I love this comic by August Pollak; all I could think when he put it up was that he’s reading my mind. I was accused last week of being afraid of a blogger,* and I’ve heard this flailing retort a bunch from conservatives and I don’t get it.
I mean, I get that it’s standard-issue shit talking, which is appropriate in an actual game or sporting event where the winner should be determined by who has the most skill and nerve. From football to Trivial Pursuit, trying to unnerve your opponent with “you afraid of me” bluster is, while kind of weak and overplayed, a totally acceptable attempt to get an edge. But this is politics, not a game. This is real life, and the “you’re afraid of me” gambit is sort of like saying, “The sky is blue.” Of course we’re afraid of conservatives and their politics. You are trying to ruin our lives or the lives of others out of greed or just plain nastiness. Like this latest blogger who accused me—well, no shit, Sherlock. If someone arbitrarily decided to take away a right (in this case, the right of women to control their fertility) from you, and managed to amass enough government power to do it, you’d be fucking afraid, too, and you’d resist them. See, real life fear isn’t quite the same as game-playing fear. When the stakes are high, people aren’t going to just roll over and say, “You’re right, I’m afraid! You win!” They’re going to fiercely defend themselves and their way of life.
A lot of politics is fear-driven, and denying that fact is beside the point. I’m a feminist and reproductive justice advocate because I’m afraid of living under patriarchal control and being forced into giving up my life that I’m perfectly happy with, thank you very much. I’m afraid for other women who need abortions desperately and can’t have them or need jobs or need a fair shake in life and can’t have that. War opponents are afraid for all the people whose lives are in danger from this unjust war and civil liberties defenders are afraid for the future of our nation as the land of the free. Racists are afraid of losing their privileges and paying the social debts they inherited from their ancestors. Conservative men increasingly seem to be afraid of emasculation. Pro-sexist women are afraid of what they’d do without male approval and male support and fear that they’d lose it without debasing themselves. Anti-choicers fear women and sex and feel both need to be contained through the use of, you guessed it, fear.
Fear and its counterpart anger are misunderstood things. They can cripple you or they can empower you. The best way to interpret the famous FDR quote “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”, in my opinion at least, is that we should fear the potential of fear to cripple our will and make us hide in our homes, unable to stand up to the things that we should fear enough to fight. When the fascists march down your street, does your fear make you submit in the weak hopes it won’t be so bad or do you fear for your way of life and hit the streets to fight back?**
Now, obviously not all fears are cut out of the same cloth. Perhaps the reason so many conservatives are drawn to accusing their opponents of fear, as if that’s inherently weak and irrational, is sheer projection, since the right is cobbled by irrational fears. My fears of losing my quality of life if my basic rights are taken away is completely rational—their fears of the terrible things that would happen if gay strangers were free to marry and bother no one are pretty damn irrational. The War on Terra has had this fear-driven irrationality to it from the beginning—the statistically small but real fear of terrorism has been blown way out of all rational proportion to drive actions that create more realistic problems to fear, such as war, loss of civil liberties, the derailing of our nation’s progress, threats to democracy, and, ironically, a greater risk of terrorism as we piss off more and more people around the world. In this, the thing to fear is fear itself—we should rationally fear the bad behaviors of those caught in the grips of irrational fears.
*I’m not linking her anymore, though you can guess who I’m talking about. Her freaked out reaction to my criticisms really reminded me that picking on her politics is perilously close to mocking someone for exhibiting symptoms of a mental disorder. However, her fans really should be ashamed of themselves for enabling her problems like this.
**Yes, my pedantic friends, I know the quote isn’t a wartime quote, but the image I chose was picked because it’s more visual.
95 Responses to “Fear itself”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Argh. The right side of the cartoon is cut off by the side banners. Is it my browser problem?
But this is politics, not a game.
But to the “gummint can’t do constructive things” political right, politics is a game — a game in which victory means power, lucrative connections, etc. — but a game nonetheless.
This is a key problem we progressives have. We’re involved (to the extent we are) in politics in order to effect (I always love the opportunity to use effect as a verb
) constructive change … we are not “in it to win a game”. OTOH, those who believe reforms are futile, perverse or such are only in politics to win. So who’s gonna win? The person who’s goal is something constructive or the person who’s in it to win the game?
This is also why the whole “Gore/Kerry should be a good sport and concede the election” talking point was so pernicious: not only did it make Dems. seem like “sore loosers” for wanting to get at honest election results, but it also re-enforced the meme that politics is a game, which is a reactionary meme.
The accusation of fear works exeactly the same way from the left. For instance, if you find homosexuality to be an unacceptable lifestyle because of religious or any other reason, you are “homophobic” or afraid of homosexuality. The argument from both camps is done to avoid a discussion of the merits of the ideas or choices. Both camps assume they have the high ground, both assume they are right, and both use the identical tactic to quiet or marginalize disagreement without actually having to discuss the logic behind their position.
There’s nothing new under the sun.
Dr T:There’s never been any sort of coherent argument against homosexuality. None. That’s a HUGE difference. Not all opinions are created equal. Really.
But to disagree with something is not to fear it - that is my point. Strength of argument lies in the eye of the beholder. Accusation of fear also lies in the eye of the beholder. The beholder certainly has the right to decide A for themselves but not B for someone else.
Amanda wrote:
Dang! Hit the button before I asked the question: since I don’t get to all of the articles on thius fine site, I realy can’t guess who the blogger in question is. You can give a name without giving a link.
What I like is that the example used in the comic is a complete strawman. Nobody supports a ‘global’ sales tax, or suggests that the U.S. has taxing authority in, say, Uzbekistan.
However, the Income Tax is wildly inefficient. The total amount of income tax collected is about two trillion a year. US Citizens spend at least 100 billion a year preparing their taxes, and figuring out how much they owe. If we could get the same amount of revenue and reduce the compliance costs by 50%, we’d have 50 billion to put towards universal healthcare, homeland security, or plain ol’ debt reduction. Abolishing the IRS and finding a better way to get the same revenue is something that should be non-controversial. A federal (not global) sales tax might be one way to accomplish that. A flat tax would also simplify things.
Source for my numbers: http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?rptno=GAO-05-878&accno=A34598
Hit “BLASPHEME!” before I was ready: If you’re aware of the astronomical compliance costs the IRS brings to the economy– which, come to think of it, waste more money every year than the war in Iraq– and aren’t even willing to discuss reform, then you *are* irrationally afraid of something. For most of the history of the republic, there was no such institution. There’s nothing sacred about it, and we shouldn’t be afraid to be critical of it.
Observer:This has been gone over about a zillion times. The difficulty with the income tax system is NOT determining how much you pay, the difficulty is determining taxable income. A “flat tax” with the multitudes of deductions would be equally as difficult as the status quo. It’s the deductions that are the problem.
A self-sufficient sales tax would be a death-knoll for a service based economy as well. Don’t even consider it.
I would have guessed either Michelle Malkin or Dawn Eden, but I’m not seeing it at either site. I’m going to need a hint too.
But to disagree with something is not to fear it - that is my point.
This is true, but Dr T, while I will concede that people are often anti-gay for religious or “moral” reasons, you have to admit there is a large class of comment about homosexuality which is indeed based on homophobia, an actual fear of the subject.
Indeed, a subclass of this is obviously based on suppressed desire itself. It is blindingly obvious that the people with an obsessive, lingering, dwelling interest in the mechanics of gay sex - always male, mind you - have serious problems.
Dana - rearrange the following letters Nawd Nede.
“If you’re aware of the astronomical compliance costs the IRS brings to the economy– which, come to think of it, waste more money every year than the war in Iraq– and aren’t even willing to discuss reform, then you *are* irrationally afraid of something.”
Observer, if you think there are no “compliance costs” with alternative tax schemes like the “flat tax”, you are indeed smoking “Indian Crack”. Determining what is taxable and verifying the proper tax has been collected are inherent in every system of taxation…
Nobody is claiming there’s such a thing as a compliance-cost free system. Surely, though, we can do better than throwing over $100 billion a year down a rat hole just to figure out how much we owe the government. A sales tax s an attractive option for that reason: Virtually all states have a sales tax, so it’s relatively straightforward for businesses to collect a federal sales tax at the same time. While the costs of compliance will still be there, there’s no reason to think they’ll cost $100 billion a year.
Nobody supports a ‘global’ sales tax,
Might be a reference to the Tobin Tax as filtered through the incoherent Right-Wing Scream Machine.
This is why my mother supports Bush. For her that fear is real, and she truly believes that history will vindicate Bush for his use of torture, spying, etc.
If only I had any way of convincing her that this fear is NOT rational.
Do we really have to re-hash why it’s not?
/trollfeeding
Karmakin wrote:
While I’m not a supporter of a “self-sufficient sales tax,” to claim that it would be the death-knell for a service-based economy ignores the fact that the western European nations use the value-added tax (which operates similarly, but is more hidden from the view of the consumer) and Europe hasn’t crashed yet.
The Maori in a Time of Kiwis wrote:
Thanks to the evil fizz, I can unscramble them, but I really couldn’t have absent his post; I had never heard of her before.
Perhaps not, but Europe also has a bigger, better safety net than ours (probably because they’re not supporting a vast military machine) and so the regressive aspects of a national sales tax aren’t felt as keenly by their poor and middle class as it would be by ours.
The fear accusation from the right is so grade school. Semi-recent example: “Democrats are AFRAID to participate in a Fox News debate because they can’t handle tough questions!” No, they aren’t afraid of tough questions. They just aren’t suckers. Using Amanda’s formulation, yes, they are afraid. They’re afraid of what tricks are up Fox’s sleeves to make the Democrats look as bad as possible. They’re choosing to let that fear empower them by refusing to play Fox’s game.
Meanwhile, we have a Vice President who will only do interviews with “friendly” media outlets, i.e. right-wing propagandists like Fox News & Rush Limbaugh.
Dana:By “self-sufficient”, I mean entirely relying on a sales tax to fund the government, which would probably require a sales tax of between 30-40% in real rate terms. There’s a lot of deception about how sales taxes are measured (surprise, surprise)
European VAT taxes are about 20% on average.
It strikes me as being projection. Right-wing ultra-authoritarian idiots of every stripe constantly accuse others of being afraid because (a) they are bullies; but also (b) they are afraid. Of everything that isn’t exactly like them. All the time.
The only way to justify trying to force your worldview on the rest of the universe — the only real reason for it — is pure, rank cowardice.
The accusation of fear works exeactly the same way from the left. For instance, if you find homosexuality to be an unacceptable lifestyle because of religious or any other reason, you are “homophobic” or afraid of homosexuality.
But they are afraid of it. That’s the point. So what? That in no, way, shape or form blocks the discussion of the idea. The question is, “What do you fear from this?” We proceed from there—who has more legit fears? I’d say gay people have more to fear than straights for sure.
The accusation of fear works exeactly the same way from the left. For instance, if you find homosexuality to be an unacceptable lifestyle because of religious or any other reason, you are “homophobic” or afraid of homosexuality.
But they are afraid of it. That’s the point. So what? That in no, way, shape or form blocks the discussion of the idea. The question is, “What do you fear from this?” We proceed from there—who has more legit fears? I’d say gay people have more to fear than straights for sure.
Wow, see how fast the trolls have gathered with the usual stupid sophistry. Think they’re afraid of a good discussion about projection and false equivalences?
On the fear topic, much of the rightwing screaming on the topic can be boiled down to one simple statement: they scream “chicken!” at anybody who won’t engage in a fixed fight, or participate in a debate where all of the lefts’ views and policies are deemed to be negotiable whilst all of the right’s views and policies are deemed to be infallible, dogma and not even permitted to be discussed. Fox’s terror and manipulation of opposing viewpoints is an excellent example.
On the tax topic, Canada has a VAT too, called the GST [Goods and Services Tax]. It was supposed to create all sorts of economic benefits because it replaced the allegedly complex and expensive MST [Manufacturers Sales Tax] systems. It in essence moved the VAT concept from a hidden one payed by manufacturers, distributors, etc, (and incorporated into the produce/service price) into an open one collected from consumers. When the GST of 7% was added to purchases there was no corresponding drop in the product/service prices.
As for taxes themselves, the old Roman maxim of “who benefits?” should be asked of any tax proposal. One of the consistent, unavoidable truths of flat tax proposals in the USA is that they are advanced by the very wealthy or ultra-anti-government right. Why? Because they stand to gain the most from the inevitable transfer of taxes onto the poor and middle class.
It is illustrative that corporate baron and convicted criminal (but interesting writer) Conrad Black candidly admits in his recent biography of Nixon that American government is funded almost entirely on the 60% of the USA that can be considered the middle class. Even a corporate thief and apologist admits in what is often a very honest book that the rich do not bear their share of the burden.
Indeed. I don’t believe anything close to your $100 billion claims that you made up on the spot. But there is some significant amount of time and money wasted there, no dbout. Here’s the solution, courtesy of Austan Goolsbee, professor of economics at the University of Chicago:
“But they are afraid of it.”
No, they aren’t. Crazy super right wing freaks that have documetaries made about their anti-gay stances and Fred Phelps fear it. Others believe it is a destructive decision (again - even it being a decision is open to discussion, I’m not taking the position it is or isn’t) for both the individual and society, but they are not afraid of it. Allowing people to drive drunk is a destructive practice for individuals and society but no-one is drunk-drivingphobic. Abortion (in conservatives minds) is a destructive practice both for individuals and society but no-one uses the language abortionphobic. Applying the label of “fear” to someone else’s actions assigns them a childlike quality. It assigns them irrationality. Both make you not have to take them or their ideas seriously because you are a rational, non-fearing adult. Both sides do it.
grammar nazi, weren’t you paying attention to the libertarians. Government can never do anything good! never! never!!!
Don’t bother to reply. I’ll be sitting over here with the libertarians with their fingers in my ears.
Grammar Nationalsozialistische:
The “simple return” would be a problem, because a lot of people would assume that if they disagreed with it, it would automatically draw an audit, and they’d sign meekly.
And in two of the states in which I’ve lived, state income taxes are calculated off of your federal return; what happens if you disagree with your federal “simple return?”
I know two people who are 1040-EZ filers — and they still have to have me do their taxes for them, because they are just afraid of the forms.
All taxes should be abolished because they cut into my allowance, and that sucks for me.
Two things, one in favour of what Dana has to say, one against.
First, in favour. He has a point about people fearing crossing the taxman. Tax authorities most countries are notorious for arbitrary and retributive behaviour. One tax Toronto-area office, for example, which was notorious for making anti-taxpayer decisions even against policy, procedures and court holdings, and forcing taxpayers to appeal them, tying up their funds for years. Any tax collection agency should be under strict professional control with a rigid and independent IG. And, yes, having two different levels of government argue contrary points can be maddening and is morally, politically and fiscally problematic.
Second, against. Having made point one I note that it is a pretty typical example of libertarian/rightwing thinking, one which demonstrates its quasi-religious nature. Government is held to a standard of perfection, the market’s many failures are blamed on other factors and only prove the necessity for even more pure application of doctrine.
seeker6079, I know. I write to the audience. In case there are any reasonable people reading the thread, thinking “hmm I do waste time and money in preparing my tax return,” now they know of a solution. There’s at least one answer that isn’t designed to rob from the poor and give to the rich.
DT, I think you’re missing the point here. Amanda is not saying fear is bad, she’s saying that usually anything that one opposes is because one fears some outcome of it, and that can be legitimate and let’s discuss our fears. Let’s look at your drunk-driving example — hell, yes, I’m afraid of drunk drivers! I’m afraid of being in a car accident, of dying, of having other people needlessly die! The point of this post is that being afraid of something doesn’t mean my reasons for opposing it and all discussion should be dismissed — the fear is based on my real belief about the consequences of the policy in question (here, I guess the hypothetical policy I’d fear would be no prohibition against drunk driving), and now can we talk about the policy and its consequences please?
Saying right wingers “fear” homosexuality doesn’t necessarily mean you fear the people themselves and run screaming to cower behind a tree whenever you see them. But it does mean you fear something (what?) that you think will happen if gay people are accepted, if gay people are allowed to marry, if gay people…whatever. So let’s talk about that outcome you fear, and whether there’s a basis in reality for expecting it will come to pass. If you’re not afraid of a policy resulting in some consequence you perceive as negative, why on earth would you oppose it?
So, the point: of course we fear outcomes that we think are bad for us and others. DUH. Why would anyone think that ends the discussion? Let’s move the discussion PAST that.
Dana,
Much of that fear is already expressed, by people being so afraid of getting things wrong that they pay H&R Block to prepare their 1040EZ.
A simple solution: at the top and bottom of the page, in bold, red letters, the Simple Return can say “you are under no penalty if you disagree with this return and wish to file a normal 1040 form.”
It can be called an “Optional Prepared Return” or whatever feels fluffy and safe enough to discourage a fear response. What you’re asking is a question to be addressed by psychology, and not a reason to throw up our hands in defeat.
If 95% of the respondents preferred it, I’ll hazard a guess that it’s less scary than the current system.
I forgot to address this part of Dana’s question:
Nothing special happens. In states like that, you calculate your federal tax and then plug it into the state calculation, right? The Simple Return is completely optional; you throw it away and do your own math if you don’t like it. So, if agree with the Simple Return, you use that number. If you disagree, then you calculate your federal tax and then plug it into the state calculation.Another good thing about a proposal like this is that it makes those tax preparation places a lot more accountable, because you’ve got a real baseline figure to compare the service to.
Actually, they are. Anti-gay rhetoric is made of virtually nothing but fear:
Tom Tancredo:
Hear that? If gay marriage becomes legal, you will have it forced upon you!
A week or two ago, Dana himself insisted that he would be more willing to accept gay marriage if we would support a redundant-to-the-First-Amendment law that protected clergy from criminal and civil liability if they refused to perform gay marriages.
That’s fear.
Ray Naugle is determined to buy $250,000 robo-toilets for the Ft. Lauderdale beaches because otherwise, your children, yes, your CHILDREN could walk in on two gay men having sex!
Whether Naugle himself buys it (and he may, he seems crazy enough to ignore the police who keep saying “Uh, that’s not really a common problem…”), there are people who do, and they’re afraid.
Generally, when you try to make laws criminalizing a group of people and making them second-class citizens, you’re afraid of them.
Nobody uses such silly-sounding, clumsy language, no. But people are, in fact, afraid of drunk driving and drunk drivers because they are afraid that they, or someone close to them, will be hurt, or that their property will be damaged.
Seeker and Nationalsozialistische: You already have the option of having the IRS figure out your taxes, after you fill in your income; for a 1040-A and 1040-EZ filer, that should be simplicity itself, yet those people still go to H&R Block, to pay good money for a service the IRS will provide for free, either by walking into a local IRS office or by mailing it in.
I think the Nationalsozialistische’s statement,
is instructive, because his statement assumes that people will believe that the IRS isn’t there to rob them. How widespread do you think that such an attitude is?
For instance, if you find homosexuality to be an unacceptable lifestyle because of religious or any other reason, you are “homophobic” or afraid of homosexuality. The argument from both camps is done to avoid a discussion of the merits of the ideas or choices. - Dr. T.
But how much is there to discuss? How does someone being homosexual impact society in such a way that, given our society’s overall libertarian and secular framework, it should matter if someone finds homosexuality “unacceptable”? I know people who find homosexuality to be an unacceptable lifestyle because of religious reasons — and this liberal would not call them homophobic — but they don’t spend their time trying to place legal impediments in front of homosexuals.
OTOH, someone trying to place impediments to homosexuality must fear it in some way shape or form. Now not all fears are unjustified. I am a homocidophobe, and want to keep homocide illegal. I would think my fear is justified. The question is, however, what do people fear about homosexuality that makes it justifiable that they want to place or maintain legal impediments and double standards regarding it?
To look at it another way, as a Jew, I deem eating blood un-acceptable. And this isn’t like eating pork or shrimp which prohibition applies, according to Judaism, only to us Jews. The prohibition against eating blood is part of the Covanent of Noach and thus applicable to all. But would it be justifiable for me to say “I find the blood-eating lifestyle unacceptable, therefore I urge the federal government to not recognize corporations that produce blood sausage”? Nu? if I did that, it would be quite fair for my oponents to disparage me as a “haemosausageophobe” just as we refer to those who obviously fear something about (the social effects of) homosexuality as homophobes.
Encapsulated in the use of the term homophobe is actually a rather trivial argument (which needn’t be, although in practice it certainly is, a judgment that the fears of the homophobes are rather daft and bigoted) that those who want to place or maintain legal impediments and/or double standards regarding homosexuality are afraid of the social effects of homosexuality. Encapsulated in slurs of lefties as being fearful weanies is not such bona fide argument, merely a slur.
Do you see the difference now?
While the post isn’t confusing, the thread sure is.
Responding to the post, I concur that there are things to be afraid of, and things not be afraid of in a discussion. The issues with conservatives and the shouting of “chicken” and “ideologically blind” has to do with the aphorical drawing of dogs and demons. This is compounded by the fact that many conservatives aren’t particularly literate in various ways.
A conservative trying to defend his privilege often has no real words to describe fears, so he/she are reliant on very high contrast cartoony images. A demon. It’s not real, and it has no obligation to be internally consistent in any real way. So it’s really easy to draw a Welfare Queen in her Cadilac enjoying the good life on the freeway and listening to Li’l Kim. It’s also very easy to transmit to others of a similar mental bent. Dogs aren’t wanted in their minds or in their discourse. It takes time and effort to draw a dog well, because it does have internal consistencies that you must pay attention to, and it has absolute references that the image must be comparable to. And after all that effort, a well drawn dog looks *very* contrasty with a cartoon demon, which points out the flimsiness of the demon.
The Simple Return idea will probably never fly, because conservatives use people’s fearful, paranoid dislike of the process to fuel their regressive tax agenda.
but it would be a blessing to most people — I remember overhearing a checker at Wal-Mart say she had spent $200 dollars at H & R block to get her taxes done, and I wanted to cry. People are afraid of the math, the instructions, and that they might get audited — even though the government knows how much they make, there is hardly a way for them to screw up, it is a baseless anxiety. Those tax prep places are criminal enterprises, they just feed on lower middle class and “upper lower” class vulnerabilities.
And btw, if some people were truly afraid of homosexuals, they wouldn’t hurt and kill them as much as occurs in reality.
People are afraid of lost privilege. They concoct lots of illusions to place that fear in some kind of reality. Other people take advantage. Other people die as well…
Seraph and DAS -
You and I agree on the nut jobs you listed. As I said earlier, crazy right wingers fear homoesexuality. But state voters continue to pass defense of marriage bills, or reject additions of gay marriage as a legal equivalent to straight marriage additions to their state constitutions. Are they homophobic? For whatever their reasons, and I don’t know them because I think marriage is a contract and all should be able to enter into it, they prefer the status quo. Perhaps your belief is every one of them is afraid. I believe one can be against something without fearing it. Homophobia is thrown as a label at anyone who isn’t pro-gay agenda, not simply reserved for the Tom Tancredos of this world.
Once the right wing blogger labels Amanda as fearful, she has lost the equality of voice in their exchange of ideas. Both sides of the aisle use this tactic. Of course people fear the outcome of certain policies, but that’s not what he was saying to her. He was saying that she doesn’t have the balls to deal with a real man’s policy. She doesn’t have the stomache to do what is right. THAT is some bullshit. That is turning away from dialogue and moving to name calling. Both sides do it.
You mean your wages, salaries, and tips (attach your W-2 forms which you had better have received, saved, and found) [line 1], taxable interest [line 2], unemployment compensation and Alaska Permanent Fund dividends (see page 13) [line 3], dependent claims [line 5 and worksheet on back]? That’s a bit more complicated than you’re making it out to be. It’s not “simplicity itself,” which would be a notice in the mail saying “please return a check for $XYZ.”To argue that the Simple Return is completely redundant to the 1040EZ is to argue that not one single person who’s now wasting money on H&R Block will take advantage of the convenience of having a prepared return sent to them. That’s quite a stretch of the imagination.
Not at all widespread if right-libertarians have anything to say about it, eh? But it’s a moot point. Anyone who doesn’t trust the IRS to get the numbers right can toss the prepared return and do it themselves. And we actually have data on how many that is: “around 95 percent of the people who participated in the pilot project said they would use it again.” About 5% didn’t like it. There’s your answer.
Dr T,
I believe that’s why the term homobigot was coined. It’s much more, ah, universal.
You’re kidding, right? That’s what humans do to things that frighten them, if they can. There’s a reason that lions, tigers, alligators, and wolves are all endangered, or were at one time.
I’m not convinced that anti-gay sentiment usually carries even this pretense of sobriety. Much hand-wringing and outspoken bigotry appears to be simplistic, childish fear, of exactly the sort Dr T says it’s not.
There is the middle school fear that if I do not appear to be sufficiently anti-gay, people will think it’s because I am gay or one or more of my family members are gay, and that would be gross, and I would be shunned. This is scary, so it’s safer to be anti-gay.
There is the elementary school fear that if am at all supportive of gay people, the Sky Daddy will punish me. The Sky Daddy is known for leveling entire city-states with meteor showers, so it’s safest to extend this fear to the whole country: I need to be actively opposed to others’ attempts to support gay people, or the Sky Daddy will hold me as complicit and guilty by negligence.
There is the preschool fear that strangers will touch me. Gay people are very strange, queer even, and icky too. I head you can get HIV-cooties just by shaking their hands. I know the liberal media says that’s not true, but hey, better safe than sorry.
Hey, Dana, hear what Dr T called you?
Actually, yes, that is my belief. In addition to the grammar nazi’s beautiful summation of their baser fears, they have the more adult fear of the erosion of their religion’s dominant place within American culture. If they lose, they fear that they will have gay marriage “forced upon” them, as they have forced their beliefs upon others.
Of course it is. But that’s not what’s happening in this case.
Which agenda is that, Dr T? My friend Kim’s “agenda” to make medical decisions in the case his partner Scott (late middle-aged and very overweight) suffers a heart attack, rather than wasting time as the doctor calls Scott’s legal next-of-kin in Indiana? My friend Karen’s “agenda” to inherit from her partner Lauren if, all benevolent gods forbid, something should happen to her? The “agenda” of my friends Steve and Randy to adopt kids together? Choose your answer carefully.
Only if she shuts up and lets the statement stand. Which she does not.
Okay. Right. Your dispute with the post, then?
Sometimes, there’s no dialogue to be had. There is no “middle ground” between bigotry and reason. The best you can do is try to render the bigots politically irrelevant, and unable to make their bigotry into policy.
Also, what Numad said.
Dr Tm when you talk about “anti-pro-gay agenda” it’s really anti-gay people. Let’s be honest about that.
“Sometimes, there’s no dialogue to be had. There is no “middle ground” between bigotry and reason. The best you can do is try to render the bigots politically irrelevant, and unable to make their bigotry into policy.”
now let’s rephrase it the way a Conservative extremeist would say it about homosexuals:
“Sometimes, there’s no dialogue to be had. There is no “middle ground” between deviant behavior and the norm. The best you can do is try to render the deviants politically irrelevant, and unable to make their deviancy into policy.”
To label 50% of this country as not worthy of a dialogue with you speaks volumes about you, not them.
The point is not homosexuality here. The point is an end to political discourse because it is decided that the other side is unworthy. It started with the right calling Amanda afraid to dismiss her and moved within 50 posts or so here to dismissing people because they are bigots. It’s the same thing, friends. To avoid dialogue both sides label one another to remove equality of position in a back and forth and render the other not worthy of consideration. Couldn’t have illustrated it better than by many of the posts here. It’s ridiculous.
The problem, Dr T, is that that is what they do say. That is what they have always said, and nothing I say will ever change their minds. They’re far to invested in systems of belief and power that won’t accept those “deviants” that I love so dearly as full citizens with equal rights. That is why they must be removed from power.
50%? I’d ask you where you got that figure, but it’s really not important. The number keeps changing as more and more people realize that their friends, family, and neighbors aren’t to be feared just because they’re gay. The fear-mongers lose their power, and anti-gay-marriage activists become as politically influential as pro-apartheid activists.
By the way, you never answered my question: What. Gay. Agenda. Were. You. Talking. About.
Having calmed down a bit…
Dr. T’s point, that both sides are equally “bad” because both shout “You’re just scared!” at their opponents is, simply, wrong.
Irrational fears can be met and countered with facts: gays are not after your children, they’re not going to jail priests for not performing wedding ceremonies, etc.
However, the people at this forum aren’t liable to feel much better if we got the straight facts from the people we fear: “Constitutional protections are hindrances to pursuing this war…and who knows how long this war is going to last.”
Seraph?
Lions and tigers and alligators all give basis for people to be afraid of. Lots of big teeth, plenty of aggression. If a human was by him or herself up against a lion, sure as shit they run.
If a human was by him or herself, and up against a weaker human, they don’t run, and they might hurt the weaker person. People who hurt gays out of fear, really aren’t afraid of a gay person’s ability to defend themselves.
shah8,
The examples given, and the point itself, isn’t about fear in the face of immediate violent confrontation.
Wolves were exterminated in Europe, not because humans kept encountering with deadly results for the wolf, but because humans sought out wolves to exterminate them, driven by the wolf’s fearful (yet mostly undeserved, it seems) reputation.
There should be an extra “them” between “encountering” and “with” in my previous comment, but the sentence seems to be broken beyond repair in other ways.
I’ll pick up Dr T’s load and drag it as far as I think it’s helpful.
Sometimes (often?) there are fencesitters near a given discussion, and it behooves us to appear to be the most reasonable in these peoples’ eyes, to draw them over to our side.
My claim here is limited in its scope and I think it should not be construed as concern trolling. Specifically, we should never treat batshit insane rhetoric as though it consists of reasonable arguments that deserve serious consideration. When you see batshit, point it out and just explain why it’s crazy, rather than arguing on the batshit-covered playing field.
And we should never let bigots get away with claiming that their hang-ups are not really bigotry, but just another valid perspective. Amanda is good at catching these. The rhetoric can be subtle sometimes.
It’s important to call these folks out for exactly what they are, and refuse to feed their pet inanities. But for the sake of the fencesitter, it’s important to not appear closed-minded at the same time.
So what exactly am I saying? Just remember that you’re writing for the audience. When one is tempted to say “sometimes there’s no dialogue to be had”, recognize that you can communicate the same idea while leaving an open-ended, reasonable offer on the table:
“When they make a reality-based argument that can be evaluated through rational discussion, then we’ll have something to talk about.”
shah8,
Not all fears are the fear of physical aggression.
You’re right, grammar nazi. I must confess I let myself get riled, and I’m sure it didn’t help my case. Congratulations on panning a bit of gold from the mud of Dr T’s arguments (speaking of concern trolls…).
Meanwhile, in the spirit of not letting bigots get away with claiming that their hang-ups are not really bigotry, but just another valid perspective: what gay agenda were you talking about, Dr T?
Guys, I’m simply not willing to give people who hurt other people for any stupid old reason *any* benefit of the doubt. I’m a big black guy. I *know* the whole stupid game of fear based lashing out. I also am familiar with the concept of “fears that you are supposed to have”. The cooties issues, in other words. Violently homophobic people hurt/kill gays and lesbians out of fears of the “cooties”, and not the homosexuals themselves. If such people were afraid of the possibility a Nat Turner, or a Lorena Bobbit among homosexuals, they would react somewhat differently.
Shah8, we’re calling them cowards. How on Earth is that giving them the benefit of the doubt?
I’m looking from the perspective that one might have of the byzantine caste system in India, where the Brahmins at one point killed lower caste members that “depurify” them by intent or accident. Those higher caste members don’t actually *fear* lower castes, except in highly unstable situation. They fear the lack of regard from other members of their caste. Talking about this as if it’s a fear of gays is an implicit apology for their attitudes and actions that is unwarranted.
That there was any possibility that self defense might be a consideration.
Killing other people because you’re afraid of loss of face should make you extra evil, not extra fallible.
“what gay agenda were you talking about, Dr T?”
Come on Seraph, didn’t you get a copy? Geez, I’m straight and even I got a copy. Maybe Sarah in Chicago or MAJeff can loan you theirs…
I’ve got too many copies, that’s the problem. They’re all different editions.
Shah8:
Understanding someone’s motives is a long way from condoning them, and you gain precious little useful information from “they’re evil”.
You’re making a distinction that I don’t think the homophobes themselves make. Homosexuals are tainted by nature, in their view.
Of course, they needn’t fear for their own safety alone. How many homophobic rants have you heard that talk about protecting “the children”!
Also, physical violence and intimidation is a time-honored way to put a group “back in their place” if they attain too much political power.
Such as, by attacking only weak-looking specimens and attacking in packs?
True believers think any opposition to their faith is motivated by hate and fear; that any fair, reasonable person would think as they do. Ayn Rand fans in a thread I was reading in the wake of the recent NYT article asserted that critics were irrational souls whose insecurities drove their criticism of “Ayn’s rationality.” Also they were too dumb to understand Randism. Moreover, only their opposition to Ayn’s ideas motivated them to criticize Ayn’s writing, and her extramarital affair.
Kathleen wrote:
I’d guess that we’d both see this as an unreasonable fear, unless one is so bad at math that addition and subtraction are beyond him. Perhaps local boards of education ought to specify a few weeks of tax preparation training to be awarded your high school diploma!
Up until 2002, I always did my own taxes, by hand; in 2002, I started using Turbo Tax®, because it’s easier to get all my deductions from mt Quicken® software. I owned houses, I had capital gains and losses, and a couple of part-year state residencies, meaning that I’ve used Form 1040, not 1040-A or 1040-EZ, and it just isn’t that difficult; people are afraid of the tax forms, not incapable of doing the tax forms.
Even if there was some form of massive tax simplification, you just can’t get simpler than the 1040-EZ.
I agree with Observer, the fact that August uses comic exaggeration in a humorous comic strip is unforgivable. [/sarcasm]
And regarding the “disagreeing with a lifestyle is not fear” in regards to homophobia is tautologically true, but there’s a difference between disagreeing with a lifestyle and advocating laws to limit that lifestyle. I strongly disagree with the life style of the uberrich who buy enough Mercedes so they never have to drive the same luxury car twice in a decade, but I’m not advocating a 5-Mercedes-per-person limit be added to the Constitution.
“Killing other people because you’re afraid of loss of face should make you extra evil, not extra fallible.”
I agree with that, but I think the salient point here is that you’re still killing out of fear. Maybe not fear that this specific person will harm you, but fear for the consequences of losing social status. A lot of homophobia may not be direct fear of queer people, but fears of possible social consequences, eg fears of not appearing “tough” enough on them, fears of the societal changes social acceptance of them might bring, etc. It’s still all fear.
However, it’s also useful to remember that sometimes there is no dialogue to be had. There is no dialogue to be had with someone like Pat Robertson. Yes, there are a lot of people who read this who are not involved in the conversation. However, I’m also going to make it quite clear: You think my being gay is a problem, you’re out of my life. Period. I’m not making an exception, and it’s not up for discussion. You think being gay is wrong, get the fuck away from me. End of discussion.
Well, Crys T, that’s my problem with the thrust of the thread. Different fears requires different handling. Mixing them all up is a really ineffectual way of going about it, not to mention that many people attempt to spin their way out of opprobrium by trying to plead to a lighter charge.
Seraph, I wouldn’t make such a big deal out of it if I wasn’t witness to so much of that sort of bullshit. I use the term evil as a shorthand, I probably believe it in less than you do. Still, it’s very hard to use the term malvolence in the way I wish to use it in conversations with other.
Thing is, we can’t really be tolerant of people displacing fears like homophobes do. I was thoroughly disgusted at the Chris Clarke Shut the Fuck Up thread. Not only at the suffering that many women had, and how paranoid they were about other people, but on how much their displaced fear can hurt bystanders like me. The answer to insecurities isn’t ditching a Volvo and driving a Hummer, which is what I’ve seen increasing numbers of women do. That makes things much less safe on the road for all concerned.
Seraph, I made the posts I made because I don’t think you actually understand the homophobe. And you didn’t understand my second post in this thread. There are different forms of bigotry, first of all. I don’t think sexism is the same as racism is the same as homophobia is the same as classism. They all have different reasons for existing, and they all derive from heirarchy. I think that when you buy into homophobia == fear of gays themselves (which you did, by comparing them with wild animals), you are buying into their systems of excuses. There is always going to be one. If not excupatory, then mitigating. You aren’t being understanding when you believe homophobes kill out of any real fear of persecution. You’re being a sucker who makes gay panic defenses that much more viable.
As much as you split other peoples’ hairs, you don’t get to use shorthand for your own arguments, my friend.
I’m afraid I missed that thread, so I don’t really get your metaphor. Got a negative reaction, did you? Color me surprised.
I grew up among them. I have several in my family. I listen to what they actually say. Call it a field study.
I have a couple ideas.
I did. I just think you’re wrong. Fear of loss of privilege is only one reason that homophobes fear homosexuals. There are a whole host of ignorant myths that depict homosexuals as a genuine threat, to God-fearing straights and to TEH CHILDRENZ, and those myths are only beginning to fade as more and more homosexuals come out, replacing fear with truth…which feeds fear of loss of privilege, unfortunately, which encourages fear-mongers to hype the old myths that much more.
And people attack what they fear.
We’ve pointed out those myths and fears to you repeatedly in this thread, and you’ve responded with insults and repetitions of “that’s not the same as fearing homosexuals themselves“.
We take it as a given that these fears are irrational and these myths are lies, and that any actions taken as a result of them are unacceptable. But they are real, and they motivate both political movements and violence. To ignore them, and focus on the fear of loss of privilege alone, is to be willfully blind.
I compared gays to creatures who were hunted to near-extinction because they had a terrifying reputation out of all proportion to any threat they actually pose. Are you being willfully obtuse, or is your reading comprehension actually that poor?
And you are being an utter asshole. If you read my responses to Dr T, you might see why I’m particularly insulted by this. If such things were still done in this day and age, we would duel at dawn, my friend.
“Understanding”, as I used it, meant “comprehend”, not “empathize with”, which is fairly clear unless you a) are as literal-minded as a 3-year-old or b)are deliberately looking for an opportunity to deliver a truly disgusting insult. Which is it?
gays don’t pose *any* threat. Not blown out of proportion. No Threat.
Maybe you should be the target of ginned up fear, then. Perhaps you should read about the level of dialogue of the Antebellum South, if you favor duelling as a solution so much. Fake fear is a technique to get acceptance for conduct that otherwise wouldn’t be acceptable. I probably know just as many homophobic people as you do…it isn’t as if they aren’t rare. I’m telling you, they are not afraid of gay people. They aren’t afraid for their children, and they aren’t afraid for their fashion sense. They aren’t even afraid in the stomach falling out feeling when they sense their privilege challenged by association with homosexuals. Senator Preston Brooks was not afraid of Senator Charles Sumner when he walked up to him and beat him nearly to death in front of the assembly. He left with cheers at his back. He was dealing with the threat of the North not having “respect” for the South. So it was ok.
In a real sense, when you offered a duel, you played into so many of the issues, I’m pretty shocked. So much of what I was talking about in this thread is about honor culture, and about maintaining face. Duelling was a big part of that culture. Even after it was made illegal, (because there is a huge unsavory element to duellists who find excuses to call offense and have a legal to kill other people) it was hard as hell to stamp out, as Alexander Hamilton was indubitably aware. Duelling only ended when the public at large truly accepted that duelling was a tactic for socially accepted murder that it ended.
That’s how homophobia should be ended. By making damn sure that *people make excuses to hurt others* is a meme accepted by the public, and shutting down any possible face-saving avenues. *Refusing* to *understand* that fear or honor, or whatever new bullshit line bigots pose, is a primary tool.
hence, my attitude. Like I said, you don’t really get it. And I don’t give credit for progressives who are anti sexism, racism, homophobia, whatever, and who aren’t willing to examine the contexts of their assumptions. They just prefer to state this stuff. They’ve always been part of the problem, just like northern radicals during the Reconstruction. John C Wright is a sci fi author with vaguely creepy beliefs (he is some kind of reborn christian or something, and he has some admiration for Rand, even as he think she’s wrong in an area), but he is justifiably acclaimed because he can write with real sensitivity, intelligence and empathy that one might not expect from a ?creep?. On the other hand, SM Stirling is an alternate history sci fi author who always makes it a point to have minorities and women in his novels (and prescribes to progressive attitudes), but reading his work, well, if I were ever in trouble, I would make sure not have my back to him.
I’m an effects based thinker on policy. I have altogether too much time to think about this crap. I don’t really care if you’re so protective of us against Dr T. Imagining that you can convert people like him is stupid. Both you and Dr T gets dirty, and Dr T enjoys it.
Slightly off-topic question here:
Amanda, why exactly had you been linking to The Aforementioned Blogger in the first place?
Having gone over there and checked out her recent posts, I can’t imagine why you’d link to her except in a “know thy enemy” sense which would hold true all the more for her “you’re just afraid-a-me!” rhetoric. Color me confused!
I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. In the case of Pat Robertson, for instance, “sometimes there’s no dialogue to be had” is precisely equivalent to “when he makes a reality-based argument that can be evaluated through rational discussion, then we’ll have something to talk about.”
He’s never going to make such an argument. So there’s not going to be anything to talk about. My alternate wording only emphasizes that it’s not me who’s walking away from a valid discussion, it’s the other asshole who premeditatively chose to close down the avenues of rational discourse.
It’s a fine line, perhaps so fine that it’s just a timesink. It just sprang to my mind when I wrote the earlier post.
As for myself, I am not the brightest bulb. And it’s not even clear to me what examining the contexts of my assumptions would mean. I’m trying to listen, but that’s the best I can promise. And I can’t even begin to predict where you’re going next, so I might just be shit out of luck, as far as understanding this analysis.
I remember when I was a teenager, over at a friend’s house, just the two of us, and discussion got around to the point where I thought it was as good a time as any to disclose that I was gay. He didn’t have anyone to show off for, as we were alone, and he nevertheless started into the “don’t get any ideas about coming onto me” bullshit (which caught me off guard). He may have gone on with this and similar shit for maybe ten or fifteen minutes, and I cannot give any other explanation for what I witnessed except fear. Of me. And of what kind of person I am.
Maybe I’m wrong, you know? Maybe I’m too obtuse to figure out what’s really up. Guess I’m shit out of luck.
shah8,
“[Gays] don’t pose *any* threat. Not blown out of proportion. No Threat.”
Everybody knows that there’s no such thing as an irrational fear, eh?
Shah8 -
Unreal. You’ve built this elaborate theory that ignores vast amounts of real-world evidence and first-hand experience, and you declare everyone who challenges that theory (with the aforementioned evidence and experiences) to be part of the problem. You’re either crazy or a fanatic (not that there’s a great difference between the two), and arguing with either is pointless. I’m done wasting my time and energy on you. I’m just glad I argued long enough to reveal you as such to any lurkers.
Numad, maybe you missed my drift. It’s not irrational fear. It’s *made up* fear. There’s a difference.
If you don’t think so, look at people who have a fear of flying get on an airplane, or people who have arachniphobia react to spiders in the pantry. You could compare the attitudes of people during the Cuban Missle Crisis with the whole Saddam Got Bombz during the run-up to Gulf War II. Or for that matter, the public during WWII and Korea with the public during GWII, with no war bonds and plenty of advice to shop. Saddam was a Mortal Threat and he was behind 911…uh, yeah… Here’s a clue train for you. If you go out and talked to all of those Fox News Network watchers, and convinced them that no, Saddam *wasn’t* behind 911, do you think they will change their minds about invading Iraq? Or do you think they just want to throw a country up against the wall, just to show every now and then that America means business, as per Michael Ledeen?
Seraph, I didn’t build elaborate theories. I simply said that we should refuse to understand fear as a justification for bigoted and harmful action. It took something like this to end duelling, and I believed it would take something like this to end violence against homosexuals.
Grammer Nazi, it very much irritates me when someone exhibits shallow concerns and wish to claim full credit, while leaving the vast machinery of opression be. Helping to stop or ameliorate the situation requires sticking monkeywrenches into the gears. I just see Seraph verbally beat up an available asshole.
As for coming out? I’ve been there. I’ve certainly not been on the gay side of coming out of the closet, but I’ve had people come out to me. I’ve also seen other people coming out. Morehouse College students and faculty has a very wierd love the gay guy, hate the homosexuality attitude.
North Korea got the bomb, Iran is a aspirant regional hegemon, and Iraq has undergone harsh economic sanctions for a decade.
Who was the most evil of the Axis of Evil?
Who was the one that got invaded?
Who was the one that got ignored for 6 or so years?
shah8,
“Numad, maybe you missed my drift. It’s not irrational fear. It’s *made up* fear. There’s a difference.”
I didn’t miss your drift. You’ve made arguments why you think it absolutely had to be real fear, and none hold water. Real threats are far from being the only causes of fear.
This new line of examples isn’t any different.
They don’t show the difference that you think they do. On the contrary, I think it’s a good example of what you’re now ignoring: irrational and made-up aren’t mutually exclusive where fear is concerned.
The difference between the fear of clowns and the fear of Iraq isn’t that the fear of Iraq wasn’t genuine at all (which you can’t really demonstrate by showing how unfounded it is, again), but rather that it was politically useful.
Propaganda or rethoric based on fear has to create and/or tap into something like genuine fear, or else it wouldn’t be effective at all. It wouldn’t exist at all, if you had to have the intended target of the propaganda agree before the fact to pretend to be scared. Maybe that they agree to be scared, to some degree.
In any case, someone shouted BOOGA BOOGA BOO and someone jumped under the bed. Irrational fear is present in the engineering of the invasion of Iraq, but not in its apology: fear was useful as a driving force. However warped and manufactured it is, and however complicit those who are ready to accept it are, it can’t be merely a fiction meant for observers for it to fulfill that role.
Seraph,
“You’re either crazy or a fanatic (not that there’s a great difference between the two), and arguing with either is pointless.”
Hope springs eternal.
/me thinks
I remember when I was a teenager, over at a friend’s house, just the two of us, and discussion got around to the point where I thought it was as good a time as any to disclose that I was gay. ….“he … started that don’t get any ideas about coming onto me” bullshit (which caught me off guard).
Dude, if somebody got me alone at my house and started talking about his sexuality I would figure it was because he wanted to start getting sexual with me. (”Why is he bringing this up, now, when we’re alone?”) A polite, “Thanks, but I’m not interested,” would not even be pre-emptive.
Since I didn’t fill in any details, there’s a lot of ways you could have chosen to interpret the story.
Relevant facts: he invited me over, just me that night, as was not uncommon for us. We were probably going to drink his sister’s beer and watch metal videos, or something like that; I forget. We were talking about a concert we were planning to go to in a few weeks, when he brought up a girl in his neighborhood who was interested in me and told me I should buy her a ticket and try to get her to spend the night after the concert. That’s when I decided it’s “as good a time as any” to explain why I wasn’t very excited about that plan.
But really, your reaction is probably an overreaction, especially if it’s a good friend, who might be talking to you alone because he trusts you and he doesn’t know who else to discuss this with. That’s doubly likely if you’re all still in high school. Anyone who you give a “preemptive” turn down to would be right to be offended at your presumptuousness. It’s not all about you.
No, the Thanks but not interested would be presumptious and homophobic.
told me I should buy her a ticket and try to get her to spend the night after the concert. That’s when I decided it’s “as good a time as any” to explain why I wasn’t very excited about that plan
Thanks, I see now. Yes, his reaction was completely uncalled for. He brought up the subject; you didn’t. You were not making an issue of your sexuality, you simply wanted him to know not to waste his time finding chicks for you. He could have been justifiably startled, but had no reason to expect you to be hitting on him.
You should have said, “Don’t flatter yourself, pal.”
No, the Thanks but not interested would be presumptious and homophobic.
Even if he said I’d never want to go back to women again?
I’m still thrown by the implication that it’s perfectly understandable and okay for a straight man to hyperventilate if a gay man comes out in any setting but a crowd of mixed company.
Sure, what are friends for if not to share intimacies with?
What’s really creepy is that we live in a society where we tend to assume that intimacy=sexual come-on.
IBTP!
That’s not coming out, that’s coming on. Different thigns.
I’m still thrown by the implication that it’s perfectly understandable and okay for a straight man to hyperventilate if a gay man comes out in any setting but a crowd of mixed company.
I’m just saying that, if it wasn’t clear why, at a particular moment, you were telling someone you were gay, he might not know if you were “coming out or coming on,” in MAJeff’s very helpful expression. In your case it was crystal clear.
But imagine if you were an out gay, over at a straight woman friend’s place, playing xbox360, just the two of you, when suddenly you drop your controller, look deep into her eyes, and say, “You know, Rachel, I’m starting to think that I’m bi.” She might well wonder if you were coming out or coming on.