlight that it isn’t a big deal in society. see if you get punched in the face.
Are you saying that blacks are violent, and will restore to violence for a mere spoken word (the very word THEY themselves use more than any other word, when they are not having funeral for that word, that is) due to not being able to control basic impulses a modern civilized society deems as normal?
Or are you saying that a white person has NO right to say anything to blacks, and blacks can do as they please in return?
I’ll venture to guess if a white person attacked a black for merely a spoken word, said white would be labeled, with all the consequences only a white person would endure, a racist.
There goes equality.
However, what if Paul ended up whooping the hell out of said black person, who’d punch Paul? Let me guess. Paul would be labeled as racist again.
In short, only a black can pull a race card as an excuse for resorting to violence. Even when resorting to violence for a merely spoken word.
Another scenario: what if a black walked to a white person, and called a white person a cracker? Would you say a white person has the right to punch the hell out of said black person AND on the top of it, won’t be called racist?
its incumbent upon the author to make the intent clear. despite paul’s lame attempts to say, i’m not a racist, but……, no one bought it. now he complains about it? sad.
It is sad, indeed, that we live in a world where whites have been brainwashed into apologizing for speaking the truth. It is, indeed, sad when white people have to ALWAYS say they are not racist for speaking the truth about blacks. Of course, it’s never the other way around — even when there’s a lot worse at play than just mere words. But hey, that’s egalitarianism for ya.
As far as you speaking for EVERYONE, how NO ONE bought it – more people than you wish to admit recognized the truth and facts in Paul’s words. And these people were well aware of the consequences Paul’s free speech would bring: the typical ”you’re racist” rant. If anything, we bought what we’ve known for quite some time now (some for a while, some just recently): a white person daring to speak out the truth about blacks will be labeled as racist.
Do you really think Paul gives a damn if you didn’t buy it and if you think he’s racist?
And do you really think this word carries the same weight as it used to? One day, soon, it will have no value at all anymore.
i believe that paul intended to say exactly what he said. his other quotes and writings back this. then when the backlash hit, he tried to say that he “just wanted to make people think”. like others have mentioned, its an adolescent excuse.
Why, yes. One, if white, MUST apologize for trying to make people THINK! After all, the propaganda machine worked for far too long to brainwash people into NOT thinking but believing into dogma!
I mean, how could FACTS, such simple FACTS as people, who are not able to feed themselves, by breeding like rats only producing MORE people who cannot feed themselves, fall under anything else but racism?! Seriously, people, it’s not like we live in logical factual world! No no. We live in politically incorrect world, where obvious facts MUST be covered up, and anyone, who dares to uncover them in order to make people THINK, must be burned alive! Along with books!
I would be deeply disappointed with Paul if he REALLY apologized for anything, much less for speaking the TRUTH!
its a good think paul is tall. you don’t even have to use kneepads to fellate him, jack.
I’m glad you managed, in your typical ”that’s racist” egalitarian progressive quasi liberal rant, to somehow stick to the subject at hand; gays appreciate you giving them a minute of your time as opposed to blacks stealing 59 minutes.
I always greatly admire an alleged straight man, who resorts to typical Homo Erectus ”arguments” of shooting down a man he cannot challenge intellectually: implying someone else, as opposed to you, wants to suck a man’s dick.
Are you trying to come out of the closet? Gee, I hope you don’t choose Paul and his blog to do so; I’m afraid when he declines your advances, you’re gonna label him as a homophobe.
Why exactly do you follow Paul again?
raindrop. sad in that its another indirect attempt at justifying his behavior (his previous being the “reaction” piece).
Hmmm. Could you please point me to where exactly I ATTEMPTED to INDIRECTLY justify his behavior? See, we have a problem here. I did not attempt to do anything. I just DID it. And see, I did not do anything indirectly, as I never do anything indirectly. I SHOOT straight and directly into the target. Always.
Justifying his behavior? You make it sound like he pissed at the tree on your yard. Did you really misunderstood me so badly, that you thought I’m ”justifying his behavior”? Oh, no. I was giving him FULL and DIRECT support for his WORDS.
i think he should apologize, you don’t. neither one of us is alone in thinking the way we do.
Hmmm. Who exactly do you think you are? Who do you think you are to tell someone he should apologize per se, much less for speaking the truth?!
however, you and
regarding your opinion, i beg to differ. read his reaction piece. when someone is reduced to trotting out the “i just wanted to make you think” line, they are backpedaling quickly.
As someone, who is politically incorrect, honest and direct and takes NO orders from anyone, I agree: he should not have said anything that could be understood as backpedaling. You hurt the truth by first exposing the truth and then taking a step back from the truth.
Considering the atmosphere we live in in today’s world, I understand why he would backpedal, but I neither support such backpedaling nor the REASON behind why someone feels, cornered, to backpedal. The need to backpedal speaks VOLUMES in what kinda world we live in. So, his blogs WILL make people think, will make people see in what state the world is, and will start acting. At this moment, Paul and people like Paul are canon fodder. The first in first line. But, it won’t be long before MANY more follow.
you really believe he would jeopardize aspects of his career to “speak truth to power”?
The better question is: why would Paul’s career be jeopardized when he speaks the truth?! THIS is the question! This is the question that in itself gives the answer to the state of the world we live in AND the topic he spoke about.
Paul is, I believe, well aware of the consequences. He will not live down to it, as none white person TODAY lives down to what FEW did hundreds of years ago, while the other group doesn’t answer to what it does TODAY.
So, yes, we need more Pauls to make MORE people THINK.
i understand that is your wingnut fantasy but its more likely that its a miscalculation–like your boy james o’keefe in LA.
My wingnut fantasy?! What exactly is this and how would you know what are my fantasies?
Oh, I see. If you’re not one of us, you’re: racist, conservative, Republican, love Palin etc etc.
Because surely your brainwashed cliche mind could not muster a possibility that there are MANY other options to be but what your TV tells you. Let me guess? You think I watch Bill O’Reilly, and listen to Limbaugh…
Right?
Oh how hilarious.
Oh. And I have no clue whatsoever who this James from LA is suppose to be. Now, James, if you’re reading this, and we’re like close, as this Pragmatism dude claims we are, I apologize for not remembering you. I am sure Pragmatism knows more about me than I do.
there were plenty of people who spoke to what paul believes is the truth and he admits this in his reaction piece by acknowledging that his “analysis” does not take into account the history of haiti.
I agree. There should be the history of Haiti included in his article. Of course, that FACT would make for an even BIGGER fire among ”do as I say not as I do” click. Imagine, if Paul included the historical fact about Haiti as well! How blacks massacred each and every white person on island. How they walked around with an impaled white baby! How they begged whites to return once they realized their freedom from ”whitey be keeping is down” does not produce any food and how this freedom does not restore the order of the island that looked like Zimbabwe. sure, the whites, stupidly and naive as only whites can be, returned, cleaned up the place and fed the murderers of their fellow whites, only to be massacred again.
So yes. The history of Haiti should be included in that article, considering the fact it’s a history well hidden from whites. All we get to hear about is how evil da whitey was, and how whitey kept po’ blacks down in Haiti via all sorts of embargos etc and how whitey kept sending billions and food so that po’ oppressed blacks could multiply like rats, while eating each other and selling their kids for a few bucks, how slavery in Haiti is at all times high (but, we won’t speak of it, since whites are not slave owners, but blacks)…
Ummm… yeah, you were saying?
back to the right wing echo chamber with you. or go teabag scott brown. \
Of course. Typical. If you don’t worship Keith Obermann, and if you don’t send money to blacks, and if you dare to speak the truth about them, you must be a right winger! Of course! I mean, it’s not like your brain could come up with something original! It’s either black or white, isn’t it?
Tea bagger? Oh, you LOVE paying taxes to Rothschild NonFederal Reserve, don’t ya?
Let me google Scott Brown. Hilarious, how you know all these names you claim are my buddies.
All in all, you didn’t comprehend anything I wrote, and subsequently did not tackle anything I wrote, but restored to the usual robotic void of any intelligent thought shoutings.
Why do people like you live to prove us right?
Raindrop – Your last post was too long. No more ranting, please. My ears hurt.
pragmatism – Jack was right, it would be easier to take you seriously if you used the shift key now and again. Try it, you might like it.
Paul – You’re an intelligent guy who isn’t afraid to say what’s on his mind. Good for you. Too bad your Haiti piece was borderline moronic. But that’s OK, we all have our off days. Keep up the (mostly) good work.
And to comment on the link you used as some kinda argument for Paul’s racism (admit it, it just makes your day, if not a month, to go around the world jerking off how someone is racist – it lifts you up as being someone who’s like totally so cool and shit).
“I have dealt with the issues of race in athletics all of my life. It is very difficult to make it in the world of basketball as a white person.”
FACT. If one takes a look at % of black players in NBA, especially in proportion to % population of blacks in USA, one does not have to be a math genius to figure out what Paul speaks is the truth.
If a black person said it’s hard for a black man to make it in NASA, everyone would go awwww. And the typical comments would ensue: yep, racism is still alive and well, blacks don’t get the same chances as whites do (hey, just pass the test – the SAME test as white do, and you’re in).
If a white man says he doesn’t have the same chances in NBA as blacks do, despite the fact it is a fact, and despite the fact he said the very same thing as a black person above, with ONE and the ONLY major difference – him being white, he is immediately labeled as racist.
And then, when whites go BACK and start creating an all white basketball team, NOW there’s a problem all of the sudden. Who exactly do whites think they have the right to play among themselves and themselves only and not include blacks as they did with NBA and every single other thing? Whites don’t have that right! Blacks, do, of course, they are black (egalitarian sigh).
White men can’t jump. Totally funny and acceptable with no reprecautions.
Black men can’t pass a test? Oooooooh hell! Racist!
Ain’t egalitarianism and everyone’s equal grand?
Enjoy it while you can. Even whites get fed up eventually.
Raindrop – Your last post was too long. No more ranting, please. My ears hurt.
Oh.im srry.didnt no ths ws a chtt room.wll take my lng rants to the link whr ppl debate the state of the world.
How have you people ever manage to squeeze past 8th grade? I mean, you did have to read a book or two every now and again, no?
*confused*
If this were Mortal Combat, where Raindrop and Pragmatism were characters in the game, all of that bullshit could be said much more succinctly by”B B A A Left Right YOU’RE A RACIST PIG!!!”"A B A B B A YOU’RE A SOCIALIST HIPSTER!!!”FINISH HIM!!!
HTML fail.
So, we’re all supposed to be “debating the state of the world”, are we Raindrop? Fine, fine.
If that’s the case, the best way for you to make a positive contribution to said debate (and, more to the point, to this thread) is to condense your arguments into something people will find interesting to read.
Just because I read a book or two in the 8th grade doesn’t mean I want to read another one on this message board….
@SP:
You know what? I think I have a great, excellent even, solution for you. You say you don’t wanna read my loooooooooong (seriously, it’s not even a short chapter of a book) entries, right?
Scroll!! When in doubt, scrooooooooooooooll some more!
There.
Oh, and you’re welcome. :-)
Point taken, Raindrop.
I must say though… having gone back and looked at your last five posts, I couldn’t help but notice that each one has gotten shorter and shorter. You’re learning!
I even read your medium-sized one from Feb. 24 @ 1:16, as it managed to fit on my computer screen in its entirety. Seems as long as you’re not trying to break down each and every argument made by someone (pragmatism) who is otherwise ignored by practically everyone on this site, your posts are actually readable. I stand corrected?
raindrop, i was referring at paul’s lame attempts. are you going all tyra on us and thinking that the world revolves around you?
the “truth” is subjective raindrop.
you speculate that i’m a “quasi liberal” and then complain about speculation regarding your wingnut nature? classic. it is quite wingnutty to make up “standards” that you never intend to apply to yourself.
re: freedom of speech, the constitution only prohibits the government from infringing. you may want to have someone explain the constitution to you.
regarding my typing, you’ll all have to get over it. sorry. however, i think that the writers who are publishing on their site should use proper spelling/grammar. not too much to ask.
I think Paul Shirley’s writing career is the ultimate tragedy of the Haitian earthquake. So, sad for Paul.
@SP:
Point taken, Raindrop.
I must say though… having gone back and looked at your last five posts, I couldn’t help but notice that each one has gotten shorter and shorter. You’re learning!
Hmmm… I guess you’re right. After an elaborate longer (depends on a point of view of a reader) first post, I’ve learned that those, who do not possess cognitive ability to learn, will not, whether I write a short-hand one sentence, or 200 long sentences.
Just kidding. Sorta. What you perceive as shorter posts are surely not shorter for the reasons you believe them to be. The next time I decide to comment on Paul’s blog, I will most certainly post what will seem as a book to you. Good thing for that scrolling thingy, uh?
I even read your medium-sized one from Feb. 24 @ 1:16, as it managed to fit on my computer screen in its entirety.
I’m so happy for you. Let me know when is a good time to recommend you a Dr. Seuss book.
Seems as long as you’re not trying to break down each and every argument made by someone (pragmatism) who is otherwise ignored by practically everyone on this site, your posts are actually readable. I stand corrected?
Oops! I did it again! I broke down each AND every argument. Can’t help it. I have a debate style format in my genes. I even force it on those, who believe my participation in a debate should consist of nodding and agreeing. And being quiet.
As for pragmatism being ignored here: I’m pretty new around these parts. I didn’t know we’re all too busy watching O’Reilly (gosh, I hope this cynicism doesn’t fly above everyone’s head).
But it’s all cool. My arguments were ignored as well; maybe because they were cynical rhetorical questions. Maybe.
Now, back to scrolling lessons. This is what this blog entry is all about, right?
@pragmatism:
Even tho I was alerted to you being ignored by practically and nearly virtually everyone, I will pour my bleeding ”liberal” heart here, and give you some more attention. You’re welcome.
raindrop, i was referring at paul’s lame attempts.
Could you elaborate WHY his attempts are lame? And by elaborate should not be understood as: you’re racist, na na na na.
are you going all tyra on us and thinking that the world revolves around you?
Actually, I would go all SUN on you (YOU as in singular, if I have to remind you again of your weak attempts to gather votes against me via voices in your head and no real people) if you had the balls to actually tackle what I said re: the topic, as opposed to showing me your vast knowledge of talk shows.
the “truth” is subjective raindrop.
If the truth were subjective, Paul, for example, would have the right to his subjective opinion. However, what Paul said was not subjective, much less subjective opinion. It was truth as empirical evidence should be understood from scientific point of view.
Example:
If there’s 10 million people who live in a social structure which has no place in civilized world (rape, murder, slavery, all around mayhem), and when these 10 million people are clearly and obviously not able to sustain the basic law of nature: feeding themselves, a deductive logic would imply, as it has been empirically observed and proved, thus treated as truth, that 11 million people would only climb higher on a ladder of hunger. A nature of law applies in animals: if a female knows there’s not enough food this season, she will not breed as she knows she will not be able to feed her offspring. A basic law of nature, which everyone but blacks mustered, in fact, were born with.
A simple math question: if 10 million are not able to feed themselves, how will 11 million be able. And how do we get from 10 million people not able to feed themselves to 11 million? Well, by fucking without a condom. Is this subjective? And how will those 10 million, not able to feed themselves, be able to fuck without a condom, in order to get to 11 million? Well, by eating food racist whites send them.
This could go on for quite some time, until there’s NO food to be sent anymore. Then what? 20 million fucking with no condom blacks starve to death. Is this subjective as well or just a matter of a simple logic, supported by decades long pattern?
Animals do not fuck when there’s no prospect of feeding their offspring. Not subjective, but a simple law of nature.
Do you have a logical, empirical, factual objective to this?
you speculate that i’m a “quasi liberal” and then complain about speculation regarding your wingnut nature? classic.
I do not speculate you’re a quasi liberal. I comment on your quasi liberalism. If you really and truly understood what liberalism is, you would not be one, and you’re not. Thus, you’re a quasi liberal. A first sign of a quasi liberal is attacking those, who are politically incorrect and the attack comes in a nature of ”you’re racist” at anyone, who speaks against the hypocritical, double standards propaganda.
You know what is classic about me? My liberalism: a classic liberalism. With a good dosage of libertarianism, sprinkled with technocratism. Now you’re really confused, uh? No trace of wingnutism there. Too bad for ya.
it is quite wingnutty to make up “standards” that you never intend to apply to yourself.
See, the problem is that you do not know what I NEVER apply to myself. The problem is that you did not understood my standards in the first place.
What’s nutty is labeling someone as a wingnut due to not understanding their message, due to their message being the opposite of the propaganda you adhere to because fellow quasi liberals tell you in their ”world person in the world” segments.
Not only I elaborated on my views, and those, who operate with substantial knowledge understand that, I also made it very clear I do not differentiate, for example, between Republicans and Democrats. But hey, what’s that little nugget for ya?
re: freedom of speech, the constitution only prohibits the government from infringing. you may want to have someone explain the constitution to you.
Nah, I’m good. The founding fathers didn’t encompass in free speech the witch hunt for some Paul Shirley for speaking the truth.
How’s Constitution working in real life? Any new beer summits in the White House program?
regarding my typing, you’ll all have to get over it. sorry. however, i think that the writers who are publishing on their site should use proper spelling/grammar. not too much to ask.
Do you think it would be too much to ask from you to actually tackle the topic at hand as opposed to showcasing you can hold a candle to any quasi liberal with your Al Sharpton paroles?
Oh, and pragmatism, how do you comment, in the light of Paul’s comment re: white players in NBA, the latest racism fest that were Olympic Winter Games? You know, how there were too many white athletes (damn, Norway, what did you think sending all those Nordic folks?!) and not enough black ones? Or about that Canadian figure skater, who didn’t earn (when do whites ever earn anything?) her 3rd place (another Asian should, as per some black ”Canadian” writer), but got it via affirmative action? I’m just kidding, there were no affirmative action, just good ol’ racism.
I think Paul Shirley’s writing career is the ultimate tragedy of the Haitian earthquake. So, sad for Paul.
Considering the tectonic movements in the world today, I am ever so optimistic about Paul’s writing career – I see, in the future, a career in a slowly but surely emerging field for him.
It’s the end of the world as we know it. And I feel fine.
Hmmm… You think saying being curious is good when writing about don’t ask don’t tell? I’m just saying. And suck a dick @pragmatism, you are a faggot troll that deserves to die.
and the true colors of wes show through. good show man!
There’s something about this that has been grinding in the back of my mind since i read it. It’s not that I completely disagree, I certainly don’t completely agree. I guess it comes down to the simple facts that our military leaders say it’s past time to end this policy, and when compared to all of our closest allies, the policy is anachronistic (supported more by retired military brass and john mccain than current members of the military). Even objectively, you have to admit that the policy is built on the bigoted ideas of the offensiveness of homosexuality and the petty small-mindedness of our military. (I just want to point out that neither of these is my position, but that the obvious assumption of the policy is that gayness is so scary that we can’t expect the members of what we call the best military in the world to be professional in the face of it– snipers, bombs, death, injury, yes, but homosexuality, of course not.) In the face of all evidence to the contrary, and with nothing to support the continuation of the policy except that the idea of hypothetically being in a tank with a gay person feels weird if I call the position bigoted is it the same as calling the person who holds that position bigoted? I think not. I suppose that where we agree is on the name calling, it’s not a part of dialogue. I guess that where we disagree is that I don’t think that an individual’s personal discomfort with an idea is equal to the concrete evidence that it’s time for the individual to get over that discomfort. Both sides in an argument are not always equal.