Search Box

Monday, April 7, 2014

Bigotry

I got the following comment yesterday on the Gay Men post:

Having looked at a number of your posts, John, it seems to me that you are very interested in men, their bodies, and their sexuality. Over and above your clear bigotry toward gay folk exhibited in this post, I seen a strong desire on your part to become more involved in the gay world. I encourage you to stop hiding your desires and just be the person you truly want to be. 

The comment is interesting on two levels. First, the commenter is almost undoubtedly a gay guy, yet the most scathing insult he could come up with was to accuse me of being gay.

And second was his use of the word "bigotry." If you take a look at the original post, what I did was describe the atmosphere at a Club Med as busloads of gay guys arrived and categorize the different types I observed. (They did come in several distinct flavors.)

Merriam-Webster.com gives the following definition of "bigot:"

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Does that make me a bigot? I certainly don't hate gays, or refuse to accept them as part of society; and I had gay friends long before the movement gained mainstream acceptance. I simply described a group of guys the way they were. I've always had an interest in how people differ

Why is a simple statement of facts called bigotry these days?

It seems to me that to show true bigotry, or prejudice, would be something more along the lines of me meeting a really tough guy who happens to be gay, and saying, oh no, he couldn't be tough, he's gay! That would be prejudice -- I would have pre-judged him, erroneously, based on his sexuality. But if I, say, pointed out that after climbing Mt. Everest without an oxygen tank he then spent a lot of time in gay bars, I would merely be pointing out a fact.

Are the facts themselves bigoted?

It's similar to today's conversation on race. It used to be that racism referred to judging a person based on his race. Todays definition has expanded to judging a race by its people, i.e., noticing differences. To do the former is unfair, but to not do the latter is simply ostrich-like. But today, if you merely cite a statistic on racial variations on IQ or crime, you are a racist.

It seems to me that most everybody observes human differences, but nobody feels free to comment on them, even when they impinge on public policy.

I seem to be one of the few people rude enough to admit to noticing such differences.

I will not admit, however, to what the commenter accused me of.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

"First, the commenter is almost undoubtedly a gay guy, yet the most scathing insult he could come up with to me was to accuse me of being gay."
It makes sense, that members of that group would best know whether it is good or bad to be one of them. Not being one, I can only guess; but my guess is all the "faaaaabulousness" is a front.

John Craig said...

Anon --
I"m not sure I'd interpret that as an admission about how horrible it is to be gay as just the knowledge that I would be insulted by it.

No one chooses to be gay, but those guys I saw in the lobby o that Club Med certainly seemed to be happy that morning. Of course, they were just getting off the bus for the start of their weeklong vacation, and anybody would be in a good mood under those circumstances.

Glen Filthie said...

Your accuser is not necessarily gay, John. I would say he is a cultural fascist. I have seen exactly this scenario before and my impression is that usually these people are so convinced they are morally superior that the requirements for common sense, honesty, and truthfulness don't apply to them. Disagreeing with them can get you fired from your job and ostracized by your community.

My daughter is gay. I don't think gays should be hurt or harassed. But I am seeing the same junk science and anti-science that fuels global warming being used to mainstream homosexuality.

I no longer engage with them. Once intellectual honesty goes out the window, morality can't be far behind. All you can talk about is the weather, or the game last night, or something 'safe'.

John Craig said...

Glen --
You're right, he's not necessarily gay (but I'd bet he is). And yes, he's unquestionably a cultural fascist who doesn't like differences between people being described accurately.

You're smart not to engage people on issues like this. I generally don't, either, except on this blog.

jova said...

excellent observations.

It always confused me when Gays react to any perceived slight by calling the person a repressed homosexual. It seems to be a very childish reaction, but all too common.

it is frustrated today with political correctness becoming extreme. I agree , none of your statements indicate any animosity towards gays. But any noted observation today can potentially result in one noticing the differences between people, while it is seen as politically incorrect to notice differences (unless you make observations of a non-protected group). This is strange, since the same leftists are always promoting diversity. How is diversity meaningful if we are not allowed to notice differences among people ?

it is unfortunate that the definition of racism has changed. I suppose part of the reason is that so few people are actual racists today, but so many organizations and careers are built on finding and attacking racism they need to find evidence of it to stay in business. Many of these organizations focused on racism have become desperate to find evidence of racism, so "evidence" of racism now includes discussion of basic observations or disparate impact results.

the lack of actual racists in America has also lead to multiple instances of fake hate crimes. a hate crime hoax will get plenty of media attention. But when the obvious hoax is discovered the media coverage vanishes.

The Mathew Shepard case was not really a hoax, but the killers were not motivated to kill because of is homosexuality. But the story gets more views if it is described as a hate crime instead of a drug dealer being killed by a strung out hustler.

It seems today many people want to believe there are many bigots, maybe it makes them feel better about themselves. If there were still a lot of racists amongst us, the media would not jump on every hoax as if they were true hate crimes. There would be no need to cover the hoaxes. The multiple phony hate crimes reported by the media today indicates they are having trouble finding actual hate crimes.

John Craig said...

Jova --
Thank you.

You hit the nail on the head: the hypocrisy of the leftists in constantly promoting "diversity" combined with their hated of anyone who points out exactly how we diverge is mind-boggling.

The thing is, there actually are plenty of hate crimes in this country, but almost all of them go the other way; black on white. Yet the media not only goes out of its way to ignore those, it actually invents and makes a huge fuss about any perceived crimes or even slights going the other way, as you point out.

Glen Filthie said...

You seem to be put off by this John and I suppose you would be - if you went on the mistaken assumption that gays are rational people. You have only skimmed the surface of the gay community. Trust me, it gets worse. Much worse.

My daughter forced me to confront the gay community and look very, very closely at it. I used to think like you. Leaving their sexuality out of it - the vast majority of gays are irrational. A significant percentage are disturbed and unhappy. Our ancestors put these people in closets and therapy for a reason. Scientifically valid reasons.

I no longer support gay marriage or gay adoption and reject the gay agenda completely. I also reject the victim politics their enablers indulge in. It is riddled with contradictions, double standards, and fallacies just like the ones you just encountered here.

When you let these people out of the closet they are going to go after the Christians and churches like wild dogs. Then they are going to demand to censor your mainstream media. They are going to want to teach gay sex ed to elementary students. (Don't laugh, the Toronto School District Board in Canada is doing that right now). They are going to want to adopt.

Up here in Canada we are a little further down that road of good intentions. It is not a road you want to be on.

John Craig said...

Glen --
I completely agree with you about the victimization agenda and political correctness. I hate the fact that Canada (and Europe) have "hate speech" laws. I'm certainly against advocating violence against anyone, but much of what gets called hate speech is simply truth speech. As the commenter before you pointed out, Stephen Jiminez's book revealing the truth about Matthew Shepard's murder was completely ignored by the media because it would have robbed them of one of their sacred icons of victimization. So, as far as any sort of censorship, I'm with you.

BUT we're going to have to agree to disagree on the other stuff. I've met plenty of rational gays, both men and women. Yes, there's a definite subset of gay men who seem to be semi-hysterical, in a sort of feminine way. But I've actually met several lesbians who are more rational than the average woman, in a sort of matter of fact, masculine way.

The conversation on sexuality really ought to be handled the way race should be handled: people should be judged as individuals, not members of their group (although I see noting wrong with drawing generalizations about groups).

Spychiatrist said...

Homosexuals creep me out.

I know that's not PC, but it's the truth. My wife an I once stayed at an all-inclusive resort in Costa Rica. Pretty nice place but it was overrun by European Homo's (I'm being nice). The place was inundated with all these grotesque men pawing each other. Thank God, I didn't have my children with me John. How does one explain that to young children?

We were better off when this was in the closet...let the flaming begin<<<Pun intended.

Not not only am I a racist, I'm also Homophobic. Hey....I have the balls to admit it, at least under cover of my nom de plume.

John Craig said...

Spike --
Being creeped out is actually a natural instinctive reaction, at least for men, and it makes perfect evolutionary sense. (The question evolutionary biologists have never been able to answer to anyone's satisfaction is, how did homosexuality evolve, given the tit is such an evolutionary dead end?)

Anonymous said...

"given the tit is such an evolutionary dead end"
Scientists have concluded that tits have actually kept the evolutionary process going, in mammals anyway. (I know, it was a typo)

John Craig said...

Anon --
Maybe my information is out of date, but I hadn't heard that (it wasn't a typo). How does that work, exactly?

My understanding is that no one has come up with a logical explanation for why homosexuality is so common.

Glen Filthie said...

It's SUPPOSED to creep you out, fellas.

Contrary to John, this isn't an 'evolutionary development' - it is the result of a genetic derailment - the same kind of genetic damage that produces mental illness and other antisocial behaviours. Recently a scientist thought he had isolated the 'gay gene' and the queers flipped out, saying that people would start aborting gay fetuses. I think the research dead ended there but who knows - in today's political climate even intelligent men are indulging in junk science.

And yes, I know you won't agree with me John, but you have the right to be wrong. As time goes by I am confident that you will eventually see the error of your position.

John Craig said...

Glen --
Actually, what I was saying is that being creeped out IS a natural reaction, especially given the evolutionary consequences of going the other way.

My understanding is, they haven't been able to isolate a "gay gene" yet. The gay position on this seems to be a little bit hypocritical, given that they are saying that being gay isn't a matter of choice (which I agree with); isolating a gay gene would prove them right. (Although I suspect that they're right that few parents would opt to have a gay child.)

jova said...

I suspect they will not find a gene which causes homosexuality, since having a gay twin only slightly increases your risk of being gay.

Jason Collins, the NBA player who announced he was gay last year, is a typical example. His twin brother is not gay, and is married with kids.

About 2% of men are gay. If you have a twin brother who is gay the odds are double, but still less than 5% of identical twins will both be Gay.


Anonymous said...

I thought you meant "given that it [homosexuality] is a dead end". I was making up the science stuff, but tits are key to raising new mammals.
Someone would have to interview thousand upon thousands of homos, to find out how they adopted that lifestyle. For certain, a lot of them are recruited and molded (molested) when they are young. The only question is, what percentage. The sodomy has to be learned behavior, not a biological instinct to "put this into that thing where poo comes from".

John Craig said...

Jova --
Yes, thank you, the monozygotic twin studies are useful on all sorts of levels. They've also been used to prove that intelligence IS in fact mostly genetic. And twins who've been separated at birth and then reunited have consistently found that they have strikingly similar tastes and attitudes. And also, as you point out, that their sexuality may differ.

Anon --
Sorry, that is what I meant. I don't always proofread my comments, and autofill has a way of turning obvious typos into new words which don't make sense. I did mean to say "that it," not "the tit." I agree, mammary glands are necessary to nurse young mammals, but that has nothing to do with what I meant to say.

europeasant said...

there are some things that must not be noticed.But if someone does notice than all kinds of mind revolting images can come up.
Not noticing lead to a more pleasant and innocent life but sometimes dangerous.

John Craig said...

Europeasant --
Amen. To be politically correct these days one must wear blinders all the time. and anybody who takes his blinders off is considered evil.