Oh boy, here we go again--a firestorm about comments that the person who made them interprets one way, some listeners and the media, another.
Carl Paladino, running against Mario Cuomo for governor of New York, decried events like gay pride parades, and came out against gay marriage. According to some accounts, he used words like "pervert," and was playing to his conservative Orthodox Jewish audience--none of which excess I am defending, and I really can't stand name-calling--but people quick to jump on his condemnation of gay pride events would like to gloss over the fact that his objections are not to gay people living their lives and being who they are, but to public behavior that is gross and offensive, and would be just as offensive if it were engaged in, in public, by heterosexuals. (I realize that seems like a bourgois concept to those who think they are the intellectual and moral superiors of the 'common folk,' but there is a reason that a concept of "common decency" has been a feature of any stable community, at virtually every time and place in history.)
It's no surprise, of course, that Paladino is being vilified in the press, although he was at pains to point out that he condemned any persecution of gays and that his own philosophy was to "live and let live." From what I've read, his gay nephew is a part of his campaign team.
That said, I am not interested in defending Paladino's opinions here, as I don't share most of them. I think gay people should have the right to marry, and I don't think anyone is qualified to decide what constitutes a "valid" lifestyle, as long as it isn't one that exploits someone.
What I _am_ defending is the concept of being able to have an opinion without becoming an object of hate and ugliness. I think it is incredible that many of the same people who get the most angry about Christians (in particular, but basically any group that opposes gay marriage) are very much like the people they decry. The same self-righteousness that outrages them, the same sense of moral superiority they deplore, the same intolerance of dissent, are hallmarks of their own attitude. (Speaking of which, I happened to notice the other day that a friend of a friend on Facebook posted a link to an article about Paladino, and after condemning him as 'hate-filled,' went on, in the space of three lines, to call him an "A-hole" and a "rectal cyst." Don't you love the irony?)
I'm tired--and, frankly, bored--by those who continue to try to demonize anyone who isn't supportive of gay marriage. Sure, some of them are probably homophobic, but many more of them are kind, intelligent people who have friends and relatives who are gay, but who simply have sincere reservations about radically redefining the basic societal structure that has existed for millenia. I don't agree with them, but I'm not prepared to ridicule them and call them names because of it. Perhaps I'm just not hate-filled enough to do that.
Paladino's comments have not been limited to the context of the inappropriateness of taking children to a Pride parade. The paper trail of his position on the subject at large is extensive. Eleventh hour back-pedaling aside, his view that homosexuality is immoral is clearly documented.
ReplyDeleteThough he has tried to hold up his own nephew as proof that he is not himself homophobic, this proof has now turned to dust in his hands. The nephew has left the campaign stating only that he was "deeply offended" by his uncle's remarks. If anyone could be excused for indulging in a bit of name-calling it would surely be this young man. He has been used by a member of his own family as political fodder and will, no doubt, pay an ongoing price for that in the form of even more discrimination.
But in fact, he hasn't resorted to name-calling. He made it clear that offense was taken, but he did not offer offense in return. I hope my own nephews grow up to be men of such character. I hope they will have the courage to act on their convictions even if it means rejecting the public positions of those closest to them.
I'm not sure why anyone would think that basic societal structures wouldn't need redefining after so many millennia. Our society bears little resemblance to that of the Near East two thousand years ago. Who would we be today if we had never redefined (at times quite radically) the structures upon which we base our conception of the community and of individuals?
We've had to do just that time and time again and thankfully we are a better people for it. Wherever, whenever it happens we must always thank kind, intelligent people who could look at their own family, their teachers, employers, political leaders and at times even at their own God and say, "This is not right and it must not stand."
The anger and acrimony of this moment in time is paltry compared to the scorn and ridicule that our children's children will heap upon us if we don't make this right. Historical proof that this is so abounds. The future never looks kindly upon the hypocrisies of the past.
Thank you, Scott, for the comments. Haven't yet figured out how to edit _after_ posting; if I had, I'd probably have tried to make it even clearer that defending Paladino was not the goal. In fact, the point of the post isn't even about him, it's simply that labeling everyone who is not a supporter of gay marriage as a "hater," as some are wont to do, is not only counterproductive (in that it doesn't win any hearts or minds of those whose opinions aren't set in stone) but it's a form of hate itself. And it's quite simply wrong in many--I would say most--cases.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with you about redefining millenia-old norms not being a bad thing, we're not talking about something that is 2000 years old and is clearly outdated. It's _been_ the norm for the entire time since then, up to and including the present, so I don't think the objections or concerns of a very large percentage of the population, about dumping it, can or should be dismissed out of hand.
I'm not sure I agree with you that Mr. Paladino's nephew will face discrimination because of his uncle's political exploitation of him. I hope not, anyway.
I allowed my comments to drift from the parameters set by your original post. I certainly don't think you endorse sentiments of any type of exclusionary thinking. Your heart and mind I know to be equally open and I very much appreciate the forum you are developing with this blog. There are few places left online that are consistently civil and I'm not surprised in the least to find you hosting one of them!
ReplyDeleteI too hope this young man is spared any discrimination because of being dragged into this by his uncle. But do you really think in this climate he won't?
[My comment was too long and had to be split into two parts. So What follows is “Part 1,” and I’ll post the rest soon.]
ReplyDeleteYour main contention and your concluding point is that there has been a vitriolic reaction against Paladino, and that it is due to his objections to gay marriage. To illustrate, you quoted some name-calling comments in response to a Facebook-linked article about Paladino made by a friend of a friend of a friend.
I was one of the name-callers in that set of comments. My entire comment to the friend who posted the link to the Paladino story was “Pity the fool.” For what it’s worth, using the word “pity” rather than “hate” was a conscious choice. Also for what it’s worth, I think we’re debating value judgments and gray areas for which there are no right and wrong answers, even though it often feels as though what’s right and what’s wrong are self-evident.
So I’m offering “another angle” on the vitriol. Although I didn’t use words as harsh as those you quoted, I was angry about Paladino’s comments. And contrary to your suggestion, it’s not Paladino’s opposition to gay marriage that angered me. What angered me to the point of name-calling was the very public nature of his hypocrisy and his condemnations. Here’s what he said
“Don’t misquote me as wanting to hurt homosexual people in any way, that would be a dastardly lie. My approach is live and let live. I just think my children, and your children, will be much better off, and much more successful getting married and raising a family. And I don't want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option. It isn't.”
This was part of an apology for previous negative comments he made about gays. He asks us to accept that he’s a fair-minded, tolerant guy who has taken a firm stance against brainwashing children. That’s good. The problem is he immediately proceeds to declare that homosexuals brainwash our children, that their existence is invalid, and that their lives are unsuccessful.
I think that you probably disagree with him on all of these points. That’s great, but I think it’s understandable there are many who are not so content *merely* to disagree.
Saying “live and let live” and “[I don’t want] to hurt homosexual people in any way” does not take him off the hook for subsequently uttering any old vicious, bigoted, dismissive, and baseless claim about homosexuals that he chooses.
It seems that by your calculus, on the one hand Paladino’s words were not so bad because they were tempered by his “live and let live” reassurance. (You criticized those who ignore his temperate disclaimers.) On the other hand, you treat rude words in a stranger’s comment on another stranger’s Facebook thread as worthy of special condemnation. Your implication--which may not be your intention--is that Paladino is the one getting a raw deal in this instance, and so you are sticking up for him and for his right to voice what his opinion. Is that correct?
I'd be a little surprised if there was that big a backlash. I think people will be more likely to view him as the victim in this, and be sympathetic. Oddly enough, there may be more backlash (although I doubt it would be public) from the gay community, based on the assumption that he knew who is uncle was, and still chose to work for him. Again, though, hopefully there will be none at all.
ReplyDeleteThe comment immediately above was to Scott, which is probably evident.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Barry, for the comments, and I look forward to the continuation. I don't know if you read the second comment in the thread--my response to Scott, but as I said to him, I would have gone back after I originally published (if I knew how!) and reworked this post, as well as retitled it. Not to change my essential point at all, but to remove the focus from Paladino, as his comments, his attitudes, etc., really are not what concerned me. In my mind, he was more of a 'jumping off' point, but I didn't make that very clear. He's not a very appealing guy, and my intention was not, as you asked, to say that he got a raw deal. (Although he does indeed have a right to voice his opinion.)
As to your friend's comments, I never made a comparison between them and Paladino's, as I don't think that's an important issue. If you look at it again, you'll see that my mention of her comments was just an aside, an illustration of the unfunny irony inherent in hating the 'haters'.
You say that my "main contention and concluding point is that there has been a vitriolic reaction against Paladino, and that it is due to his objections to gay marriage," but that _wasn't_ the point.
The point is better summed up by this comment from the post: "What I _am_ defending is the concept of being able to have an opinion without becoming an object of hate and ugliness."
And I think this is where confusion enters, because it sounds like I'm decrying Paladino's being this object of hate, when it really wasn't him I was thinking about--it's the people who are not trying to offend or smear, but who simply do not support the idea of gay marriage.
More and more, they are the object of scorn and yes, vitriol directed at them by crusaders against "hate," which is not only pretty darn hateful, but as a result, hypocritical, too.
That said, I do agree that distinctions can and should be drawn between those regular people with an opinion, and someone like Paladino who is running for office.
[Part 2]
ReplyDeleteYes, Paladino made far milder word choices than the Facebook commenter, but the point I want to make is that the context matters. Paladino used his words in a political speech. For me, that makes them the more objectionable words by far. Paladino’s may have lacked nasty allusions to body parts, but he is in a position to influence millions of people through the sentiments he expresses. His words help to legitimate intolerance and to allow people to feel superior over those whose lifestyles they don’t endorse. I don’t think that good things ever come from inducing a majority group to believe that they are superior to a minority group.
If I were a member of a category or community of people that was so frequently and unjustly denigrated this way by public figures, I’d be very angry. I might even react by joining a pride parade that flaunts my differences from the mainstream. And I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t feel guilty about using rough language, or about demonstrating pride in a way that might create some instability in the community. (I hope you’re not suggesting that social stability should trump social justice.) These are pretty natural reactions to being told you are categorically a lesser person. As for those who are not even members of that “lesser” group but speak out on their behalf, I still admire them far more than Paladino even if their words may seem vitriolic.
Maybe the rude Facebook comments came from a gay person. Or maybe they came from someone whose sense of righteous indignation was purely empathetic. If Paladino were just a random person I met at a social gathering who said to me what he said in his speech, I’d like to think that I’d tell him to his face that those are foolish things to say. If he then told me that he was a candidate for major political office and that he planned to say those things in a speech covered by the national press, then I’d feel justified in not just calling the words foolish, but also the man a fool.
In any case, I’m with you in not condoning the language used by the Facebook commenter you quoted, but seriously, is the commenter really the bad guy in all this? I think that Paladino’s “language” was far more objectionable and vitriolic, given its context and likely consequences.
I had written and tried posting my comment while there were still no other comments, and I just left them as originally written.
ReplyDeleteYour clarification of your main point doesn't change mine. You wrote "What I _am_ defending is the concept of being able to have an opinion without becoming an object of hate and ugliness." Mine was that, whether it's Paladino or any other public figure, and whether it's the Facebook commenter or or any other private citizen, Paladino's words were the far more vitriolic and hateful given their context. I think you soft-pedal Paladino's role in it when you say that all he did in this case was to "have an opinion."
On the other hand, your point would carry a lot more weight with me if the vitriol you detest were coming from other politicians, the media, or some other public source. Andrew Cuomo, for instance.
Barry said:
ReplyDelete"If Paladino were just a random person I met at a social gathering who said to me what he said in his speech, I’d like to think that I’d tell him to his face that those are foolish things to say. If he then told me that he was a candidate for major political office and that he planned to say those things in a speech covered by the national press, then I’d feel justified in not just calling the words foolish, but also the man a fool."
While I understand the distinction that Barry is making here regarding the context of the words said (private gathering vs. public speech), honestly I'd rather not have someone be their "real" selves in private and portray a different persona in public for the sake of a vote or appeasing the masses.
One may not like what Paladino said, but at least you know where he really stands on the subject. I'll take that any day over the lies, half truths, and mischaracterizations that we endure from politicians and the media on a regular basis.
You don't like what he believes and says? Don't vote for him. Simple, really.
Also, I think characterizing his comments as vitriolic and hateful is a bit much. I happen to agree with his sentiments, and I am neither of those things. I don't support gay marriage. I don't hate gay people. In fact, I happen to have friends and family who are gay. I am not less compassionate toward them or love them any less because of their lifestyle choice.
Peggy's point is spot on. The treatment (vitriolic and hateful, right?) that people with my opinion get these days by those who are supposedly all about tolerance (and social justice, but that's another can of worms) can be quite hateful and is very hypocritical.
Thanks, Cory. You bring up a good point, something I too would have said in responding to Barry (and also to Scott, who commented that Paladino's position--that homosexuality is immoral--is clearly documented).
ReplyDeleteAnd that point is--okay, he has an opinion, he's running for office, and he's expressed it. Why is that a problem? That is how the system works, or is supposed to. (As you note, at least he's not trying to obfuscate, which can't be said of most politicians.) Voters have a clear choice between him and Cuomo, when it comes to their positions on gay marriage.
Barry, you say that I have soft-pedaled Paladino and been too harsh on your friend, but I disagree. I clearly said that I objected to him using terms like "pervert" and presuming to be a judge of the 'validity' of other people's lives. He certainly seems like a rude and insensitive person. But, unless I'm misunderstanding you, you are saying that it isn't just those remarks that are 'vitriolic and hateful', but also his merely having the opinion about gay marriage that he has and being able to disseminate it more widely because of his candidacy. But that's what electing people to positions in government is all about. They're supposed to tell us what they believe in, what they'll do if elected, and we say yea or nay.
Wikipedia’s definition for the colloquial use of the term “hate speech” calls it “communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race or sexual orientation.” Paladino clearly disparaged a group based on its members’ sexual orientation. If something is hate speech, I think it’s reasonable to call it hateful. hateful. “Vitriolic”? I concede that may be up a notch from “hateful,” but I think Paladino achieved that status by saying that homosexuals brainwash our children.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, Cory is certainly entitled to the opinion that "… characterizing [Paladino's] comments as vitriolic and hateful is a bit much. I happen to agree with his sentiments, and I am neither of those things." Cory, I did acknowledge up front that these are matters of opinion, but it also looks as though you missed my point: What would make *even your* sentiments hateful, in my opinion, would be (1) for you to be in a position to influence millions of people, and then (2) to use that position in an attempt to denigrate a group of people on the basis of their “lifestyle choice” (or anything else). Perhaps you’re not hateful, but I am saying you would be if either you ramped-up your rhetoric or else ran for office and expressed your personal prejudices against homosexuals in speeches and mass media.
Cory also wrote “One may not like what Paladino said, but at least you know where he really stands on the subject. I'll take that any day over the lies, half truths, and mischaracterizations that we endure from politicians and the media on a regular basis.” Really? Where *does* Paladino stand? He made hateful comments about gays in a speech, apologized for doing so, made some more hateful comments in his apology speech, and then apologized for *those* comments. So Cory, is he telling the truth when he repeatedly denigrates gays, or is he telling the truth when he repeatedly apologizes for denigrating gays?
But okay, let’s say he’s a totally honest stand-up politician, and the next thing you know he comes out against equal rights for dark-skinned people and people of your religion. Assuming that you don’t also agree with these sentiments, would you then feel the same respect for him given that he has expressed “where he really stands on the subject”? Would you at least understand why others (if not you) might be moved to respond very angrily to *those* positions?
Cory, I think it’s great that you feel love and compassion toward your gay friends. I also feel love and compassion toward my pets, whom I consider to be sub-human. So those kinds of feelings are not really the issue here. More to the point: Have you asked your gay friends how they feel about your stance against allowing them the same rights under the law that you and I enjoy?
Finally, I’m not sure why you both (Peggy and Cory) made a special point to remind me that Paladino is simply a political candidate who expressed an opinion with which anyone is free to agree or to disagree. Did I say anything to suggest that I am against free speech? Cory, you or I could just as well have reminded Peggy that bad language sometimes happens on Facebook, and if she doesn’t like it she can close her account and walk away. But that would be as much beside the points she was making as the above is beside the points I was making.
Barry,
ReplyDeleteA couple of comments, and a question. My very brief allusion to your friend's FB comments had nothing to do with 'bad language.' (I taught high school for many years, so it would take a lot more than that to shock me.) I brought them up only because they were a perfect example of what I was talking about--people accusing others of being 'hate-filled,' when they're being pretty hateful, themselves. Your view is that her hate was justified, and that's fine.
Your point about not knowing where Paladino really stands, based on the cycle of apologies, is valid, but my impression was that Cory simply meant that one knew where he stood on the issue of gay marriage. Apologies notwithstanding, I don't think he's waffled on that, has he?
I am not totally clear on something. Are you saying that Paladino coming out against gay marriage qualifies as hate speech, as well as the denigrating comments? Or just the latter?
As I've said at least twice, I wish I hadn't started out by focusing on him, because what he said or did is not what was uppermost in my mind. For just a moment, let's leave him out of it. I absolutely agree that it's wrong to insult or denigrate gays. I can understand the 'hater' accusation when someone does it.
But some proponents of gay marriage routinely accuse those who oppose it as being motivated by "hate," even though they've said absolutely nothing mean or disrespectful. It may be a label the accusers like or see as useful, but it is simply not true in many (and I believe, most) cases.
A Gallup poll last year showed 57% of Americans opposed to gay marriage, but approximately two-thirds of Americans favoring a host of protections and rights for gays--health insurance, inheritance rights, hate crimes legislation, etc. Clearly, there is something about the reluctance in regard to marriage which does not stem from hate.
I notice that while you ask Cory if she has asked her gay friends what they think of her opinion on gay marriage, you feel no similar need to ask her what her reasons are. It looks like a dismissal of the idea that there's anything worth hearing, or the conviction that yours is the only possible right conclusion, so why have any real dialogue?
Barry,
ReplyDeleteAs Peggy has tried to make clear, her point had nothing to do with Paladino himself, so I will attempt not to continue down that road. His recent remarks and the subsequent uproar over them were simply a good example of the point she was trying to make.
It is somewhat comical to watch the hypocrisy of those who are “outraged” over one person’s behavior, behave in the exact same manner. Funnier (and sadder) still, they don’t even realize it.
Differing views does not equal hate and tolerance should not be a one way street.
Also, you might want to expand your definitions from that of Wikipedia. (That was not me being hateful, just snarky. *wink*)