Discussion in 'Current Affairs & Debate' started by VoR, Apr 20, 2009.
...and that's where we differ
Well I'm sorry but if that's genuinely what you think my opinion boils down to after everything I've said than you either HAVE completely misunderstood me, or your opinion IS as black and white as I thought it was. In which case we do just have a massive difference in opinion.
It is clear that in the context of same-sex marriage you believe that the urgency of the issue overrides protecting freedom of expression. Can I ask where you draw the line? If you would censor her over this what else would you censor her, or indeed anybody else, on?
One of the sticking points in this debate has been the inability to disentangle the wider issue of freedom of expression from the issue of same-sex unions. Those of us who have stressed the importance of freedom of expression have been criticised for condoning homophobia but that simply is not the case. This should be a wider debate which transcends the issue of same-sex unions.
My contention throughout has been that if you attempt to censor an individual from expressing views IN ANY CONTEXT which, whilst they may be personally distasteful and offensive, are legal then you are potentially setting a very dangerous precedent. This particular woman’s views are, in my opinion, ignorant but she is there to be challenged and judged on her beliefs by those who oppose her. If you try to censor entirely a certain body of opinion, whose expression is within the rule of law, then you may just find that somebody uses the exact same weapon against you someday.
:grr: no one HAS to do anything in life, but that doesn't mean you should sit back and just wait for someone else to do it. It's not my job to give post that has been wrongly sent to me to the person it was intended for. It's not my job to help kids in Africa who don't have a source of clean water pay for a well. I do those things because if I don't, someone else might not do it. And because if I can create a positive effect on someone else's life, I'm going to do it.
I'm not saying that you should quit your job after lunch and start lobbying the Govt for equal rights for everyone - my argument is that if you're not willing to step up and fight for equality, who the hell are you to tell someone else they aren't allowed to do it either? You said that you think Perez is on some massive publicity campaign and doesn't give a shit about equal rights - well, neither of us can say whether that's true or not because we haven't spoken to him personally. But judging him on his past reputation for discouraging homophobia and whatnot, it's clearly something he's passionate about, so I personally don't think that he's doing it solely for self promotion.
I don't understand what you mean by 'his inability to help the cause'. He is helping the cause; if he hadn't asked that question, we wouldn't be having this debate. He's brought it to the attention of a heap of people who would otherwise remain ignorant. He is, whether you and I like it or not, a successful blogger who has the capacity of reaching millions. How is that not helping the cause?!
err i never said she should have been censored, i agree with free speech 100%, i said she should be attacked for saying even something slightly homophobic. Taking responsibility for what she did say
My opinion on gay marriage is
IF YOU LIKE IT THEN YOU SHOULD JUST PUT A RING ON IT
Not from me you haven't, she can say however many homophobic things she wants, but she's certainly not going to get a "heroine" or "fairplay for expressing yourself" assessment from me!
The fact that people are actually trying to defend her character, her background, etc, proves they are completley missing the point. It's not WHO said it, it's WHAT they said.
But don't you think the context is hugely important here?
I think there is a GULF of difference between a politician or somebody like Ann Coulter saying "I believe that marriage should be between a man or a woman" than a model saying it when asked the question at a beauty pageant.
There could be 200 people who all feel the same way, but until one person takes the time to stand up and do it and let others follow, everyone is too scared to take the initiative.
why is the opinion of Ann Coulter or a politician of more merit than a model at a beauty pageant?
I can understand what you are saying here, but it was his question, he had the right to ask whatever he wanted. If I was there and in his position, I would have done exactly the same, i.e. asked the question which I was most interested to hear the response to.
I see your point about standing up and doing something etc. I give to charity, I have things I'm passionate about, I/we could all do more etc.
But regarding his question fuelling our debate - this is a forum full of forward thinking young people primarily from the UK. My beef is that his question (and subsequently the answer from the model shoved into the spotlight) will have riled a lot of people in America. Sure, some of those people are beyond change anyway, but there are also people who don't take well to having opinions on sensitive subjects pushed upon them.
And again, I don't question his opinions or passionate feelings on the matter. That's all fair enough. I just PERSONALLY IN MY OPINION think he went about it the wrong way. There is a thousand things he could have done better if he really wanted to help.
And of course he knew he would get him publicity. That's his job. And that makes him a hypocrite.
I wasn't making the point that you shouldn't do anything, I was making the point that if your particular methods don't work, why bother
this thread is FABULOUS
MOVE IT TO MOOPY GOLD NOW
But perhaps a radical opinion being brought to the main stage is the thing that is needed to make them think about their opinions?
has a debate such as this ever had SUCH a close poll vote before on Moopy?
But what doesn't work?
there are so many analogies being used in this thread, my head is spinning
It isn't, but it represents something different. A politician or a political writer like Coulter has made a career out of his or her political stance. He has deliberately put himself into the political sphere with the intention of influencing peoples opinions or actual legislation. They are more likely to have a strong and well considered opinion on the matter. Therefore I think you are more justified in getting angry with them.
This model just represents an everywoman. That she has this view is very disturbing, but not altogether surprising in the current American climate. And unlike Ann Coulter or Joe Politician she probably spends an absolute miniscule amount of her life thinking about gay rights or gays in general. If you go after her like a dog to a rabbit then you're going after a huge amount of people who are mostly either apathetic or ill informed of the finer points of the issue. And I don't think being that angry and downright insulting to her is going to do anything but back her and those who share her views into a corner and make them feel more strongly about it than they did previously.
To put it another way: I tend to lean towards the legalisation of soft drugs. But I'm not really all that well informed about it. If I was asked should Weed and Ecstasy be legalised, my immediate response would be "Yes". I have reasons for this. If you responded by saying "YOU FUCKING IDIOT! YOU ARE WRONG!" etc I would get quite upset and I'd resent you for it. However if you explained to me your reasons for being opposed to legalisation in a calmer manner, and perhaps opened my eyes to aspects of the argument that I wasn't familiar with, I might well end up changing my mind.
Maybe. I guess time will tell. However, if, say, Lance Bass or Ellen had said it, people woudn't be dubious about their motives. People automatically know it's a genuine cause.
Personally I think someone like Charlize Theron putting out a statement that she refuses to get married in America until they change the laws is not just more effective than anything Perez Hilton could do, it's INFINITELY more effective. For all the reasons I have already mentioned.
Oh I don’t know, I’m not singling anybody out, and I apologise if I misconstrued your point, but there has been an unmistakeable vibe of ‘I don’t agree with her therefore she shouldn’t have a platform’ throughout this thread and that is disturbing.
I definitely agree that there are people who would have created a more positive effect with the issue, but none of them were in Perez's situation and weren't able to ask the question. So in light of their absence, I'm glad that he did it anyway.
I don't think that at all...but I have stopped reading VoR and suomi's bickering as there were too many pop culture references that meant nothing to me. But those posts aside, I don't think that anyone thinks she should have been censored because of her opinion. In a way, I think it's a great thing that she was so controversial because it's made a lot of people stop and think about the issue in hand. I couldn't tell you anything else that was asked to those girls at that event, and that's because they gave nice, on the fence answers to things they didn't agree with.
But just to reiterate, just because I think bringing the issue up is a good thing, I still think that what she said was wrong.
And I share all of these opinions 100%
I'm not arguing in favour of what she said. I'm arguing in favour of her right to say it under those circumstances, and about how we should deal with it.
has this really gone on for 12 pages?
5 quid to whoever manages to recapitulate and resolve this in under 50 characters
A twitter style UPDATE of the last 345 posts be INDEED NICE
Thanks in advance
Interesting response - but I don't get where the charge of hypocrisy comes in.
I totally disagree with that last point. The general vibe has been, if she wants to put out opinions like that, she should be prepared to be criticised for them, and we should be reading to criticise her.
With regard to Perez, I'm with Moonbaby on this one. Even if he asked the question for his own gain, I'm quite sure he has put the discussion into the consciousness of many Americans who would not have otherwise. And why criticise him for doing something that so many of us are not prepared to do? Its like arguing that Madonna has set back the struggle for foreign adoptions or something - but at least she's on some level staying true to what she believes in. And as people who don't get involved, who are we to criticise the validity of someone's efforts on our behalf?
I disagree that 'this model represents an everywoman'. Models of THIS type represent a republican old-fashioned sexist tradionalist world as much as ANY politician.
oh I'm not saying it AGAIN...
Perhaps, and that makes her more likely to have those dated views. But what I mean by everywoman is that she has no political agenda. She's just some woman trying to win a beauty contest. Therefore I'm more inclined to believe that her opinion is a result of her upbringing and not particularly informed than I am that she's some hate-filled monster who deserves nothing but scorn.
Miss California is a product of Christian fundamentalist schools and a Christian university, and I do have empathy for her brainwashing. But the fact that since this brouhaha, many of the gay staff members of the Miss California contest have publicly stated that they felt personally betrayed and hurt by her hardline stance, and then KNOWING this, she has made all the rounds of the rightwing news outlets to proclaim that she would never change her answer makes me less symapthetic to her character.
If she had allowed a little shred of true Christianity to shine through, and said something to the effect that had she known how many friends and good people would be hurt by her statement she might have chosen different words to express her opinion, I would have a great deal of respect for her.
BTW, Perez has been out in the streets marching with us in the demonstrations against Prop 8, along with many of the celebrities of Hollywood. But despite the many news crews and tv cameras around, he hasn't been jumping into every shot for his own publicity and glory. Gay men and women here in California feel a bit under siege, so why would it be wrong for him to address this issue when given the opportunity?
Absolutely. Well of course physical violent homophobia or verbally abusive homophboa is kinda the worst too.
I empathise with what Madison said a few posts back about the ability to actually change people's views once they know somone who is gay. That can be a very powerful thing to resolve that ignorant kind of homophobia - I have many Christian friends from growing up and being made to go to church etc... a lot of them are so accepting, and have zero against gays, believe we all should marry who the hell we want. Those attitudes are just so ingrained in many peoples' culture and background because that's what they've been told while growing up. In the States particularly, that is where the vast majority of resistance against same-sex marriage comes from, they've had no experience of gay friends and just believe what is the "norm".
Therefore exposing Miss California is a good thing because it challenges those loosely held views. However, surely being a beauty queen you are surrounded by gays?!
Britney Spears posted this message on her twitter regarding the issue...
With Britney and Miley on side the gays cannot POSSIBLY fail.
If you were hired as the warm up speaker at some conference and you went on stage dressed like Bin Laden you shouted through a loudspeaker before the major speech began "We are Al-Qaeda. We have captured this building and you are all going to die" you would be arrested and charged even if it was only a joke. Using your logic then someone has the right to do so.
The idea that freedom of speech is absolute is only an idea. It has never actually happened.
This thread is AMAZING, this is the best debate we've ever had on here.
I agree with you completely. There are always extreme examples.
Although, in the case of Miss California, I think that she was absolutely entitled to voice her opinion and would never suggest taking that right away from her.
The reason that I ticked the poll option 'I think she should keep her homophobic claptrap to herself' is not because I don't think she should have freedom of speech, it is because I think her opinion is appalling, ignorant, shameful, hateful and disgraceful. She should be ashamed of her opinion. Evidently she wasn't, hopefully the furore around this whole situation might make her think a bit harder about the issue. If she didn't feel ashamed before, she should be made to feel ashamed now.
I very much agree with this. I think the ambiguity of this poll has perhaps led some people to draw the wrong conclusions about others though.