Given the length of my recent post on Log Cabin’s spin of the Governor’s speech, I fear that a reference I made there to an interesting comment by Geoff Kors, a left-wing gay activist, might have gotten lost. While he heads the ostensibly nonpartisan Equality California, Kors has shown his group to be in BoiFromTroy’s words “Democratic Hacks.” Boi (no fan of this blog) noted last fall that “Kors and the entire organization have officially jumped the shark and revealed themselves to be Democratic operatives–not gay rights activists.”
Not only is Kors a Democratic activist, but he also appears to be an opponent of tolerance. Kors pooh-poohed the Governor’s emphasis on promoting that noble quality, saying, “Our community doesn’t want to be tolerated. We want to be equal.”
Noting the anti-Republican nature of Geoff’s group, I observed that he clearly does not speak for me, thus, by “our community,” he could not possibly mean all gay people. So, when he references “our community,” that is, the one which does not want to be tolerated, he must then be referring to that of other left-wing gay activists like himself.
Should we do what we can then to give this man what he wants? And do our best not to tolerate the community of gay left-wing activists?
“The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”
George Washington, August 18, 1790, in a letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island.
Yeah, but what about LBJ??? Try comparing the governor’s language on tolerance to LBJ’s. Gah! So many people go ga-ga over LBJ.
From your post downstream, and relevant to this post
After the speech Geoff Kors, executive director of the left-wing Equality California, pooh-poohed the Governor’s speech, saying “Our community doesn’t want to be tolerated. We want to be equal.”
Unfortunately for your poo-pooing of Kors’s remarks, he was exactly correct. I guess that is is beyond your ability to recognize that to be “tolerated” in this context is to be “condescended to.” I suppose that you find it OK that Schwarzenegger and others of his ilk will condescend to you. That’s sweet. But some of us aren’t exactly quite satisfied with that.
I’ve occasionally made the same rhetorical argument that acceptance is a better goal than simple tolerance…while understanding that most people think the two ideas are synonymous.
raj, simply because you write YOU think Geoff Kors remarks are exactly correct, I’d remind you that for the majority of gays… tolerance and diversity as VALUES trumps your socialistic utopia of equality as a goal.
The difference is between values and goals, raj baby. Any 1-L student knows that.
You may be good at 15 second soundbites and rhetorical stunts to divert, misdirect and mislead the debate… but those are intellectually dishonest ploys better used on GayLeft flank blog sites… your game is busted, raj baby.
Unfortunately for your poo-pooing of Kors’s remarks, he was exactly correct. I guess that is is beyond your ability to recognize that to be “tolerated” in this context is to be “condescended to.” I suppose that you find it OK that Schwarzenegger and others of his ilk will condescend to you. That’s sweet. But some of us aren’t exactly quite satisfied with that.
Of course you are, Raj.
You and Kors both proved that with your last “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” endorsement.
Raj, we disagree — and disagree — very strongly on the meaning of tolerance. I don’t think it means being condescended to, not in the least.
I think tolerance is one of the most noble qualities as it means acknowledging (and appreciating) opinions with which one disagrees as well as cultures, faiths, skin colors, sexual orientations, etc. different from one’s own.
Both “tolerance” and “equality” should be dropped all together from the political lexicon.
Whats wrong with the words “respect” and “acceptance”?
Somehow, Gramps, for a religious bigot to offer that “respect and acceptance” replace “tolerance and equality” pushes credulity over the cliff.
Frankly, I’d be happy if you could simply respect religion, the color of a person’s skin, political affiliations and dozens of other things… but, to do that, I know you’d have to put aside your bigotry and –like the guys wearing white hoodies and hiding behind the bravado of a 6 pack of PBR– you can’t let that bigotry go… for you, tolerance is as close as I think we’ll ever get for someone who uses “Christianist” as a smear, thinks muslims are beyond contemp, and would prefer that the GOP limit its sphere of influence to Utah.
Tolerance for the diversity of the American experience is great fodder for speeches… but the least tolerant people I’ve met recently have been GayLefties working for the DNC. They do NOT respect diversity of opinion. They do NOT argue for equality –they argue for special rights and privileges to be granted for their particular conditions. And the want it NOW –anything less is victimization.
Pity what’s been done to the English language.
Once upon a time, being ‘discriminating’ was considered a compliment; today it’s considered racist, sexist and elitist. ‘Tolerant’ certainly didn’t equate to an endorsement of something; you could still find it objectionable even if you had to put up with it. As for ‘equality’, well you might be equal in the eyes of the Lord, but everyone had ‘betters’. A class system had benefits, incentives and rewards, not just in business, the family, the military, education or religion, but also in everyday life. Oh, that is everyday life.
As for ‘respect’, again it didn’t equate to an endorsement or celebration of anything and it usually had to be earned to have any value – and ‘acceptance’ of almost anything (family, finances, death, children, job loss) usually took time, and wasn’t much discussed. It certainly wasn’t debated or accelerated.
‘Private’ meant ‘none of your business’ and ‘privacy’ was something people not only valued but also respected. Invading anyone’s privacy was considered one of the worst offenses possible and everyone was presumed to possess something called ‘manners’ – even if they weren’t in evidence.
What wasn’t particularly valued was ‘feelings’. Your emotions were your own and people pretty much didn’t change social structures or long-standing cultural institutions over something like ‘feelings’.
Vera understands it’s all different now. She’s a dinosaur from the Stone Age, who is an ‘…ist’ or ‘….ophobe’ or a ‘…..ism’ because she always subscribed to the old rule; ‘treat others as you’d have them treat you’.
Something golden about that rule.
Pity what’s been done to the English language.
Michigan-Matt -#9
I see no reason to respect a religion I don’t believe in. You continually miss the point. Thy nose need not twitch.One can respect and accept a person’s right to exercise their religion, that does not mean you have to like that religion or that person, or for that matter not to tell them that they that they are a big fat idiot.
You continually have assumed that my use of the word “Christianist” means I’m prejudiced toward all Christians. When in fact what I’m trying to do is be what Vera describes above as “discriminating”. I’m referring to a particular idealogy. If I meant to refer to all Christians, I’d use the term “Christian”. If I meant to refer to Catholics, I’d use “Catholic” and so on. And while most Christianists would probably call themselves “Christian”, not all or even very many, Christians are what I would call “Christianist”.
As far as my views on Islam, yes, its true, I don’t like it. I think its a bad religion, even more so in comparison to Christianity. Tough Titties. No where in the Constitution does it say that I have to accept and respect all religions as being of equal worth, either morally or ethically. Am I being judgeemental? You betcha. A bigot? Nope. Because even though I think its a poor choice of religion to make, it does not mean that I don’t accept and respect the inherent dignity of Man that exists in its adherents.
Really MM, for someone who claims to be “conservative”, you are the last person that should be defending some Politically Correct fantasy about the “equality” of religions.
Now go haunt a house.
PS: Please invest in a spell-checker. Mine spends so much time correcting your mistakes that it is wearing out my computer. So I’ve stopped fixing them. You are on your own now.
Patrick in #8, a notion to ponder. But, don’t forget the word, “dignity.”
Gramps, your continued use of “ChristianISTS” is hardly as you describe it; your use of the term is to smearingly (my word) link the religion to “Islamo-fundamentalISTS” and “fundamental terrorISTS” and it rises from the very first use of the term by Andie Sullivan and others. Well documented –google it, old man. For those who don’t know you, I’m sure it was a nice try; good spin with the issue, but you’re still in a wobble on that one. Need your walker?
I am surprised, Gramps. You are an avowed atheist and a bigot. That’s well understood by most here except for the few who rush to defend a fellow lib caught in his lies and prevarications. For someone of your ilk –let’s leave aside the BushHatred and anti-GOP spews that have marked your time here and at your own site– it seems rather queer and incredible for you to suggest that we replace “tolerance and equality” with “respect and acceptance”. Really, respect and acceptance? Oh my.
You neither respect, tolerate, nor accept religion as a valid belief system. You’ve tried hard (but failed) to hang pseudo-science creationists out to dry while you worship at the altar of “pure” science –if that isn’t an oxymoron. You make smearing religion a personal art form.
The simple truth is you are a textbook example of aging gay male stuck in the liberal hogwash of victimhood, impotent political speech and base hatred as a motivator for action in civics. The world is moving beyond you, Gramps, and that pisses you off so much that you readily recognize your largest contribution anymore is to be “obnoxious” –as you did today in another thread.
I think there’s a lot of work to be done on the couch before you can start suggesting “acceptance and respect” become watchwords. It’s like having David Duke or Fred Phelps help write a political history about gays in America… their bigotry prevents them from understanding or even getting close to a semblance of the truth.
Really Gramps, it’s ok for you to be a bigot. It’s ok for you to allow your hatred of Bush to consume you. It’s ok for you to marginalize your impact on others. It’s ok, I respect those are YOUR choices, Gramps.
But don’t try to hump the high horse you rode into town on –not every village needs an idiot and when GayConservatives need one, I’m sure you’ll come running just for the dates.
PS> sorry about my misspelling of “contempt” in #9; but does your computer also use up too much energy when you misspell words? Like “idealogy”, “judgeemental” and the fact that you missed some grammar and syntax errors with your spell checker? Oh, you iddn’t use a spell checker either? Maybe your advice is so good that you’ll heed it yourself?
Nawh; doubt it. One thing sure about bigots: they are so set in their ways; they become as predictable as summer corn. Less sweet, but still predictable.
Does someone pay Matt to write like this? Talk about overkill. RAJ is apparently a senile geriatric, who is also an atheistic bigot because he doesn’t share Matt’s point of view? The reall clincher was comparing him to an ear of corn.
Michigan-Matt is just an easy lay, rhetorically speaking, if you want to throw a grenade into a conversation. Easily manipulated. More fun than Moose and Squirrel.
#7 GayPatriotWest — July 6, 2006 @ 12:34 pm – July 6, 2006
Raj, we disagree — and disagree — very strongly on the meaning of tolerance. I don’t think it means being condescended to, not in the least.
I think tolerance is one of the most noble qualities as it means acknowledging (and appreciating) opinions with which one disagrees …
Come, come, let us understand something. Words have denotations (fairly precise meanings) and connotations (implications–and oftentimes emotive implications) that affect the emotive values of the words’ denotations. If someone really meant that he wanted to acknowledge, appreciate, and even accept “opinions with which one disagrees” (although in this case, what is really in issue is whether one acknowledges, appreciates, or accepts, not opinions, but that gay people should have equal rights as straight people), he obviously could say so. But to use the word “tolerance” instead? Let’s examine.
“Tolerance” is the noun derived from the verb “tolerate.” My dictionary (the Merriam-Webster New World Dictionary of the English Language, Collegiate Edition–last copyright date 1967, long before the “politically correct” era) indicates that “tolerate” means
(1) to allow, permit, not interfere with;
(2) to recognize and respect (others beliefs, practices, etc.) without necessarily agreeing or sympathizing;
(3) to put up with; bear; as, he tolerates his brother-in-law;
(4) in medicine [irrelevant].
I suppose that you might have a point in regards (2), but taking (1) through (3) as a whole–particularly (1), “tolerate” clearly has the connotation that the person or group that is doing the tolerating is condescending. (1) presumes that the people that are expected to do the “tolerating” have the power to not allow, to not permit, or to interfere with, the activities of those who are being “tolerated.” So, in the gay context, if the heterosexual/whatever majority “tolerates” the activities of the homosexual/whatever minority, as far as I’m concerned, they are, indeed, condescending. We (the majority), although we have the power to banish you or to stop you from doing what you are doing, chose not to do so. At least for now.
The heterosexual/whatever majority could just ignore the activities of the homosexual/whatever minority, in which case there would be no need for the heterosexuals/whatevers to “tolerate” the activities of the homosexuals/whatevers. In the heterosexual vs. homosexual context, the heterosexual majority obviously had not ignored the activities of the homosexuals, so any suggestion that the heterosexuals are now deigning to “allow, permit, not interfere with” (cf (1)) the activities of homosexuals, is, indeed, a condescension on their part.
Denotation vs. connotation. Remember it. Your writing will be vastly improved if you do.
#5 Michigan-Matt — July 6, 2006 @ 11:00 am – July 6, 2006
raj, simply because you write YOU think Geoff Kors remarks are exactly correct, I’d remind you that for the majority of gays… tolerance and diversity as VALUES trumps your socialistic utopia of equality as a goal.
Odd, I had been led to believe that equal protection under the law was an artifact of the 14th amendment, and, as applied to the federal government, the due process clause of the 5th amendment. I recognize that some wingnuts don’t believe that the US Constitution says what it says, but that’s another issue.
Regarding I’d remind you that for the majority of gays… I’ll merely remind you that that is merely another expression of identity politics, which is what I had been led to believe conservatives abhor. Obviously, I was mistaken–conservatives themselves engage in identity politics–as you yourself have shown. Why should I give a tinkers damn for what you say the crumbs that a “majority of gays” are willing to accept from the majority population? Obviously, conservatives such as yourself don’t believe in individual rights, otherwise you wouldn’t be prattling on about what a majority of this, that and the other, that the minority would be willing to accept.
And that’s aside from the fact that you, as usual, have provided no support for your assertions of fact. No surprise. Learn how to be a lawyer.
You may be good at 15 second soundbites and rhetorical stunts to divert, misdirect and mislead the debate… but those are intellectually dishonest ploys better used on GayLeft flank blog sites… your game is busted, raj baby.
Yawn As far as I’m concerned, you’re no conservative–certainly not in the classical sense. It’s your game that’s been busted.
You have no right to force acceptance on anyone.
#14 donny — July 6, 2006 @ 7:11 pm – July 6, 2006
Does someone pay Matt to write like this? Talk about overkill. RAJ is apparently a senile geriatric, who is also an atheistic bigot because he doesn’t share Matt’s point of view? The reall clincher was comparing him to an ear of corn.
Recognize that dear Matt learned how to be a lawyer before he even finished law school: If you don’t have the facts on your side, pound on the law; if you don’t have the law on your side, pound on the facts; and if you don’t have either the law or the facts on your side, pound on the other side. That’s what he was doing. And I yawn at his tactics.
It’s amusing to me the amount of vitriol–no facts, no law, just vitriol–propounded by the ideologues on these self-described Republico/conservative web sites. Most of the posts and comments seem to indicate that these sites are “fact-free zones”–channeling Faux News’s idiot O’Reilly commentator and his “spin-free zone” of course.
donny writes at #14, in a blither of dyscomprehension: “Does someone pay Matt to write like this? Talk about overkill. RAJ is apparently a senile geriatric, who is also an atheistic bigot because he doesn’t share Matt’s point of view? The reall clincher was comparing him to an ear of corn. ”
Umm, donny, I gather you took the same reading and comprehension classes that Ian S, Gramps, and raj took.
The bigoted atheist I noted was Gramps, not raj baby. You need to learn to read for comprehension, donny.
It’s not my place to stop the GayLeft from acting stupid.
So, in the gay context, if the heterosexual/whatever majority “tolerates” the activities of the homosexual/whatever minority, as far as I’m concerned, they are, indeed, condescending.
That is because your view of the world is that you are superior to them.
The American people aren’t stupid, Raj; they know full well that “equality”, in the eyes of a gay leftist like yourself, is that you have the right to impose your will on them. Your votes and beliefs count more than theirs do.
and raj baby at #19 has now taken to presenting uninformed opinion as fact as in the nonsense answer provided to donny?
NewsFlash for the anti-America/German-wanna be raj… matt is not a lawyer… so the uninformed flutter you pass as opinion and advice is void of –let’s see… fact… truth… utility.
Great job there lawyer. Quick, is that an ambulance siren I hear?
#21 North Dallas Thirty — July 7, 2006 @ 12:15 pm – July 7, 2006
I said So, in the gay context, if the heterosexual/whatever majority “tolerates” the activities of the homosexual/whatever minority, as far as I’m concerned, they are, indeed, condescending.
You said That is because your view of the world is that you are superior to them.
My, you really do suffer from a reading deficiency, don’t you.
Read it again.
raj baby, as any 1-L will tell you –the ancient legal maxim is Silence means Consent. So, I’ll take your silence to indicate three things in the latter half of this thread: 1) you offer your implicit apology for demeaning me by suggesting I’m a lawyer (slander at it’s worst in the view of many); 2) that it is mentally impossible for you to admit you made a mistake (we’ll keep in reserve that whole nonsense about various depts of the federal govt being private sector think tanks that “…everyone knows are well respected”); and 3) you can’t reply because there’s an ambulance in need of chasing.
Ta raj. Ta ta.
#24 Michigan-Matt — July 7, 2006 @ 6:23 pm – July 7, 2006
you offer your implicit apology for demeaning me by suggesting I’m a lawyer (slander at it’s worst in the view of many)
Odd, I had been led to believe that you were in law school. Otherwise, why your repeated references to “1L,” “2L,” etc.?
Regardless, you really do need to brush up on your reading comprehension. Re-read what I wrote in #19. If you put your glasses on, you would note that I did not write that you were a lawyer. One might believe that even a 2L would know the difference between what I wrote and what you apparently believe that I wrote.
raj baby, BZZZZZTTTT –that’s the buzzer for spin and wobble… you’re getting as good as Gramps on this stuff these days.
No, you presumed I was a lawyer. You were wrong. It’s impossible for you to admit error. Simple, simple, simple. And you offered donny (no capital D yet) the counsel grats.
For the record, go back and you’ll see in prior threads YOU started the 1-L references, not me.
Remember, it’s not MY job to stop the GayLeft from acting stupid. And. boy-o-boy, raj baby, you’ve got that stchick down pat.
#26 Michigan-Matt — July 9, 2006 @ 10:50 am – July 9, 2006
For the record, go back and you’ll see in prior threads YOU started the 1-L references, not me.
Sorry, I have not habitually used the “1L,” “2L” etc designations, and had not before I began commenting here, largely in response to (I believe) your use of such designations. Prove that you did not use the designations before I did.
BTW, I note that you did not deny that you were a student in law school.
Michigan Matt you are the bomb! I absolutely love the way you handle those leftists.
On subject, tolerance is all anyone should expect… I mean, come on now tolerance leads to equality. In all honesty, there are certain aspects of being gay that we all CANNOT stand. Don’t deny it, you know some can’t stand the leather queens or the drag queens or the closet queens but we can tolerate them.
Michigan Matt, again, I love reading your comments! xoxo
raj baby, go blow. I’m not your book-boi.