26 thoughts on “Pete gets scared

  1. Come on, Pete. Be logical for a moment. You don’t think “natural family [and] marriage” was a flagrant swipe at homosexuals?

  2. Rather than attacking the homosexual culture, they’re fostering an opposing culture. Surely that’s different.

    Public buildings, though, have a tendency to be culturally agnostic. You can’t even put up a Christmas tree at a publically funded hospital. I can understand the removal of the flyer on those grounds, but not on the grounds of the flyer being homophobic.

  3. No, that’s really not different.
    Reverse the scenario. Imagine that the initial flyer said “There will be an informal Bible study at 123 Fake St. for those who would like to attend.”
    The next week, a flyer was posted next to it saying “Anyone interested in joining the ‘Athiests Are Superior Lifeforms’ (AASL) group should contact Robin and Reggie.”
    The person who posted the initial Bible study complains and says that the second flyer was hostile and antagonistic towards christians. Would you accept “We didn’t mention ‘christianity’ by name.” as a defense to that accusation? Would you honestly claim that the AASL group was ‘just trying to foster an opposing culture’?

  4. There’s a difference between, “Hi, there’s an alternative,” and “Join us; they suck.” The flyer, in my mind, represents the former; however I’m willing to accept that I might be too generous here.

  5. There is a difference. Neither of these flyers were “Hi, there’s an alternative.” A simple “Join us for Bible study.” Would have sufficed. The swipe about “natural family [and] marriage” was over-the-top and totally unnecessary. That’s what makes the difference.

  6. Of course “conspirators” are out there trying to take down the right wing Christians. Of course homosexuality threatens traditional marriage. Of course evolution is a plot to get people to stop believing in God. Oh I’m feeling so sorry for the poor Christians who had their ideals questioned.

  7. I think I understand the distinction you’re trying to make, and you’re right to suggest that there’s more to it than I stated. Mea culpa.

    My definition of a disparaging remark would encompass “Adam is a fag,” but would not encompass, “Adam is a homosexual,” (unless there was no valid basis for making that statement) or “Homosexuals behaves contrary to God’s will.”

    The first statement was homophobic. The other two were not.

    [unqualified lunatic spiel added for purposes of contrast]
    I want more public debate. I demand the end of cultural sensitivity. I want a culture of arbiters who are respected on all sides of an issue, who can discern assumptions and can lend credence to those argumentators who do more than engage in intellectual masturbation. I want boycotts to work through the formation of chains of formal group discrimination between consumers and businesses, businesses and businesses, replacing swaths of law and taxation with evolving, socially-selected rules enforced only through voluntary denial of service and consumption, leaving the government’s job to enforce contract law and preserve basic autonomy.
    [/unqualified lunatic spiel added for purposes of contrast]

    BUUUUUT… A publicly owned workplace may not be the right place to hold such disputes. So I’ll side with Tom, even though I don’t agree with the use of the term “homophobic.”

  8. I can see where the statement “Homosexuals behave contrary to God’s will” would be homophobic though. Anytime somebody says that God doesn’t accept or love someone because of a characteristic that’s as much a part of them as their skin color, they aren’t accepting that person for who they are. Granted the above statement is not as strong as “Homosexuals will go to Hell if they don’t change their ways” but the implication is there.

  9. “Homosexuals will go to Hell if they don’t change their ways,” isn’t homophobic, IMO. In my mind, homophobia is the fear or loathing of homosexuals, and a homophobic statement must express that fear or loathing.

    Calling the public disapproval of homosexuality “homophobic” heavily dilutes the word. Harassing homosexuals certainly does count as homophobic, regardless of the language used. For instance, protesting at the entrance to a gay party and shouting that the participants are “behaving unethically,” is still homophobic.

  10. There have been Bible studies held in the White House since the Carter administration. The issue in this place really is a matter of pure antagonism.

  11. I speak in partly in jest. It’s kind of a yin-yang deal. I believe in conflict where conflict is due, so understanding the gravity of conflict, I eliminate it except where elimination is impossible without compromising integrity.

  12. In other words, don’t read too much into it. I abhor meaningless dispute or squabbling over things which are purely preferential except when engaged in by willing parties as a fun mental or social exercise. Simultaneously, however, I abhor unspoken grievances, presumptuous thinking, and excessive certainty.

  13. … which fully validates my point. Conflict is simply the subject of the symbolism, not the embodiment.

    The way I’m using the yin/yang pattern, the yin represents the desire to make conflict open and apparent, rather than letting differences go unrecognized or letting the tension of conflict go unresolved. The yang recognizes the brutality of conflict, and seeks to resolve, end, or minimize it. The yang can’t do it’s job without the yin, and the two together serve a vital function, though in apparent opposition. It’s (very) roughly analogous to showing the brutality of war in the media so that war isn’t taken lightly and overused. It’s also the antithesis of passive-aggression.

    You might disagree with my use of the pattern, but that’s a matter of taste, and I’d hate to think you were simply being contrarian. ;)

  14. In a way, the yin and the yang can be thought of as the first “formalized” negative feedback loop. ;-)

    (aggh, too many smilies)

  15. It’s a shame he doesn’t participate in this philosophical wanking more often. He’s got a great head for it, and he never makes a dull point. I have a certain nostalgia for our old livingroom bull sessions.

Comments are closed.