Documentary Trolls GOP succesfully

[thatwasnifty]

For starters, the gay= evil crowed is mostly concerned with the issue of marriage

This is false. Not only do the targets of this documentary work against equalizing marriage, they also work to limit non-discrimination laws like ENDA or prevent them from passing altogether, or support abstinence-only sex education that either doesn't acknowledge alternate sexual identity or demonizes non-heterosexuality (see Rep. Waxman's report from a few years ago), or try to maintain DADT because they fear for heterosexual men's safety. They are actively trying to strip legal protections from LGBT people that are supposed to be guaranteed to all people. They proclaim, on multiple fronts, that homosexuality is deviant and harmful to society and that they are championing what is Good and Right by campaigning against it, while secretly engaging in it themselves. How is that not hypocrisy?

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

It seems that some people, specifically Beckwin, still don't understand what i say when i refer to the multiple effects that can stem from a single action rather than the intent behind the act. I'll give an example.

Say, hypothetically, we have a black man supporting segregation in both the military and schools, between whites and blacks. Would you call this black man a hypocrite or a self-hater?

Furthermore, what does it imply when you call him a hypocrite in this context, and what is implied when you call him a self-hater?

Would the black people who despise what this black man is doing against his own group call him a hypocrite or a traitor?

The gays should be honest here, no using the claim of hypocrisy as justification for outing, when in reality they want to do it because they consider him a traitor. It may not sound as righteous when you say you're doing it cause he's a traitor, but at least you're being honest.

Your new shitty argument happily dismissed context. If the black man were to fight for segregation of whites and blacks because he feels that blacks are inferior, or not allowed by the law of God to do the same as whites then yes, he is self-hating. If he stands as a proud leader of the black community and black rights, then yes he is also a hypocrite.

Stop trying to post count up.

[archibaldcrane]

Say, hypothetically, we have a black man supporting segregation in both the military and schools, between whites and blacks. Would you call this black man a hypocrite or a self-hater?

If you want to "go against yourself" in a cause, go nuts. But you have to make it clear who you are first.

If this "black guy" looked white enough to pass, that's a different topic. If you're going to fuck guys and work against gay rights, you've gotta be in the open about it. If you aren't willing to, someone else will be.

Finally read up on David Dreier - doesn't seem like the hugest asshole (no pun intended) in Congress honestly, although he does appear to vote mostly against gay rights expansions. He is fortunately not married.

Hilarious quote though:

Openly-gay Democratic Congressman Barney Frank, when asked whether Dreier was passed over for the position (of House Majority Leader) because of his "moderate" views, told a crowd of reporters "Yes, in the sense that I marched in the moderate pride parade last summer and went to a moderate bar.”

[miokomioko]

The ultimate hypocrisy in it all is that they have to have known what outing would do to him. Ruin his career, ruin his credibility, ruin etc. How hypocritic is it to use someone's closet homosexuality to ruin a fellow homosexual's life? The less hypocritical and counter-productive way to have dealt with something like this is to approach him in private and strong-hand/blackmail him.

You may as well have a bunch of self-proclaimed adulterists dragging Hester Prynne out into the streets with a big scarlet A on her to humiliate her.

[archibaldcrane]

The ultimate hypocrisy in it all is that they have to have known what outing would do to him. Ruin his career, ruin his credibility, ruin etc. How hypocritic is it to use someone's closet homosexuality to ruin a fellow homosexual's life? The less hypocritical and counter-productive way to have dealt with something like this is to approach him in private and strong-hand/blackmail him.

That's all fine and good, but Dreier was "outed" in 2004 by LA Weekly, including details of his relationship with his chief of staff (who was being paid the absolute maximum legal limit for his position, more than any other representative's chief of staff in the U.S.) and Dreier still won his re-election bid in 2008.

It didn't ruin him, he's just being fucking stubborn and in denial about it. The idea that this is some virulent career-destroying weapon is ...well...not true in this case. It's already been done, everyone who looks at the situation with a critical eye already knows he fucks dudes, and he's still getting elected.

Closeted politicians who work against gay rights are particularly offensive to many out gay people, especially gay rights activists. Coming out of the closet, especially for people who did it back in the 60's and 70's, isn't fucking easy. Gay activists know this, and understand that it's harder for some people than others. But to stay in the closet, not have to make that difficult decision that could lose you friends and family members, and then actively work to fuck over all the other gays who were brave enough to live their lives as they feel they should, makes a closeted gay man a particular type of offensive coward, worthy of scorn, derision, and whatever else they can heap onto the safe, protected, having-it-both-ways piece of shit. Heh, I'm getting all worked up about it. Fuck that guy.

[miokomioko]

I thought the practice of muckraking was a little outdated. Regardless of how much of an ass I think the guy is, I have a particular problem with anyone's personal life being used against their professional life, as contradicting as it may be. He's not personally working for any of the rights he's campaigning against, I'm sure so I think it's all completely irrelevant. I am rather black/white on the subject.

[Kuya]

This is false. Not only do the targets of this documentary work against equalizing marriage, they also work to limit non-discrimination laws like ENDA or prevent them from passing altogether, or support abstinence-only sex education that either doesn't acknowledge alternate sexual identity or demonizes non-heterosexuality (see Rep. Waxman's report from a few years ago), or try to maintain DADT because they fear for heterosexual men's safety. They are actively trying to strip legal protections from LGBT people that are supposed to be guaranteed to all people. They proclaim, on multiple fronts, that homosexuality is deviant and harmful to society and that they are championing what is Good and Right by campaigning against it, while secretly engaging in it themselves. How is that not hypocrisy?

For starters, who are they? The religious right? Second what does my statement have to do with your post? I said that they're mostly concerned with marriage, and you then make a post about all the other things they apparently care about.

Third, and this addresses other people too:

If the argument is that he deserves to be outed is because he is a hypocrite, then you have to justify that statement, you have to prove someone is a hypocrite, aside from whether outing is in itself a wrong due to the negative context in which one's sexuality is used. A hypocrite is a person who criticizes others but not himself; it has an element of deceit. This is David Dreier's record on gay rights:

The alleged "outing" was a result of Dreier coming under increasing scrutiny from gay rights groups because of his voting record, which includes support of the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as votes against gay adoption,[citation needed] and against inclusion of homosexuals as a protected class in hate crime and employment discrimination legislation.

In order to classify him as a hypocrite, he would need to be married with a man while opposing same sex marriage for everyone else, because, and this is important, he thinks it's wrong for others to marry the same sex, but not for him, that's hypocrisy. But you know what would make him a hypocrite? If he says that he thinks homosexual behaviour is wrong (meaning being with a man) while himself engaging in that exact behaviour, where the first statement was meant to deceive, because if he genuinely believes homosexual behaviour (we don't even know if he considers himself gay) is wrong, and admits that the behaviour he engages in is wrong but he can't help it, then he is not a hypocrite. Take this for example:

It is a common fallacy to accuse of hypocrisy people who do not practice what they preach. Such people may indeed be hypocrites, but the proof is not in their failure to practice, since such failure may be failure despite their efforts to succeed. In order to accurately label someone a hypocrite who fails to practice what they preach, one would have to find proof that the preaching itself was not genuine. Failure to make any effort at all to succeed may hint at hypocrisy, but alone it is not sufficient to prove hypocrisy.

Another problem is the association with any of the gay rights issues mentioned with gay identity itself, one can have the latter but not support the former, if one is genuine about it.

edit: basically, he would need to say that being gay is wrong while being gay himself and while he was saying being gay is wrong he would need to have been lying.

[Beckwin]

against inclusion of homosexuals as a protected class in hate crime and employment discrimination legislation.

That, right there, makes the man a hypocrite- he's saying gays don't deserve protection against employment discrimination... while he pretends to be straight and fucks dudes after work gets out.

Look, let me try to create a parallel situation for you, since you're having trouble: you're a black leader who preaches that whites are evil and you vote against legislation that would decriminalize interracial sex and legalize interracial marriage, but after you go home you secretly have sex with white people. vice-versa the colors in that sentence if you need to.

[Darus Grey]

If the argument is that he deserves to be outed is because he is a hypocrite, then you have to justify that statement, you have to prove someone is a hypocrite, aside from whether outing is in itself a wrong due to the negative context in which one's sexuality is used. A hypocrite is a person who criticizes others but not himself; it has an element of deceit. This is David Dreier's record on gay rights:

Not to awaken this old debate...but a hypocrite is someone who espouses a belief specifically for public approval, they don't even have to disagree with it(though often do). All politicians are hypocrites.

People who play the "do as I say not as I do" game are just assholes, though they may also be hypocrites...but that's not what makes them one.

[Kuya]

In effect, the only thing the man seems to be a hypocrite about is him saying he is not gay, when he might be.

[Kuya]

That, right there, makes the man a hypocrite- he's saying gays don't deserve protection against employment discrimination... while he pretends to be straight and fucks dudes after work gets out.

Look, let me try to create a parallel situation for you, since you're having trouble: you're a black leader who preaches that whites are evil and you vote against legislation that would decriminalize interracial sex and legalize interracial marriage, but after you go home you secretly have sex with white people. vice-versa the colors in that sentence if you need to.

The bolded is not hypocrisy, but it is funny. As for your example, it's a very convoluted example. Does he think having sex with people of a different colour is alright or not? If he thinks it is wrong, but says it is right, then he is a hypocrite; if he thinks having sex with someone of a different colour is alright, but says it is not, then he is a hypocrite. In your example the leader is a hypocrite if when he says engaging in sex with whites is wrong (my interpretation of your whites are evil bit) when he actually engages in sex with whites, which means he was lying at first.

Now for the reason why your example is off: In my knowledge, the politician we are discussing has never said that being with someone of the same sex is wrong or even voted for a law banning that, which is what he does, therefore he is no hypocrite there. What you NEED to know in order to say he is a hypocrite is that he doesn't actually believe that gays shouldn't marry or adopt to prove he is a hypocrite, him being with another man is only related as far as the theme is about homosexuality.

All this to say that outing him because he is a "hypocrite" is unfounded, and once again, based on punishing "traitors".

[Cyn]

Well, this little debate is slightly amusing, but it's all rather moot since these men made a conscious decision to pursue a career that effectively waives its right to live in private. Politicians use their lives and their views to convince the populace that they deserve the right to wield power. Therefore anything that they attempt to hide from the people specifically in order to further their own agenda is fair game to be used against them by their political adversaries.

It's not even so much about them being gay. Any time you lead a private life in opposition to your publicly expressed views, people will eventually find out about it. It would be like a pro life politician secretly getting an abortion. Don't you think the pro choice are going to very quickly hang her for doing exactly what they support?

My reaction to the whole thing is a never ending sense of amusement at how much of a game it is to these people. The people who run their campaign (the actual paid staff) don't even have a true political affiliation, they are just hired professionals who will likely end up working for both sides throughout their career.

[archibaldcrane]

Kuya - basically it comes down to this: The guy is closeted, and therefore most of us are interpreting this as that he is not a fully sexually actualized member of the American community, and whatever opinions he has on the rights of people with regards to sexuality we look upon very questionably, because we don't think that people who can't just be who they are should be in no position to make decisions about the rights of people who can.

If he was to come out as being gay, and then continued to vote the way that he does, so be it. But he's a coward, both in his sexuality and in his voting record, and if he refuses to face the music and stick his chin out, people will rightfully try to force him to do so.

Whether he's the dictionary definition of a "hypocrite" is somewhat irrelevant honestly, and your only reason for saying he isn't is because you don't actually know where he stands - you only see how he votes. You are giving him the benefit of the doubt, and I don't think he deserves it. I think he votes the way he does because he is, plain and simple, either in denial or (worse?) straight-up lying about who he is - and that's problematic for a lawmaker.

His fucking of men while saying he's straight brings up a whole slew of problems beyond whether he's "a hypocrite" - why shouldn't that be an issue?

[miokomioko]

if he refuses to face the music and stick his chin out, people will rightfully try to force him to do so.

I didn't know this was a right.

[Kuya]

Kuya - basically it comes down to this: The guy is closeted, and therefore most of us are interpreting this as that he is not a fully sexually actualized member of the American community, and whatever opinions he has on the rights of people with regards to sexuality we look upon very questionably, because we don't think that people who can't just be who they are should be in no position to make decisions about the rights of people who can.

If he was to come out as being gay, and then continued to vote the way that he does, so be it. But he's a coward, both in his sexuality and in his voting record, and if he refuses to face the music and stick his chin out, people will rightfully try to force him to do so.

Whether he's the dictionary definition of a "hypocrite" is somewhat irrelevant honestly, and your only reason for saying he isn't is because you don't actually know where he stands - you only see how he votes. You are giving him the benefit of the doubt, and I don't think he deserves it. I think he votes the way he does because he is, plain and simple, either in denial or (worse?) straight-up lying about who he is - and that's problematic for a lawmaker.

His fucking of men while saying he's straight brings up a whole slew of problems beyond whether he's "a hypocrite" - why shouldn't that be an issue?

An issue that is not, and i repeat, NOT, addressed via outing. I am, just as you are, assuming he identifies as gay but denies it, and i also assume he says he is straight (he said that, right?).

You want to argue about the issue of gay identity and "coming out"? Fine, but that is that, and outing someone is another issue. Intentions aside, the effect, as i have said many times already, of outing is the reaffirming of homosexuality and anything related to it as a negative.

Tell me, do you want to argue about gay identity politics or whether outing is wrong or not?

edit: don't de-contextualize, i am arguing that he is not a hypocrite because we don't know what his intentions are, and in that sense, calling him a hypocrite is unfounded because just as i have no reason to believe he is, no one has a reason to believe he is. Outing because he is a hypocrite( is outing even the right thing to do? why not argue about that?) seems like a dead issue.

[Cyn]

So his personal choice to have sex with men is somehow sacrosanct, and supersedes his obligation of honesty to the American public?

Or are you debating just for the sheer thrill of it (something I'm certainly guilty of - oh snap, I'm a hypocrite)?

[Kuya]

So his personal choice to have sex with men is somehow sacrosanct, and supersedes his obligation of honesty to the American public?

Or are you debating just for the sheer thrill of it (something I'm certainly guilty of - oh snap, I'm a hypocrite)?

Looks like you want to argue with someone else. I'll leave you to your toys.

[Cyn]

I'm not The Finesse, nor am I going to start some ad hominem mud slinging contest. What's wrong with a little bit of intellectual discourse?

Or is your use of bold an attempt to make this a debate over whether he had a choice to engage in sexual activities with another man or not?

[archibaldcrane]

Tell me, do you want to argue about gay identity politics or whether outing is wrong or not?

Outing in general or in this particular circumstance?

I reiterate that the main thing that makes this particular outing a negative thing for him is because of the situation he himself created. He denies it, he votes against gay causes (and forgive me for wearing my socially liberal hat but this will be judged in the future as opponents to interracial marriage are judged now), he makes his sexuality into a weapon. There are lawmakers, even in the midwest (Tammy Baldwin) for whom gay sexuality isn't a handicap. It's not about outing as a weapon in general, it's only a weapon because he's made it one.

I assume he's a hypocrite because I don't think that if he came to terms with his own sexuality that he would continue to vote against things like adoption rights. That is just vile and an opinion for the ignorant - gay people aren't ignorant about what it means to be gay. When he votes in that way, he is either A) In denial of his own proclivities and uses his vote to attempt to publicly reject his natural state, B) Kowtowing to his party even knowing what he is doing is wrong. For straight people there's a C) thinking that gay people are not capable of properly raising children...but he's gay. He knows that's bullshit. A and B are also, frankly, unacceptable.

I assume he's a liar, not just about his sexuality, but also about his rationale for voting the way he does. You can give him the benefit of the doubt and say "he's just confused" - fine. But let the populace know that it's one or the other. I don't believe him or trust him, and that's because he has more relevant experience in the matter than straight politicians. He should be -more- capable of properly ruling in these matters, but his closeted status renders him even less so. Outing him, ultimately, could make him a better politician.

They're doing it for his own good.

I'm liking this argument.

[Cyn]

In some ways the true fault here lies at the feet of having a two party system. It's very difficult to be successful without a democratic or republican affiliation, yet to keep that affiliation there may be times when you'll have to choose between your personal feelings or your party's stance. So a man who just happens to be gay yet agrees strongly with the majority of the republican views will be faced with a fairly difficult set of choices.

However, that does not give him the right to hide the truth from his enemies or supporters.