Member Rara Avis
Edward: Yes the statement everyone has to be fine with everything is a broad, unspecific and inaccurate. I was making a point. Must you be so condescending and patronizing?
iliana: We all communicate in different ways with our words and I thought you got your point across. Though, I suppose, it could have been more precise....but I didn't realize that was such a big thing in this forum.
rwood: I didn't know the posts in the Alley required anything but following the protocol for appropriate content and topic.
Hey, guys, it's a writing site, remember?
I greatly appreciate good writing, I empathize deeply with bad writing, but I have very little patience with lazy writing. Especially when it's used to verbally assault others.
When you attack a group of people by attributing a statement to them, it behooves your argument to make sure the statement is accurate. "EVERYONE has to be OK with EVERYTHING," is not an accurate representation of anything and, indeed, doesn't even make sense. I've never heard any group make any such claim, not even anarchists (who presumably would not be okay with their own murders).
It's a lie, albeit a careless one rather than an intentional one. And at the end of the day, you can't really argue with lies. You can only denounce them.
Edward wants the freedom to "got some beef" in these forums, but apparently wants to relegate me and everyone else to mere chicken. We don't get to disagree with him, or his methods, lest he feel slighted. Sorry, but if Edward or anyone else wants to simply express an opinion, they should write it on a piece of paper and stick it in a desk drawer. Better yet, fictionalize your opinion and post it as a poem or short story. This forum, however, is for discussion, and not everyone is going to agree with your opinions.
Especially when you use the podium here to attack other people.
Coincidentally, Andrew Anthos, better known to his friends as Buddy, died about a hundred miles down the road from me this past Friday from injuries sustained in a February 13 beating. Buddy was riding the bus from the public library to his apartment in Detroit when another male passenger approached him and asked if he was gay. When Buddy left the bus (to help a wheelchair-bound fellow passenger through the snow no less) the man followed. He hit Buddy in the back of the head with a metal pipe and fled on foot. The police have no suspects.
Oh, yea, I almost forgot. Andrew Anthos was 72 years old.
You know, in retrospect, it's probably not all that coincidental after all. These kind of hate crimes happen often enough that one was bound to coincide with Edward's little rant. This one just happened to hit close to home for me. I'm certainly not going to suggest this is the kind of thing Edward wants to be able to publicly support. I think he's careless, not criminal. However, what Edward doesn't understand, in his carelessness, is that this is exactly the kind of thing that happens when no one stands up to condemn it. Instead of condemning the violence and hate, Edward wants to rail against those who do condemn it?
No one ever said you have to be okay with everything, Edward. That was just reckless rhetoric, a sin for any man, I think, but gross negligence for a writer. What they have said, I believe, is that you can't be okay with just anything. You can't, for example, be okay with hitting an old man in the back of the head with a metal pipe. And if you say you are, if you actively promote hate, they're going come down hard on you. They're going to condemn your words and actions. Much as you've tried to do to them in this thread.
The difference, of course, is that their condemnation is going to carry some serious weight with other people. And THAT, I think, is what really pisses you off.
You have to approve of gay rights or they don't approve of you and they'll make your life hell.
I think it all comes down to this statement.
It only comes down to that statement, Brad, if you accept the statement at face value.
There might be some truth to the statement if you're a high profile celebrity or politician. For most of us, though, we don't have to approve of gay rights to escape disapproval because, frankly, our opinions aren't really all that important. What we can't do with impunity is actively promote hate and prejudice.
It all strikes me as eminently fair.
If you disapprove of gay rights then gay rights is going to disapprove of you. Tit for tat. It seems a bit childish to get mad just because they do it so much more effectively.
But I do agree with him that terms like "homophobe" (or the thoughts behind them) amount to little more than belittlement of someone else who doesn't agree.
And I'm sure, Stephen, that the leaders of the KKK say pretty much the same thing about terms like "racist." No one, I guess, likes to have their opinions belittled.
Sometimes, though, I think it's necessary.
(For the record, homophobe technically indicates a fear of homosexuality. It is only through common usage that it has also come to mean a hatred of homosexuals, thus making it a parallel for racism. Sadly, I suspect such common usage tells its own story.)