Ultraconservatives pretend homophobia/racism doesn't exist

Post Reply New Topic

I tend to think that in society as a whole, the terms have not lost meaning, hence the complain from few people, but rather, such people who dislike the term being used on them, wether it fits or not, it is true that the terms can be misused, but also, it isn't surprising the denial of being X regardless.

I am going to seriously disagree with you on the history of slavery here. Slavery was a major issue. It was stated as a major issue by several states. Several court decisions and even regions of the countries were dealing explicitly with a growing fervor over slavery. I mean, "bleeding Kansas" means nothing to you?

Well, I am not sure about the direct nature of their intentions here. The issue probably never crossed their minds. Even further, I am not sure if we really can come up with what they intended on the issue so easily.

I mean, I agree with LKL's interpretation of them. I am unsure what opinion they would have come up with on homosexuality, but I think that LKL's point about consistency of their explicit doctrine makes more sense than any appeal to their personal opinions.

Racist around in circles topic

Just saw this thread.

Racist do not believe they are racist because they cannot see the forest for the trees.When looking in the mirror, they do not see hitler, churchill, glenn beck, louis farrakhan, fred phelps, osama bin ladin. True the aforementioned humans are extreme, but yer average racist is no historical figure or media personality. and not all racists hate the same groups, so it is easy for a person to claim that he/she is not racist, but... (Always the BUT.)

I have to say that I think of this all as so much pointless generalization.

Ask a true, small government libertarians what they think about same sex marriage and they will likely say, "It's not business of mine what kind of family two other people choose to have." Ask a devout follower of an evangangelical denomination, and their reaction is likely to be entirely different.

It seems to me what lies at the root of most conservativism is power. That which threatens to dilute the power base of the privileged class is likely to prompt a reaction. Conservative whites protested extension of the franchise to blacks. Conservative men objected to the extension of the franchise to women.

But there is no Conservative monolith. You need look no farther than the ideological divide between the establishment Republicans and the Tea Part to see that.

True, actual racisim probably only exists in a small fraction of the population. It's a term that gets thrown around so much that it's become almost meaningless. It's to the point where a person can be called racist simply for disagreeing with President Obama on matters of policy.

The problem is that most Christians hate them as people, not just the practice, and generally choose to be harsh and condescending towards them (and say they will go to hell regardless of what they do to change their ways) rather than lovingly and kindly telling them they can repent and look to God. The Westboro Baptist Church, for example, blames natural disasters and tragedies on them and some people might even hate them so much that if they saw a gay man outside in the freezing cold, they would probably just walk away and let him die rather than try to help them stay warm or get them to a hospital if it was extremely severe, and that attitude is what I really don't like. It's one thing to condemn the practice (as long as you're not bitchy about it), it's another thing to actually hate them as human beings, especially to the point where if you see someone like that in need, you will neglect them or not help them in any way. While that kind of attitude is extreme, some might go along with it.


Secondly, what you are trying to say is that gay Christians cannot exist, that is not true if a homosexual repents of their sin (but if it is the opposite and they choose not to, then they are not true Christians).

Evolution of racism topic

I wrote earlier in this thread that many racists will not admit their hatred, and then try to qualify it as a BUT, in order to appear justified.

But reading the above on the WBC, I see they have taken their hatred of LGBTs to the next level. (I realize that in homophobia there has always been not only the threat of violence, but often murder, but there has not been a group, as far as I know, who actually made this hatred the focus of their belief system.) Like Nazi antisemitism, WBC homophobia is more complicated and f*** phelps et al no longer separate being gay from the person, and so they hate the person. And this has become vicious. At some time they will no longer stop at just talk and ugly demonstrations. This is not pointless generalization. It is a dangerous fact.

WBC hardly represents mainstream evangelical Christianity.

Ungently down the stream topic

I agree with you. I do wonder, though, if the WBC viciousness might infect these more mainstream religious groups that frown on LGBTs but stop short (at least at this point in time) of overt violence (this does not include online bullying of gays or the random thugs that target gay young men who have been beaten and murdered or been tormented into commiting suicide).

I can't speak for all churchgoers, but at all but one church I've ever been to I can say that the leaders wouldn't be interested in violence against gays. They have other projects to pursue. As for that one church, they were eccentric when I joined them but they became weird and they had a couple of lunatic fringe guest speakers who wouldn't surprise me if they now advocated violence against homosexuality. I haven't been there for more than 10 years now.

I don't know why I even bother. It seems a neccessary tenant of right-libertarianism and American conservatism to stick one's head in the sand and assert that racism isn't "really that widespread" or that it's "so overused".

That's sorta like claiming that "murder" has lost its meaning because the charge has been applied to people who aren't murderers in a few situation. Your "lexicographical inflanation" thesis is largely BS when it comes to racism. While Marion Barry and a few insubstantial figures may overuse racism, that no more undermines the existence of racism than a prosecutor falsely accusing someone of "murder" belittles the term.

You seeem to have confused, in typical fashion, denying your thesis and reading its latent implications with misunderstanding it.



41% of Republicans who believe Obama wasn't born in America is a "small fraction of the population"?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40644.html

25% of the population at large doubting that Obama was born in the US is a "small fraction of the population"? (LINK)

52% of Tea Partisans believing that too much is made of problems facing African Americans is a "small fraction of the population"? (LINK)

46% of Tea Partisans - a larger % than voters at large (32%) believing that if blacks only "worked harder" they'd be as well off as whites is a "small fraction of the population"? (LINK)

The fact that 63% of Tea Partisans (compared to 43% of voters in general) disagree with the statement that "We should not single out Muslims or Middle Easterners for airport security stops" is a "small fraction of the population"? (LINK)

And before you try one of these "hey, that ain't racism, that's just a difference of opinion on socioeconomics or ...." remember that the worst and most devastating parts of historical racism weren't always explicit. Much of it was the implicit belief that either the minority groups "didn't have it that bad" or "just happened" to be filled with a large percentage of incompetent people. Ignorance and indifference to the plights in Ghettos is causally related to racist attitudes.



As ample evidence shows, that is just pure BS. I'm not sure whether you said this out of honest ignorance or deliberate self-deception, but the facts plainly disagree with you. When Jimmy Carter was pointing to race as a factor in fear of Obama's agenda, Obama downplayed the roll of race - so the "overuse of 'racist' label against Obama critics" theme is pretty nonsensical. There's a difference between disagreeing with his policies and doing what the founder of TeaParty.org, Dale Robertson, did.

So? The OP mentions ultraconservatives and not right-libertarians, though some of the infatuation that the right-libertarian movement has with the Tea Partisans has ensured that they became wilfully oblivious to racism.



Because there is no monolith that means there is no sense in making generalizations about specific ideological groups? I hardly see that as valid.

And since so many American rightwingers have problems conceptualizing "ultraconservatism", let me define it for them here:

"extremely conservative"

Naturally, there's something of a value judgement in issuing the term. But there is a rather consistent set of people who would probably label themselves "very conservative" on this site and whose views are quite conservative when compared to centre-right governments in most countries or even other voters. The fact that the group isn't a "monolith" is not the great insight you think it is. A lot of research in psychology shows that "you" aren't a monolith either, but that doesn't give me any reason to not blame "you" if "you" assault me.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 24 Oct 2010, 7:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The poorest neighbourhood in Canada is hived off from a wealthy suburb with a nice wall...

So the Constitution not only is something that is immutable in terms of the words and the interpretation, but we must interpret it based on what we think the Founding Fathers thought, and if you think they thought that "God hates queers" then this must be reflected in interpreting it? In that case one would have to scan the collected writings of the Founding Fathers to make constitutional decisions. Which Founders have more weight? Perhaps you don't know that many of them were Deists and others were atheists. What about that? Perhaps they didn't think that "God hates queers".

People should know that at the 1988 Republican Convention at New Orleans the Republicans held signs saying "AIDS is a cure, not a disease" and Reagan's domestic policy czar, the fundy Gary Bauer, kept the surgeon-general away from AIDS discussions because he believed it was God's righteous punishment on sinners. This is why that of all the groups that hate Reagan, none hate him with quite the vitriol that homosexuals do.