The Gaylag Archipelago

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

Andrew Sullivan wrote concerning Eich:

“Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.”

Mr. Sullivan is openly gay and supporter of gay rights. But unlike some, he does not want a Sodomite Sharia Law:

22

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Acceptable to whom?

[/quote]

To people in general.

I would honestly be very surprised if they did punish a player for ridiculing another player’s faith in public. At the very least I feel sure there would be a much higher standard applied to criticising gays than criticising faith. Not related to the NFL, but imagine what would happen to Bill Maher if he criticised the sacred cows of gays or Muslims. And yet he can say the most vile shit imaginable about Christians and everyone cheers and laps it up.

Gay = irregular. Hence the term ‘queer’ - synonyms: odd, strange, weird, peculiar, bizarre, outlandish, abnormal etc.

Odd, strange, weird etc.

Straight = usual, standard, normal, common, ordinary, customary, conventional etc.

And should be reeducated by enlightened Bill Maher fans.

23

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
If I were to create a Twitter account under my legal name and begin ruminating on how ludicrously stupid Christians are, or how disgusting a specific coworker of mine is, I would be fired by my employer within hours. And the world would go on turning, because no wrong would have been done to anybody.[/quote]

Most people could probably agree that Jonesâ?? comments were inappropriate and that they do merit some sort of condemnation from the general public, yet it also lends itself to a plausible debate over the merits of punishing a player for views expressed on his own time via his own personal Twitter page, while away from the workplace, and a Tweet which was in regards to someone who isnâ??t even on his team.

Would the world have gone on turning if this Tweet was ignored? I’d say so. Unlike some, I recognize that it is NOT legally a free speech issue; hence, I concur that the “Hitler,” “Nazism” and “Big Brother” overtures were not felicitous for this analogy, since the government is in no way involved here.

Private employers can and should be able to exercise discretion over the behavior of their employees where business interests are concerned, but I also think it’s worth discussing whether or not employers overreact to the speech of employees due to public pressure. I doubt that either the NFL or the Dolphins would have been financially impacted by the Tweet.

It brings up a debate that I originally had with a few friends when the Duck Dynasty and Mozilla Firefox CEO media “scandals” occurred. I’ve never been a huge fan of companies punishing employees for their speech unless it was so egregious that no reasonable person would have disagreed that there would have been a huge financial impact to the company for the employee’s speech.

I personally don’t see that being the case in this particular instance, which is why I would argue that the NFL overreacted. Is it their right as an employer to discipline the employee? Legally - yes. Nevertheless, I personally see this one particular case as an overreaction, as was the Duck Dynasty contract cancellation and the ousting of the Mozilla CEO.

Although the aforesaid rights do in fact belong to the employer (Note: I’m certainly not advocating legislation to give employees more rights here), there does seem to be a growing trend of noteworthy firings or otherwise negative sanctions in the workplace for politically incorrect speech, which begs the rhetorical question of how firm the concept of “free” speech (I use the term “free” more conceptually than legally) really is if someone’s economic livelihood has to be increasingly tied to being politically correct off the job. Though there is nothing I can do about it, personally I’d prefer that employers use more discretion before jumping the gun to ameliorate political incorrectness, as most of the time no one really cares what a bigot thinks and it oftentimes isn’t going to really intrude that much on the operations of the company at large.

24

[quote]JR249 wrote:
I doubt that either the NFL or the Dolphins would have been financially impacted by the Tweet.[/quote]

The Dolphins and the NFL have come to a different conclusion. I agree with them. I have been told by people whose sources come from the highest ranks of decision-making in football that, given the amount of homophobia still around locker rooms and stadiums, and the extent to which “faggot” is still something just about everybody calls everybody on the gridiron, the NFL considers this situation a primed nuclear weapon. It could, in other words, get big and ugly, quickly.

The difference being that the Duck Dynasty and Mozilla Firefox CEO media “scandals” involved public expressions of general political opinion, whereas the present case involved a public expression of a specific opinion about a specific coworker.

If I were my editor–i.e., a higher-up at a very public business, like the NFL–and one of my employees tweeted “horrible” along with a picture of another employee kissing his fat wife, I would be an idiot not to step in, as would you, as would anybody else.

25

[quote]Sexmachine wrote:

Gay = irregular. Hence the term ‘queer’ - synonyms: odd, strange, weird, peculiar, bizarre, outlandish, abnormal etc.[/quote]

Bullshit. When you say “radical” gays, you mean a particular subset of gay activists, with a particular agenda. “Fisting kits” and all that twaddle. I’ve seen you make the distinction explicit, literally a week ago. Stop waffling.

This is evidence of the fact that, as I said, you have exactly no case. You’re talking about Bill Maher now? What the hell does he have anything to do with this? Do you see what I mean when I say that conservatives are coming off as pussies? You’re just searching for some bully to cry about. Bill Maher figures into this in exactly no way, shape, or form.

Let’s simplify things:

  1. Guy tweets about coworker’s “horrible” kiss with boyfriend.

  2. Employer takes action, as just about any employer would.

  3. Author of the article in the OP reaches as far up his ass as he can in order to pull out references to political state authoritarianism like Big Brother, Nazism, trampling of Free Speech, etc. You know, like an idiot.

  4. I make the correct point that such allusions represent whiny, inappropriate, pussy alarmist victim-playing.

  5. My critics respond with…what, exactly? Nothing much–nothing much at all. “But Bill Maher makes fun of Christians!” Yeah? If he worked for the NFL, he’d be fined for almost everything he says. What is the point, and why are intelligent people intentionally comparing apples with grapefruits–intentionally refusing to think like rational adults?

Even the relatively well-thought-out posts, like JR’s, don’t really say anything other than “If I were in charge, I wouldn’t have punished anybody.” OK. That’s great. I think you’d make a bad executive, then, but that would certainly be your decision to make. If you were in charge.

But see how “if I were in charge, I wouldn’t have punished anybody” is enormously different from “We’re all being dragged to the place where there is no darkness, and Nazis are trampling our freedoms, and the First Amendment has become toilet paper, and things fall apart, the center cannot hold, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity…”

26

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The Dolphins and the NFL have come to a different conclusion. I agree with them. I have been told by people who whose sources are from the highest ranks of decision-making in football that, given the amount of homophobia still around locker rooms and stadiums, and the extent to which “faggot” is still something just about everybody calls everybody on the gridiron, the NFL considers this situation a primes nuclear weapon. It could, in other words, get big and ugly, quickly.

[/quote]

Okay, fair enough, and even though I personally do think they overreacted in sending him to sensitivity training and slapping on a fine along with that, I can see where the NFL has a legitimate interest in addressing bona fide anti-LGBT bias, be it internalized or institutionalized, in the league.

I probably should clarify that “doing nothing” wouldn’t have been the most appropriate venue either (it was pretty late when I read the thread and typed a reply), so my earlier choice of “ignoring it” was an attempted reference that I personally think something less punitive would have been warranted. I certainly think, in a case like this, that given that both the offender and the offended were employees, one would want to address it as an executive, but I personally worry that sometimes overreactions, of which this may or may not be, depending on your viewpoint, do more damage to the marketplace of ideas than the actual nefarious speech itself.

27

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
If I were my editor–i.e., a higher-up at a very public business, like the NFL–and one of my employees tweeted “horrible” along with a picture of another employee kissing his fat wife, I would be an idiot not to step in, as would you, as would anybody else.[/quote]

I don’t know how the organizational structure of the NFL works. I know, I’m on a site dedicated to building high-performance muscle and I don’t really follow professional football. Anyhow, are NFL employees employed by the league, as tied to an independent franchise (e.g., an employee at my local McDonald’s franchise represents the corporation as a whole in some respect), or are they technically employees of the individual team owner, or is some alternate system at play?

28

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
And the point here is selective targeting based on ideology. It’s perfectly acceptable to mock and ridicule someone about their faith, but don’t dare to express anything contrary to the radical gays’ ideology. Radical gays have turned the younger generation into foot soldiers. They’ve invaded school classrooms with the ‘day of silence’ whereby children have been co-opted into political activists. Cross the gay mafia and your career will be ruined. But it’s perfectly okay to mock Jesus and Christians. In fact it’s encouraged. That’s why private organisations have caved in to the pressure. Gays are sacred cows and anything they say goes.
[/quote]

Sometimes you’re right, even when you are wrong. We do tend to swing the pendulum in this culture where political correctness is concerned. There was a time not all that long ago when people were punished, sometimes fired or otherwise socially ostracized, for advocating publicly for the rights of slaves, then later for racial or gender equality, and later on gay rights. Historical examples, such as those of Elijah Lovejoy or Harvey Milk, shed light on how different things were when the shoe was on the other foot.

I disagree with your perceived infiltration of a radical gay agenda, especially in the schools, because I work in the public school system, as I think it’s steeped in far-right paranoia. Nevertheless, there is indeed a radical segment of the anti-LGBT bias/gay rights community and I agree with Andrew Sullivan’s line of thought in the article that was linked - sometimes these anti-bias advocacy groups or individuals (e.g., anti-LGBT bias advocate Dan Savage) engage in the same or even more reprehensible behavior as those they are lambasting. Personally, I think what happened to Brendan Eich from Mozilla is the most recent, best example, though some of the behaviors exhibited by those who were protesting against Chick-fil-a franchises in 2012 are also applicable. We ought to promote a marketplace of ideas, and sometimes these organizations, of which anti-LGBT bias groups are only one example (Google the word “niggardly” and see what has happened to some as a result of blow back from the anti-racist crowd), go too far in trying to censor opposition or perceived offenders.

29

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
If I were my editor–i.e., a higher-up at a very public business, like the NFL–and one of my employees tweeted “horrible” along with a picture of another employee kissing his fat wife, I would be an idiot not to step in, as would you, as would anybody else.[/quote]

I don’t know how the organizational structure of the NFL works. I know, I’m on a site dedicated to building high-performance muscle and I don’t really follow professional football. Anyhow, are NFL employees employed by the league, as tied to an independent franchise (e.g., an employee at my local McDonald’s franchise represents the corporation as a whole in some respect), or are they technically employees of the individual team owner, or is some alternate system at play?
[/quote]

I am not sure about the exact terminology or the way that they describe their relationships legally (I know that the NFL refers to itself as a trade association), but the Commissioner can discipline/fine players, coaches, and teams, and the individual teams can discipline/fine their own players and coaches.

30

[quote]opeth7opeth wrote:
Just curious what people think of this recent article:

So a marginal football player got drafted into the NFL, kissed his boyfriend smack on the lips, and then another football player tweeted something that expressed the sentiment ick gross, and so the second player was hustled into sensitivity training. Got that?

[/quote]

I wonder what they do for negative reactions to fecal-philia or furrydom.

31

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sexmachine wrote:

Gay = irregular. Hence the term ‘queer’ - synonyms: odd, strange, weird, peculiar, bizarre, outlandish, abnormal etc.[/quote]

Bullshit. When you say “radical” gays, you mean a particular subset of gay activists, with a particular agenda. “Fisting kits” and all that twaddle. I’ve seen you make the distinction explicit, literally a week ago. Stop waffling.

This is evidence of the fact that, as I said, you have exactly no case. You’re talking about Bill Maher now? What the hell does he have anything to do with this? Do you see what I mean when I say that conservatives are coming off as pussies? You’re just searching for some bully to cry about. Bill Maher figures into this in exactly no way, shape, or form.

Let’s simplify things:

  1. Guy tweets about coworker’s “horrible” kiss with boyfriend.

  2. Employer takes action, as just about any employer would.

  3. Author of the article in the OP reaches as far up his ass as he can in order to pull out references to political state authoritarianism like Big Brother, Nazism, trampling of Free Speech, etc. You know, like an idiot.

  4. I make the correct point that such allusions represent whiny, inappropriate, pussy alarmist victim-playing.

  5. My critics respond with…what, exactly? Nothing much–nothing much at all. “But Bill Maher makes fun of Christians!” Yeah? If he worked for the NFL, he’d be fined for almost everything he says. What is the point, and why are intelligent people intentionally comparing apples with grapefruits–intentionally refusing to think like rational adults?

Even the relatively well-thought-out posts, like JR’s, don’t really say anything other than “If I were in charge, I wouldn’t have punished anybody.” OK. That’s great. I think you’d make a bad executive, then, but that would certainly be your decision to make. If you were in charge.

But see how “if I were in charge, I wouldn’t have punished anybody” is enormously different from “We’re all being dragged to the place where there is no darkness, and Nazis are trampling our freedoms, and the First Amendment has become toilet paper, and things fall apart, the center cannot hold, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity…”

[/quote]

That’s cool. Except we now live in a country where the Christian wedding photographer has to attend SS marriages. So excuse me if I doubt all free speech/association is being honored/left to the private sector, equally

32

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Acceptable to whom?

[/quote]

To people in general.

[/quote]

Let’s take a look at this again. This is what is being referred to as “acceptable”:

[quote]
The point is why it has become acceptable to ridicule people of faith but unacceptable to express disagreement with radical gays.[/quote]

First, let’s get the obvious out of the way. Even if you’re right, none of this has anything to do with authoritarian government or Big Brother or Nazism or anything else the OP was blabbering about. Even if you’re right, you’re just whining about the fact that lots of people think and say that the things you believe are dumb, while simultaneously disapproving of a person who calls his coworker’s kiss “horrible” on social media. So, again–and as usual–none of this gloomy, whining melodrama is remotely useful or intelligent. You are just complaining about what a bunch of people think.

But, are you right? Let’s see. Let’s pretend you’re Christian, and you’ve got a fat wife. If we’re coworkers, I should mock neither of those two things on social media, and I would be correctly pubished by my employer if I were to do so. Check.

Let’s say we’re not coworkers. Let’s say we’re guys who argue with each other on T-Nation. Let’s say we disagree on almost everything, but respect each other and think fairly highly of each other’s minds.

Do I feel comfortable, in such a situation, criticizing your religion? Yes, I do. I try not to be outright mean about things, but when it gets down to it, strong words bleed into political/religious debate: sarcasm, facetiousness, even ridicule. I feel comfortable calling any particular religious claim unbelievable, silly, risible, unevidenced, briandead, unthinking. In short, I feel perfectly comfortable criticizing your religious beliefs, as you should feel criticizing mine.

On the other hand, do I feel comfortable criticizing your fat wife? Do I feel comfortable expressing disgust with you kissing the person you’re dating, whoever that may be? Do I feel comfortable pointing out that your relationship with your fat wife is gross, wrong, or horrible, even if I actually believe those things?

No, I do not.

Which is to say that the parallel does not even hold up.

33

[quote]Sloth wrote:
That’s cool. Except we now live in a country where the Christian wedding photographer has to attend SS marriages.[/quote]

I am on your side on that issue.

That issue has got nothing to do with the nonsense in the OP, and it has got nothing to do with Don Jones.

34

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
That’s cool. Except we now live in a country where the Christian wedding photographer has to attend SS marriages.[/quote]

I am on your side on that issue.

That issue has got nothing to do with the nonsense in the OP, and it has got nothing to do with Don Jones.[/quote]

I understand you are.

However, this particular issue isn’t happening in a vacuum.

“It happened in the private sector. Aren’t you a champion of the private sector working this stuff out?”

Well, sure. If it (the private sector) was really left alone. But it no longer is. Hasn’t been. Again, see the Christian wedding photographer. See the Little Sisters of the Poor.

35

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
That’s cool. Except we now live in a country where the Christian wedding photographer has to attend SS marriages.[/quote]

I am on your side on that issue.

That issue has got nothing to do with the nonsense in the OP, and it has got nothing to do with Don Jones.[/quote]

I understand you are.

However, this particular issue isn’t happening in a vacuum.

“It happened in the private sector. Aren’t you a champion of the private sector working this stuff out?”

Well, sure. If it (the private sector) was really left alone. But it no longer is. Hasn’t been. Again, see the Christian wedding photographer. See the Little Sisters of the Poor.
[/quote]

Like I said, this I’m with you on the latter issue. But conflating separate and unlike issues is a help to no one. The OP was specific in its scope and target, and it was fatuous whining. Wedding photographers being forced by the government to photograph gay weddings is entirely different, and wrong.

36

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Do I feel comfortable, in such a situation, criticizing your religion? Yes, I do. I try not to be outright mean about things, but when it gets down to it, strong words bleed into political/religious debate: sarcasm, facetiousness, even ridicule. I feel comfortable calling any particular religious claim unbelievable, silly, risible, unevidenced, briandead, unthinking. In short, I feel perfectly comfortable criticizing your religious beliefs, as you should feel criticizing mine.

On the other hand, do I feel comfortable criticizing your fat wife? Do I feel comfortable expressing disgust with you kissing the person you’re dating, whoever that may be? Do I feel comfortable pointing out that your relationship with your fat wife is gross, wrong, or horrible, even if I actually believe those things?

No, I do not.

Which is to say that the parallel does not even hold up.[/quote]

A couple of thoughts on that…

I find it acceptable to criticize religion as a social institution, or its overall value or lack thereof to society and how it might impact one as a member of society, but personally criticizing a person’s own personal religious beliefs, or lack thereof, is as off limits to me as criticizing one’s choice of a spouse. It’s part of a person’s core beliefs as a human being and, quite frankly, none of my business. However, again, I am separating religion as a social institution from religious beliefs as part of a person’s identity.

On the second topic, I find the ad hominem attacks and passive-aggressiveness to be immature and indefensible where mature, civil debate is concerned, be it in propria persona or electronically. I am surprised at how much of it goes on on the forums, which is why I participate less than I could. I wholeheartedly agree that these topics elicit “strong words” at times, but those words should be directed at the ideology or the argument itself, not the poster. As a sometimes neutral observer, SexMachine does seem to be on the receiving end of an inordinate amount of ad hominem attacks whenever he posts. Sure, he appears to be a right-wing social conservative, but so what?

Of course, I should note that the aforementioned observation is NOT a tacit implication that you are particularly guilty of said behavior, as I’m not sitting here keeping tabs or playing forum cop, but it’s something I’ve been observing in general and thus felt it appropriate to note as a response to your mention of “strong words” in e-community debates. As I often tell my students, if one has nothing valuable to add besides a passive-aggressive snippet or ad hominem jab, then perhaps it’s best to ignore engaging in the debate.

37

[quote]Sloth wrote:
“It happened in the private sector. Aren’t you a champion of the private sector working this stuff out?”

Well, sure. If it (the private sector) was really left alone. But it no longer is. Hasn’t been. Again, see the Christian wedding photographer. See the Little Sisters of the Poor.
[/quote]

I think the legal issue this ignited was done primarily because the non-discrimination laws, as they are presently crafted, are poorly written where religious freedom is concerned.

It’s not new that businesses in most states cannot discriminate, carte blanche, on the basis of sexual orientation (along with other protected categories). A much better approach, in my opinion, would be to modify the laws so that specific businesses are not coerced into providing services for same-sex marriages or other similar arrangements where provision of said services would require the business owner or operator to become complicit in something that violates his or her own religious beliefs. For example, the Christian photographer should not be required to perform said services for a same-sex wedding, but allowing the law to be modified to allow businesses to deny service based on sexual orientation as a holistic practice is just going to ignite a backlash as we saw with Arizona’s proposed legislation last month.

Granted, as a right-leaning neo-liberal (libertarian), I agree with you in principle - private sector businesses should have the right to deny or refuse service to anyone, regardless of reason, but practically speaking little would be gained at this point by focusing legislative efforts on reversing standing civil rights legislation in this arena.

38

As a business, I believe the NFL made the right choice.

There are 2 reasons why they were wholly justified in their actions:

  1. The comment was directed at a specific person to whom Tebow has a workplace relationship with. This automatically implicates the employer. I believe smh has already explained this point.

  2. Tebow is not an average joe. He is a public figure and being a public figure is contingent on his association with the NFL. Given the expanded influence he holds and his association with football, there is reason to believe that business could be affected by opinions that he expresses publicly. As an athlete he is also expected to behave as a role model. While I don’t find the “athletes as role models” idea to be particularly realistic, such is how they are treated.

Ultimately, the actions the NFL took are a slap on the wrist anyway. I’m sure we have all heard of people losing their jobs over hateful comments that aren’t connected to their place of work. That’s overreacting.

39

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Bullshit. When you say “radical” gays, you mean a particular subset of gay activists, with a particular agenda. “Fisting kits” and all that twaddle. I’ve seen you make the distinction explicit, literally a week ago. Stop waffling.

This is evidence of the fact that, as I said, you have exactly no case. You’re talking about Bill Maher now? What the hell does he have anything to do with this? Do you see what I mean when I say that conservatives are coming off as pussies? You’re just searching for some bully to cry about. Bill Maher figures into this in exactly no way, shape, or form.

[/quote]

I was highlighting Bill Maher to demonstrate my point regarding the general acceptance of ridiculing people of faith and the general condemnation that applies to anyone who crosses the gay mafia.

Again, you are making an assertion that the term Big Brother can only apply to state political oppression. This is not so. It is commonly used to describe any sort of oppression and particularly suppression of free speech. One could almost surmise you are trying to redefine a word to reduce the possibility of that word from being used to express unorthodoxies.

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.”

I already agreed that employers need to uphold orthodoxies. My problem is with the orthodoxies themselves. For example in any sane world an NFL player would be reprimanded for French kissing another man in public. In any sane world something like that would harm the reputation of the NFL.

40

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
That’s cool. Except we now live in a country where the Christian wedding photographer has to attend SS marriages.[/quote]

I am on your side on that issue.

That issue has got nothing to do with the nonsense in the OP, and it has got nothing to do with Don Jones.[/quote]

I understand you are.

However, this particular issue isn’t happening in a vacuum.

“It happened in the private sector. Aren’t you a champion of the private sector working this stuff out?”

Well, sure. If it (the private sector) was really left alone. But it no longer is. Hasn’t been. Again, see the Christian wedding photographer. See the Little Sisters of the Poor.
[/quote]

Like I said, this I’m with you on the latter issue. But conflating separate and unlike issues is a help to no one. The OP was specific in its scope and target, and it was fatuous whining. Wedding photographers being forced by the government to photograph gay weddings is entirely different, and wrong.[/quote]

My posting of the article by Douglas Wilson did not imply my blanket-agreement with it any more than my linking to Andrew Sullivan’s comments implied blanket-agreement with them. [Both Wilson and Sullivan engaged in a public debate on gay marriage some time ago.]

Anyway, I surmise that Wilson would argue that none of this happens in a vacuum and that it is all related. Wilson has argued elsewhere(whether correctly or incorrectly) that he who says “A” must eventually say “B.” My guess is that “A” is the sensitivity training stuff and “B” is the forcing photographers issue.

I think H.L. Mencken said that democracy was the process of establishing truth by means of counting noses, and promulgating it afterward with a club. It seems that both Sullivan and Wilson would agree that their view of things should not be promulgated with a club. Sullivan is reasonable enough to see the thuggery involved in Eich’s case:

“The hounding and firing of @BrendanEich disgusts me – as it should anyone interested in a tolerant & diverse society.” (Andrew Sullivan)