It isn't as bad to be anti gay as it is to be racist

[dsc]

I am not saying it shouldn't be, I am saying it currently isn't in the eyes of many people. I have relatives who were openly racist. Mostly some great aunts and uncles, stuff like that. Now, no one will admit to being racist. I am not saying no one is racist, just that no one who is famous will admit to being racist.

It isn't the same with being anti gay. Leaving the deranged Coulter aside, there are numerous anti gay people who are in all walks of life. We have rabidly anti gay Senators. We have rabidly anti gay Congresspeople. Even when anti gay remarks are debated on TV, as was recently the case with Coulter, virtually no gays are asked to provide opinions. Imagine if when Michael Richards said the n-word no black people were invited to discuss that. Or imagine when Mel Gibson went on his anti Semitic tirade no Jews were invited to discuss that. It is, like it or not, not a career ender to say anti gay statements.

The question that needs asked, and I am asking, is which came first, the passage of Civil Rights Act or the widespread unacceptance of racist attitudes? Since I wasn't around when the Civil Rights Act passed and am too young to remember when the tide turned on racial attitudes. I know it isn't complete but I mean the majority.

I would love to see a change in attitudes but I don't want to wait for that in order to see a national gay rights law. So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

edit correct Richards.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Sexism is okay. No protests when Imus's sidekick called HillaryC "tuna licking twat." TWICE. nt

[goclark]

3. No sexism is NOT Ok ~ I did not hear Imus say that about

Senator Clinton but he should be off the air now!

[dsc]

5. you have a valid point

Sexism for some reason does get a free pass. Imus has been homophobic and sexist for years. Sadly he is also a great interviewer getting people to open up in ways they never otherwise would. I think the bad outweighs the good but many of our leading pols seem to think the opposite.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

2. That's Cause The History Of Racism Has Been Far More Violent And Oppressive.

By leaps and bounds.

But that still doesn't make it right. Intolerance toward any group should be readily condemned.

[Colobo]

4. Good point... it makes sense.

Still, homophobia and sexism should be held by the same standards racism is held in our society.

[msongs]

6. assumes facts not in evidence - maybe by volume but NOT by violence and oppression

people torture and murder gays and lesbians of their own race and religion as well as those of other races and religions.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Sorry, No Opinion In The World Can Change The Simple Common Sense Fact That

historically racism as a connotation is full of FAR MORE violence and oppression than homophobia. Far more. Inarguably. This isn't something that is up for the opinion of individuals to discern or perceive for themselves. This is simple logical fact of which opinion cannot override. I'm sorry if you will perceive me as arrogant for saying so but this isn't about me since that would incorporate opinion. It is just quite simply fact.

Now that doesn't imply nor mean that violence and oppression hasn't occurred due to homophobia. What it does mean is that it is understandable why those falling into a category of racist are viewed more negatively than those classified as homophobes. And it is logically incorrect here to try and assert a position that volume doesn't matter. We're discussing perception of the terms themselves, which take into account all the historical facts and figures related to them. We're not comparing one isolated act of violence to another act of violence and debating which was worse. We're talking about the overall impressions of the terms themselves, which ABSOLUTELY takes into account volume.

It's kinda like thinking about the difference of an infected tooth and cancer. Sure, some people have died from an infected tooth. But far more have died from cancer. Is it unreasonable for society to then react that much more strongly upon hearing a diagnosis of cancer as opposed to a diagnosis of an infected tooth? Of course it isn't.

[melody]

25. You're assuming you know the exact, all-knowing and sole definition of "violence and oppression"

Capitalizing the words does not make for an argument.

ALL forms of biogtry are equally wrong, dangerous and emotionally toxic. "Violence" can take many forms, some of which
can't be perceived by anyone but the target of that violence. Similarly, oppression. It's impossible to compare one
kind of pain to another and say one is more "painful" since that's individual and subjective.

The larger society just loves pitting victims of oppression against each other (blacks against Asians, blacks against
Jews, Asians against Latinos, poor whites against poor blacks, black people against gays, etc, etc). The only way
anything will be solved is when the minorities hang together and become one solid majority.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. Oh God Where To Start.

"You're assuming you know the exact, all-knowing and sole definition of "violence and oppression""

I am? Cause I fail to see how that has anything to do with anything I've said. In fact, there is nothing I've said that warrants such accusation. Right off the bat a pretty huge inaccurate spin.

"Capitalizing the words does not make for an argument."

Ummm, did someone claim it did? You can't possibly be attempting to imply that 3 capitalized words out of over 250 are solely what I was basing my argument on can you? Seriously? For Real? No, it doesn't make for an argument nor in any sane reality could my post have put forth such a ridiculous concept. Capitalizing the words adds emphasis, nothing more. Hopefully the concept of adding emphasis is ok with you.

"ALL forms of biogtry are equally wrong, dangerous and emotionally toxic."

Are we having an obviousness contest? Oh, we're not? Cause I'll be damned if I've seen anyone make any claim or argument that different forms of bigotry aren't wrong.


""Violence" can take many forms, some of which can't be perceived by anyone but the target of that violence. Similarly, oppression. It's impossible to compare one
kind of pain to another and say one is more "painful" since that's individual and subjective."

Again, can you point me out where ANYONE (hope that emphasis is ok) has said otherwise? Can you possibly give logical explanation as to why that point has anything to do with the points I put forth prior to your post? Can you provide any explanation as to why you put forth an argument that one can't compare one kind of pain to another and say one is more painful, as if someone had said or implied otherwise to begin with?

"The larger society just loves pitting victims of oppression against each other (blacks against Asians, blacks against Jews, Asians against Latinos, poor whites against poor blacks, black people against gays, etc, etc). The only way anything will be solved is when the minorities hang together and become one solid majority."

Ok, noted. But once again I fail to see how this has even an iota to do with a thing I've said. Cause it doesn't. Nothing in my argument makes this argument from you relevant. Nothing you've stated in your entire reply in fact had anything to do with my post to begin with. I'm not sure how on Earth you could've even read my post and managed to forge this as a reply to it, since they don't relate to each other in the slightest. I found the entire post to be way off base and non-contextual.

[melody]

34. Yeah, I thought it would go something like that lol

>I fail to see how that has anything to do with anything I've said.

You made broad proclamations ...

>The Simple Common Sense Fact

To whom? To you? Are you interpreting the mind of god? I don't see that as a "simple common sense fact" at all. In fact, I disagree with it. If you're now going to hold forth that you know better than I do, then you are making broad assertions that you know better than those with whom you disagree, and that there is some external source with which you might compare your knowledge and thus deem it superior.

>FAR MORE violence and oppression than homophobia. Far more. Inarguably. This isn't

Not inarguably. Not in the least. In fact, I disagree with it. You're trying to prop up your arguments with certitude and back off anyone who disagrees. I say this as a straight person, btw, who is part Cherokee.

Again, we have the highly reactionary words like "silly" and "huge" thrown in there because you don't understand the tenets of your argument enough to argue for it, rather than to assert it as the gospel.

Pain is experienced individually and subjectively. Who are YOU to say one person's pain is greater than another's?

[Captain Hilts]

9. Interesting point. Others might argue about violence against women, but it's an interesting point.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. I Don't See How They Could.

Generally speaking violence towards women is condemned by individuals in our society even more than racism. Far more leeway would be given to people acting with racial intent then would be given to those committing acts of violence towards women.

[Captain Hilts]

12. Yes, but women are most likely to be murdered/injured by men they know.

It's different than what happened to blacks in the US, but some might argue that there is an element of violence in sexism. Rape statistics and all that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Completely Irrelevant To This Discussion. Sorry.

In the context of what this OP was about, your post above is completely outside of it. As far as some arguing that there's an element of violence in sexism, of course that's valid. But this isn't a thread offering arguments as to whether something is or isn't violent. It's a thread comparing the perception within society of that violence. So I have no further desire to discuss this new topic with you since it is outside the context of the thread I'm responding in to begin with. If you choose to start your own thread with this new topic and context, I may consider discussing it then.

[sniffa]

23. ....

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. Sorry, But That Ain't Gonna Cut It.

(edited due to my sheer ignorance toward the reality of the pic)

[sniffa]

29. wow

your ignorance astounds me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. Indeed.

Tis the risk of right clicking for properties and deducing from the name of the pic that it's a photoshop. Totally got it wrong and responded with ignorance due to it. Pretty pathetic of me actually, I should know better.

But regardless, I still only find that picture to be minimal evidence towards building a case against my position.

[dsc]

38. Let me get this straight, so to speak

You have the audacity to minimize violence against gays and you didn't even know that gays were a target of NAZI's. Wow, simply wow.
On edit I actually forgot to comment on the fact you apparently felt someone would directly lie to you via a picture which again speaks volumes. Evidently you think gays and their supporters are all liars.

[frankenforpres]

35. never seen that pic

thanks for that



always good to be informed

[LeftyMom]

37. Only in scale. nt

[Sabriel]

7. I think racism has gone underground, whereas homophobia has not.

It's not cool to use a racial epithet around most people, while I still hear "that's gay" and "faggy" a lot in the hallways.

Most people will stop a racist remark but let a anti-gay slur go by.

[dsc]

8. of course

and my question is did that largely predate the Civil Rights law or post date it. My family always stood up to racism (at last my immediate family did) but homophobia is not quite the same story.

[PDJane]

13. In my experience, it post-dated that law. eom

[fishwax]

14. a quick correction

Keith Richards may have snorted his father, but it was Michael Richards who used the n-word. (Unless you're talking about an incident I haven't heard about.)

[dsc]

15. thanks

[frogcycle]

16. depends where you were, but in general

the "political incorrectness" of open racism post-dates the Civil Rights Act.

I don't think the level of racism has changed much - it's still rampant - but now it is less open, much of the time

[JI7]

17. i think there is some change on issues concerning gay rights and gay bashing

i would say the recent condemnations by Republican Presidential candidates on Coulter was a step forward.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

19. Pass the ERA now!

It will ban discrimination based on gender. Women, gays, and transgendered folks stand to gain from it. It will provide legal grounds to overturn all those anti-gay marriage laws in many states. And just as improvements in attitudes about race lagged behind passage of the Civil Rights Act, sexism and homophobia will linger before they start to dissipate. Sexist and homophobic assholes will be forced to seethe silently just as they have to do when it comes to race in most places. So what? This is a reason to avoid enacting important and long overdue legislation, why?

You're right about discussions of gay issues in the media. I hadn't really noticed it, but I see what you're saying. I can't recall a single openly gay person appearing on any of the news shows to discuss, for example, Coulter's remarks. If it's a race situation, they will get people from the affected race. If it's about women, there will be at least one woman invited to discuss it. (Okay, so she'll usually be a Fembot from a right wing group, but still.)

[Behind the Aegis]

20. What it comes down to...

I feel what it really comes down to is whether it is "blatant, in your face" discrimination or if it is more "coded." It seems some people, including many here, will "poo-poo" the idea of discrimination unless it is blatant. When discrimination is more hidden, then those who point this out are accused of being "oversensitive, looking under rocks for it, see it in every post" or some other version of the previous comments. This is not just an issue at DU, but one in the "real" world, as well.

[FreeState]

21. Even here on DU unfortunately

Even here on DU unfortunately it is acceptable to post the word "F*ggot" but not racial epithets. I do not care what your sexual orientation is, using the anti-gay f-word is unacceptable. It pains me every time I see it on DU - and yes even more so when it is being used by a GLBT person.

[lligrd]

22. Of Course Not, Everyone In Freeperville Knows That There

are "some" good black people but no good gay people. And black people can't help being black but gay people chose to be gay just to upset Freepers.

:sarcasm:

[Leopolds Ghost]

26. It happened in the mid-1980s, IMO.

Read how "black issues" were dealt with in the papers prior to 1984. "the Black community" (default assumption that the black community is homogeneous.) "in the ghetto" (default assumption that blacks live apart, that certain neighborhoods are black areas where other people do not live, implying integration never happened). "Black man shot on 42nd street" (no reference to race if the person is not black), etc.

Willie Horton was probably the very first time anyone began to question these sort of tactics (and they still worked). Remember Jesse Helms?

This is why Reagan is such a sainted figure
among the "Southern Strategy" backwash.

(which was really a Suburban Strategy of Nixon's,
to cynically create a coalition of northern and southern suburbanites,
put a dead halt to housing and school integration which has never been
rectified, end social programs and the New Deal as accomplished under
Clinton, and otherwise try and reverse the progress of the 1930s-1960s.)

Reagan is like the Kennedy of the racist crowd;
the Camelot, the last great hero of a lost cause,

for those who remember when it was OK to stand in a fair in Mississippi and spout off about Welfare Cadillacs and have everyone in America know exactly what you were talking about,

and have all sorts of white people say "I don't necessarily agree but I can see where the man is coming from."

Openly racist politicians were still being elected throughout the 1970s, the whole notion of racism was a contested issue back then.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. Not much has changed.

The point you made about the media is interesting, but it has more to do with understanding identity than racism, though racism may play a part. The US is predominately white. When something happens (murder for instance), the race of the victim and/or suspect are usually not specified, unless they are not caucasian. In some cases, I would agree racism could be suspect. It works similarly in small communities (Black, gay, Jewish, Hispanic). When talking to someone in that community, we rarely identify a person who we are talking about who shares our identity. It is almost as if it is an understood. I know what I am thinking but I am not sure I am being clear, so let me use an example.

BtA (gay): "Did you hear Ronnie was murdered last night?"
Friend (gay): "OMG! No, I didn't! But I bet I know why!"

BtA (gay, still): "Did you hear Ronnie, my gay friend, was murdered last night?"
Friend (not gay): "OMG! No, I didn't! But, I bet I can guess why!"

Granted, not the best example, but what it shows is what is linguistically called "in-group solidarity." If the speaker and listener are within a certain group, then the subjects (people) discussed are viewed within the same light, unless otherwise noted. When the speaker and listener are from different groups, then both sides tend to be much more descriptive because identity can't be assumed.

In light of that, often it really shouldn't matter of what group someone is. However, even today, we still see non-white, non-Christian, non-heterosexual (and others) distinctions made in the media. Is it a form of racism (and other -isms)? Possibly. This is not a uniquely American thing either. In Israeli press, people are identified as Arab, Bedouin, or Christian. If no ethnic/religion is mentioned, the assumption is the person is Jewish. In Turkey, Kurds are 'singled out.' It is the same in many countries, the minority is the one singled out, because, barring that, the assumption is the person belongs to the majority.

Of course we all know the adage about "assuming" but, that seems to be the way of the world. I have seen some changes in various places because media is more accessible worldwide, so basic assumptions aren't always known.

Now, what is a "welfare Cadillac?" That one I haven't heard.

[alarimer]

28. It is certainly more socially accepted to be homophobic

than it is to be racist. I have colleague who say the most anti-gay things but they would never say anything that is racist. I mean, they might when I don't hear them I guess. And most of the people I know behave similarly. It is a question of changing attitudes. Younger people are generally more accepting of gays than older people. That is a generalization but a lot of polls show it to be true. And anecdotally, that is my experience as well. Time will tell.

[Madspirit]

30. Coretta Scott King

It's so sad that I have to bring this out so often. You can also google Nelson Mandela. He feels the same. Coretta Scott King thinks homophobia is as bad as racism and her words mean more to me, on discrimination issues, than the words of all the white people on the earth added together:


"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said. - Reuters, March 31, 1998.
Speaking before nearly 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel,
Coretta Scott King, the wife of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Tuesday called on the civil rights community to join in the struggle against homophobia and anti-gay bias. "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," King stated. "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." - Chicago Defender, April 1, 1998, front page.

"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy," King told 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton, days before the 30th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination on April 4, 1968. She said the civil rights movement "thrives on unity and inclusion, not division and exclusion." Her husband's struggle parallels that of the gay rights movement, she said. - Chicago Sun Times, April 1, 1998, p.18.

"For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people," King said at the 25th Anniversary Luncheon for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.... "Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement," she said. "Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions." - Chicago Tribune, April 1, 1998, sec.2, p.4.

We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say “common struggle” because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination. - Coretta Scott King, remarks, Opening Plenary Session, 13th annual Creating Change conference of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Atlanta, Georgia, November 9, 2000.

"We have to launch a national campaign against homophobia in the black community," said Coretta Scott King, widow of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the slain civil rights leader. - Reuters, June 8, 2001.

For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any other group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law.... I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. My husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” On another occasion he said, “I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.” Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others. So I see this bill as a step forward for freedom and human rights in our country and a logical extension of the Bill of Rights and the civil rights reforms of the 1950’s and ‘60’s. The great promise of American democracy is that no group of people will be forced to suffer discrimination and injustice. - Coretta Scott King, remarks, press conference on the introduction of ENDA, Washington, DC, June 23, 1994.

[Cleita]

31. Both are equally as bad in my eyes.

It's passing judgement on people as being somehow wrong about whom they are when in fact they have done nothing wrong.

[daleo]

36. Religion still provides plenty of oxygen for anti-gay prejudice

Whereas race prejudice doesn't have nearly the institutional support it used to have. Religion also provides most of the oxygen for sexism.