Meade was born in Indiana in 1954 and lived there until 1971. "I don't remember anyone, ever, saying it's okay to be gay or that you should treat gay people the same as anyone else. The only thing I ever heard was disparaging or it was joked about and behind the joking was pretty thinly veiled fear. There were no 'out' gays." Meade called Letterman "delusional" and repeats something I said the other day: "Stop otherizing Indiana."
I'm going to defend Letterman a bit, even though I'm sure Meade is right about Hoosiers and homosexuality in the 1950s. One thing is, Letterman makes no effort to understand what RFRA actually says and how it is likely to work in practice: "Honestly, I don't know what [Mike Pence] is talking about." He's operating at a higher level of abstraction, where Hoosiers are stereotypically friendly and nice to everybody. That's what he remembers, and that is the Hoosier brand. Ironically, Mike Pence — in his disastrous turn on ABC's "This Week" — relied on the same branding:
Hoosier -- come on. Hoosiers don't believe in discrimination. I mean the way I was raised, in a small town in Southern Indiana, is you're -- you're kind and caring and respectful to everyone. Anybody that's been in Indiana for five minutes knows that Hoosier hospitality is not a slogan, it's a reality. People tell me when I travel around the country, gosh, I went -- I went to your state and people are so nice....Yeah, you're the nice people... unlike those people in other states. Well, I just have 2 things to say about that: 1. You're otherizing the people of the other states who have to be less nice for it to be noticeable that your people are so nice, 2. Niceness is a superficial quality, and it's a quality that makes it hard to tell whether the seemingly nice person thinks ill of you or not. Those stereotypical Hoosiers might hate your kind. How would you know?
By the way, has David Letterman ever said disparaging things about gay people on his show? All the jokes in there over the years, going back to the "Tonight" show appearances? I think it would be extraordinary if he didn't. Mocking gay people was, of course, absolutely the norm for Johnny Carson, who expected and got endless laughs over men who are — his words — "light in [their] loafers."
AND: The "Guys Indiana Governor Mike Pence Looks Like" routine isn't consistent with an ethic of friendly kindness and equality. You put up a picture of a man and then throw 10 shots at him for the way he looks. Letterman made a point of not even attempting to understand what Pence was talking about. Let's just make fun of how he looks. Letterman was teaching us that it's just fine to have a gut reaction to a person, to reject the stage in human relations where you see things from the other person's point of view, and to mock him for superficial reasons that have no substance at all.
IN THE COMMENTS: Laslo Spatula came up with 2 answers to my question "By the way, has David Letterman ever said disparaging things about gay people on his show?"
1. In 2011, Letterman joked about Rosie O'Donnell: "The woman she is marrying, her fiancée, was driving... and her car broke down. And guess what happened? Rosie pulls up right behind her in her tow truck." Rosie wondered what motivated him and added: "I don't remember making fun of you when you had sex with all your interns, Dave. I didn't do that. I didn't make fun of your rampant, throbbing heterosexuality, did I Dave?"
2. In 2008, Letterman had a Top 10 list of "things Jim Carrey will always say 'yes' to" including "A Fan Asking for a Hug, Unless He's a Dude" and then a shot Carrey taking a bath with Larry King and Letterman saying "Those guys are so gay!"
पोस्ट्स
१५२ टिप्पण्या:
I don't think anyone growing up in the 1960s escaped hearing jokes about Gays.
The put-down of choice in Junior High was always faggot.
I make jokes about women.
It's the truth of the stereotype that makes it funny.
Light in the loafers is a THAT'S NOT FUNNY now, because why?
Somehow back in the old days we were all Americans, even women.
Why would light in the loafers refer to gays?
My recollection is that there was a fair amount of overall disapproval and the standard light loafer joking, but considerable tolerance and discretion in individual cases. Many exceptions to that of course, but the impulse to live and let live is strong. Otherwise the rapid change we have seen in attitudes toward homosexuality would not have been possible.
This was Pennsylvania, but I doubt it was that much different than Indiana.
rhhardin said...
Why would light in the loafers refer to gays?
Because it did? Does?
I generally prefer "gauzy in the galoshes" as more creative, but the message is the same.
Maybe they'll change the name of bassoons from faggot to fyggot, as they did for niger seed which is now nyjer seed.
Isn't it obvious that the geniality that he remembers was due to the fact that gays weren't demanding acceptance and approval? The people didn't become less "nice", they just got pushed beyond what tolerance should demand because their own beliefs are no longer being tolerated.
Because it did? Does?
Well, yes, but the question is how does it manage to do it.
Well, yes, but the question is how does it manage to do it.
Fairies. They don't uh, walk around to much. They flit from place to place.
to = too. I'm getting worse as I age on typing accurately.
"MadisonMan said...
I don't think anyone growing up in the 1960s escaped hearing jokes about Gays.
The put-down of choice in Junior High was always faggot."
Online game sometime. It still is.
I rather imagine that in the 1950s, most people weren't homophobic in the same way that very few had a strong fear of computers or orbital scramjet travel: For most ordinary people, these were fancies undreamed of until a later day. Ordinary people, people who aren't progressives, I mean, do not shuffle abroad seeking out atrocities at which to be enraged. They are content to let the evil before them be evil enough.
rhhardin:
Light in the loafers = dainty; light on his toes, etc. Less than traditionally manly, I suppose.
There's a beautiful book title by Alphonso Lingis The Community of Those Who Have Nothing in Common. Not a great book, by the translator of Levinas, but a nice title.
I mention it since Althouse has picked up the jargon of the Other, probably in a faculty meeting.
Levinas probably started it, and he is in fact worth reading. His Other was always a phenomenological positive, something that seems to have been dropped.
I think people are prone to overemphasize the power of speech.
People make jokes. It's doesn't mean they are 'homophobic.' It's the Trevor Noah treatment.
People say stupid shit all of the time. Constantly. I think we should place more emphasis on action.
My father, not of this 'age', will still make questionable remarks about race and gender and sexual orientation. But the man I know has never treated anyone any differently because of those factors.
I grew up in that time period. There were gay guys in my high school, mostly in the drama club. I suspect one of my close friends was a Lesbian. Her father accused her of being "hostile to the boys". "Queer" was the operative word. "Gay" still meant "happy". We did the play "Our Hearts Were Young and Gay" in drama club, and no one snickered. No one brought a same-sex date to the prom. If you didn't have an opposite sex date, you stayed home. That was a lot of people so no one would question why a gay guy might not be there.
Light in the loafers = dainty; light on his toes, etc. Less than traditionally manly, I suppose.
So is it accurate? Replace less than with not.
My sons in grade school, middle school, and high school report mostly that gayness is not a big deal nowadays. I've seen some evidence of that. The kids are OK.
Curious George said...
"MadisonMan said...
I don't think anyone growing up in the 1960s escaped hearing jokes about Gays.
The put-down of choice in Junior High was always faggot."
Online game sometime. It still is.
Well, yeah. But for many people, it doesn't really mean gay anymore and it's not really an insult either. Many people who use it are fully accepting of gay rights and use it to describe friends (and have it used to describe them from time to time and they're fine with that too).
And David Letterman used to be good at comedy. He has grown bitter. Why does he keep doing it? He's rich. He got outed as a serial womanizer. What's the motivation?
What's his big deal? It's probably not in his pants.
"I mention it since Althouse has picked up the jargon of the Other, probably in a faculty meeting."
You obviously have no idea what a Wisconsin Law School faculty meeting like, so just go ahead and make shit up. Because stereotypes are so amusing because they are true! In your head.
Targeting a small business because of the owners' sincerely held religious beliefs and destroying them in state-sponsored lawfare is not nice.
Gays being lynched. That is not the Indiana I remember as a kid.
Letterman should have said something more like that if he wanted to feign sincerity.
My sons in grade school, middle school, and high school report mostly that gayness is not a big deal nowadays.
Very true for my kids too. Kids don't care if someone is gay.
Niceness is a superficial quality, and it's a quality that makes it hard to tell whether the seemingly nice person thinks ill of you or not. Those stereotypical Hoosiers might hate your kind.
And why should you care if they did? As long as someone is polite to you, do you care, Professor, whether they hate you for being blonde or hate you for being a lawyer or hate you for voting for Scott Walker or hate you for being a baby boomer or just because they don't like petite women? That's the whole point of being nice and displaying good manners is it not?
You obviously have no idea what a Wisconsin Law School faculty meeting like, so just go ahead and make shit up. Because stereotypes are so amusing because they are true! In your head.
Where did you pick up the "Other" rhetorical turn?
As far as I know, it's a postmodern term from Levinas, inverted by academics to a negative.
You can into an academic somewhere and bought it.
The Times Have a Changed.
I recall that being friendly and accepting towards gays was an easy Christian virtue and it added many talented friends into your life. Think of Titus being a friend.
That lasted until until around 1995 when many gay friends suddenly joined a new Gay Army's culture war which identified Christians as their enemy.
Now it's the Indiana religious folks who whine for protection.
It's a shame that faculty meetings don't have a comment section.
The Indiana I remember is the Gus Macker basketball tournament when the captain of one of the three-man teams approached the registration desk with an annoyed look in his face.
He says: "My one buddy says our game is at 12. My other buddy says our game is at noon. What's the deal?"
That's the Indiana I remember.
"Niceness is a superficial quality, and it's a quality that makes it hard to tell whether the seemingly nice person thinks ill of you or not."
Superficial? No. Courtesy and kindness are far from superficial.
"As long as someone is polite to you, do you care, Professor, whether they hate you for being blonde or hate you for being a lawyer or hate you for voting for Scott Walker or hate you for being a baby boomer or just because they don't like petite women? That's the whole point of being nice and displaying good manners is it not?"
Of course, there's value to superficial politeness and we wouldn't be free if we had to show exactly how we feel about other people. That's a good idea as far as it goes. It just doesn't go all the way into what really matters in human relations.
To give an obvious example: What if a black person sat through a perfectly pleasant interview with a prospective employer who smiled warmly throughout, but then he didn't get the job because the employer can't stand black people?
"Superficial" because if you don't really think that way, then you're evil.
Like Obama and SSM.
What if the girls at school we're superficially friendly to your daughter, but then they got together without her and talked about how she's too ugly and stupid to be seen socially with them?
"Other" simply means different, alternate, or variant. Its not pejorative, except in the minds of those who don't wish to be.
What if your wife expressed love for you but secretly despised you?
"As a child I had been taught a code of conduct: I was to be courteous and considerate, and most courteous and most considerate of those less strong than I...Less educated men might hold inferior positions, but that did not mean that they themselves were inferior; they might be (and often would be) wiser, braver, and more honest than I was...."
--Gene Wolfe, The Best Introduction to the Mountains
rh, are you sure you should be talking to the women?
What strikes me is how, given just a little bit of a moral advantage, the LGBT community seems eager to prove they can be at least as abusive and intolerant as those nasty straights.
I guess in the end we really are all just human. Not really something to brag about I suppose.
"By the way, has David Letterman ever said disparaging things about gay people on his show? All the jokes in there over the years, going back to the "Tonight" show appearances? I think it would be extraordinary if he didn't."
Letterman on Rosie's marriage.
Those guys are so gay"
I am Laslo.
Sometimes the Althouse forum is just like a Markman hearing.
Derbyshire
I was recently browsing some biographies of the older generation of British comedians. Many of them were homosexuals.
Nigel Hawthorne, for example, who played the head bureaucrat in that fine British TV comedy Yes, Minister, lived happily for decades with his male partner. Far from wanting to advertise his homosexuality, he was outraged when someone outed him in the 1990s. Hugh Paddick, who was Kenneth Williams' foil in the great radio comedy series Round the Horne, was likewise shacked up happily most of his life with another man, and nobody bothered them about it. Why should they have? It was nobody's business but their own.
A homosexual who made a nuisance of himself in public facilities, or proselytized his lifestyle to the impressionable young, would come to the attention of the police, and quite right too. Otherwise nobody minded them. In my college days in the mid-1960s I lived in rented rooms all over north London. One house I rented a room in was the home of two homosexual men. They were very nice. I didn't mind them, and they didn't bother me. One of them used to do the housework, I remember, and the other did the shopping.
That was the old, civilized attitude. We called it "tolerance."
Well, there's no more of that in the brave new world of liberalism.
So...superficial politeness is empty.
OK. So superficial observance of the right to free speech is also empty.
Superficial...you're talking about reading individual minds. Don't be stupid. Deeds, not words. You've laid out a few really weird ones. Who would fail to hire the qualified black? Only an idiot will be fired.
Superficial teenage girls? Who has ever heard of such a thing?!
To give an obvious example: What if a black person sat through a perfectly pleasant interview with a prospective employer who smiled warmly throughout, but then he didn't get the job because the employer can't stand black people?
What of it? Why should the law compel someone to hire someone they can't stand? Why should someone be forced to be miserable in the workplace of their own business, simply because you don't think it's a legitimate reason for being miserable.
What if your wife expressed love for you but secretly despised you?
Not a problem for me, Professor. Meade?
I have to agree, though, that that Letterman piece isn't very funny. Maybe one or two on the list made me grunt in appreciation for being clever, but otherwise it was dull.
To give an obvious example: What if a black person sat through a perfectly pleasant interview with a prospective employer who smiled warmly throughout, but then he didn't get the job because the employer can't stand black people?
Excellent example.
That's okay. It's freedom of association. Discrimination is not the problem in a competitive market, only in a noncompetitive market.
They guy will go out of business if he persists, because he's hiring from a smaller pool of talent.
So much from one principle!
The nice thing about principles is that you get law that is consistent and sane.
rh, are you sure you should be talking to the women?
Women love me.
Ann Althouse said...
***
To give an obvious example: What if a black person sat through a perfectly pleasant interview with a prospective employer who smiled warmly throughout, but then he didn't get the job because the employer can't stand black people?
This happens every day for black people, brown people, Jewish people, gay people, male people, female people, fat people, old people, ugly people, every kind of people.
If we still had a country where freedom was valued, we would ignore this kind of thing and go on with our lives. Those days are long gone, as is our freedom.
"Other" simply means different, alternate, or variant. Its not pejorative, except in the minds of those who don't wish to be.
It's a postmodernist technical term, now used in its opposite sense to denote a thought crime, because Levinas is too hard to read if you're into hate.
"Of course, there's value to superficial politeness and we wouldn't be free if we had to show exactly how we feel about other people. That's a good idea as far as it goes. It just doesn't go all the way into what really matters in human relations."
So what does "really matter" in human relations?
Should "what really matters" dominate, or even be present, in all (most? some?) interactions? Can it?
If different people have different conceptions of "what really matters," isn't civility itself "what really matters" in human relations, as the essential bridging device (hence more than just a "good idea")?
"What if the girls at school we're superficially friendly to your daughter, but then they got together without her and talked about how she's too ugly and stupid to be seen socially with them?"
What's the alternative -- that such girls should genuinely befriend kids they consider ugly and stupid? or that no one should consider anyone else ugly and stupid? or that "what really matters in human relations" is a general norm against considering anyone ugly or stupid or anything else that is, well, not nice?
Ann Althouse said...
"As long as someone is polite to you, do you care, Professor, whether they hate you for being blonde or hate you for being a lawyer or hate you for voting for Scott Walker or hate you for being a baby boomer or just because they don't like petite women? That's the whole point of being nice and displaying good manners is it not?"
Of course, there's value to superficial politeness and we wouldn't be free if we had to show exactly how we feel about other people. That's a good idea as far as it goes. It just doesn't go all the way into what really matters in human relations.
To give an obvious example: What if a black person sat through a perfectly pleasant interview with a prospective employer who smiled warmly throughout, but then he didn't get the job because the employer can't stand black people?
4/2/15, 8:36 AM
Would that be filed under "thought crime"? If the person was not the best qualified and/or a more qualified person was hired, what does it matter the reason? If a less qualified person was hired, there would be cause for possible legal action. If not, what does it matter? He might not have been hired due to wearing brown shoes. Sh*t happens. Deal with it. Same with hate crimes. I call bullsh*t. Crime is crime. Who cares why it was done. Punish the crime, not the reason for the crime. Motivations don't (or at least shouldn't) matter. Outcome/results matter. If people do good works, who cares why? If people do bad things, condemn the things but again, who cares why. All of this "what was he thinking crap is just people looking for reasons to excuse bed behavior or condemn actions that would not otherwise be vilified.
Sadly the left believes the right of association is an affirmative one, not a negative one.
They gay couple have the right to associate with you as their baker, to deny them that fundamental right is hatecrime, because feelbads.
I think the real problem here though is that the left knows its outnumbered - all the gay marriage laws are against popular opinion when they are simply overturned by judges.
So the real concern is that baker Joe decides he isn't going to sell to gay weddings... and he suffers no significant economic or social backlash. That is their greatest fear - that it would be revealed that far from 'inevitable societal progress', it would be laid in the open that this sort of nonsense is not the will of the people.
They can't have that, because the amount of change they've forcefed the population will create a tremendous backlash if the authoritarian nature of it is laid bare. So instead, the solution is to keep cracking the whip and shouting that this is really what everybody wants.
To give an obvious example: What if a black person sat through a perfectly pleasant interview with a prospective employer who smiled warmly throughout, but then he didn't get the job because the employer can't stand black people?
I've sat through interviews with female managers where it was obvious that for some reason they flat did not like me and were only going through the motions to keep HR satisfied. I don't know why those women were so poor at disguising their emotions despite the professional setting, but there it is. Anyway, given a choice between a thoroughly professional interview where I didn't get the job and the interviews where waves of dislike washed over the desk and I knew I was wasting my time, I'll take the former every time. I can always console myself that they hired someone they mistakenly thought was better.
Alexander said...
To give an obvious example: What if a black person sat through a perfectly pleasant interview with a prospective employer who smiled warmly throughout, but then he didn't get the job because the employer can't stand black people?
What of it? Why should the law compel someone to hire someone they can't stand? Why should someone be forced to be miserable in the workplace of their own business, simply because you don't think it's a legitimate reason for being miserable.
Because: NO FREEDOM FOR YOU. YOU WILL DO AS YOU ARE TOLD AND THINK WHAT WE TELL YOU TO THINK, OR OFF TO THE RE-EDUCATION CAMP FOR YOU !!!
I'm not only superficially polite but polite through and through.
You can easily do this yourself if you just say what you think all the time.
No protective shell develops halfway into your psyche.
Politeness then makes it all the way down.
What if the girls at school we're superficially friendly to your daughter, but then they got together without her and talked about how she's too ugly and stupid to be seen socially with them?
4/2/15, 8:38 AM
These examples are commonplace but are obviously not areas where we'd want government intrusion.
My money's on the re-education camps being segregated by race and gender.
An "Other" is simply an outsider that threatens us insiders.
We know wops are different from us, but we like Italians for the difference. Etc., etc.. And red heads are said to have fiery tempers, but value them for it. You have to fear Others before you hate them.
The un American part is when a politician uses othering to divide and conquer the electorate. Southerners were seriously abused with that trick for 150 years.
My idea is to divide Indiana in half with an East/West wall across the state going through Indianapolis so each half gets a part of NapTown. Then they can other the hell out of each Other.
phantommut said...What strikes me is how, given just a little bit of a moral advantage, the LGBT community seems eager to prove they can be at least as abusive and intolerant as those nasty straights.
There are very few counter examples in history. Oppressed groups nearly always become oppressor groups the first chance they get (the Puritans had barely shaken the sand out of their boots before they started executing people for heresy).
That said, don't make the mistake of thinking that the group with the loudest megaphone is the largest group and don't make the mistake of thinking people advocating for a group are necessarily a part of that group.
I've known many conservative gays. In fact, at some points in my life, most conservatives I knew were gay. Most gays don't get caught up in politics either way.
Todd said "Crime is crime. Who cares why it was done. Punish the crime, not the reason for the crime. Motivations don't (or at least shouldn't) matter."
America's vast investigation of crime in human deaths (first-degree, second-degree, etc.) long ago obliterated your notion. We think, as a society, that your thoughts should inform the punishment.
That's why we have "hate crime" laws.
"To give an obvious example: What if a black person sat through a perfectly pleasant interview with a prospective employer who smiled warmly throughout, but then he didn't get the job because the employer can't stand black people?"
As happens with employers who hate candidates from the Big Ten or who went to a competing, hated, university or who have English accents or who are red headed or who have on funny shoes. Or who prefer qualified candidates
Yeah, what if....
A gay man walks into a biker bar and approaches the bar.
"Nice gay bar you have here," he says to the bartender."
"This ain't no gay bar, dude,: the bartender replies. "This here is a biker bar."
"Looks like a gay bar to me," the gay man says.
"Didn't you see all those big motorcycles outside?"
"I did," nods the gay man. "Nice gay bar."
"Do you not see all the big dudes wearing leather and chaps in here?"
"I did," nods the gay man. "Nice gay bar."
"Do you not see High Desert Bob over there by the pool table giving a blow job to Iron Mike?"
"I do."
"And do you not see High Desert Bob over there by the pool table licking Iron Mike's hairless balls?"
"I do."
"And do you not see High Desert Bob over there by the pool table putting two fingers up Iron Mike's ass?"
"I do, I do."
"So you think THAT makes us a gay bar?" the bartender asks.
"I would think so," the gay man replies.
The bartender shakes his head softly, and looks at the gay man: "We are NOT a gay bar, dude: we are a biker bar with a gay pool table."
I am Laslo.
So...superficial politeness is empty.
No, it's not empty. But some situations call for more.
An "Other" is simply an outsider that threatens us insiders.
That's the academic inversion of it.
I have great admiration for Althouse in posting this. She's made it clear where she thinks the same sex marriage cause will end up; meanwhile I happen to think that all of Jutstice Scalia's relevant opinions (Bowers, Romer, Lawrence, Windsor) are spot on. I suspect that there's some considerable disagreement between Althouse and me on culture war matters.
So I have the highest regard for Althouse's suggesting what an arrogant fool that Dave Letterman was in pandering to a non-legal lowest common denominator, by attacking Governor Pence.
Althouse really nails this one.
The media's caricature of the Indiana RFRA -- and basically all RFRA's -- has been a gross disservice to all of American law.
Alexander said...
Why should the law compel someone to hire someone they can't stand? Why should someone be forced to be miserable in the workplace of their own business, simply because you don't think it's a legitimate reason for being miserable.
Because you don't have a right to from a corporation, they are an indulgence of the state and the state has every right to place limits on what they will allow from corporate forms.
rhhardin said...
"Women love me."
And so do men.
"Niceness is a superficial quality"
Exactly, nice does not equal good. A lot of people considered the BTK killer to be nice. However, our society seems to value nice, good not so much.
I knew a Gay Engineer from Purdue who never stopped talking about what a dumb hicks everyone in Indiana was.
No stories of persecution though.
I love how Letterman who's spent almost his entire life in LA and NYC as a multi-millionaire limousine liberal plays the Hoosier card.
Yes, Dave its not the same Indiana. In 2015 business people have to worry about being sued for not participating in a gay wedding or having their pizzeria torched for expressing a thought crime. Yep, its the Indiana you remember.
Meade, one of rhhardin's business partners reported to me that he likes puppies most of all. After unicorns.
A quick self-correction before Professor Althouse is forced to correct me (I'd hate that)...
Scalia was not part of the Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) court. Scalia joined the court in September of that year, after the Bowers decision was released in the spring of '86.
I am sure our common sense-challenged Senator, Al Franken, invited himself on Letterman's show for the sole purpose of creating this outrage.
Letterman used to be funny in his very early days before he made it to this show, but I would rather watch the old off-channel test pattern than watch him these days.
Again, when things turn AGAINST gay people, I hope they don't expect much empathy from me. All that will be unleashed upon them will have been earned.
To give an obvious example: What if a black person sat through a perfectly pleasant interview with a prospective employer who smiled warmly throughout, but then he didn't get the job because the employer can't stand black people?
Given that you can find any of a large number of reasons to not hire somebody, they can find a valid, non-racial reason to not hire with few problems.
"Seems like a poor fit for the company" or "would negatively impact team chemistry" are valid, after all.
I'm sure college faculties have all sorts of "valid" reasons to not hire conservatives, as an example.
What if your wife expressed love for you but secretly despised you?
I've said "I love you" to my wife before heading to work even if she pissed me off more than words. Largely because even if it's not true at that exact moment, it is reality overall and if I died before I saw her again, I'd feel pretty shitty if my last words to her were mean.
What if the girls at school we're superficially friendly to your daughter, but then they got together without her and talked about how she's too ugly and stupid to be seen socially with them?
You mean, what if we lived on a planet called Earth?
""Other" simply means different, alternate, or variant. Its not pejorative, except in the minds of those who don't wish to be."
Try reading beyond the dictionary and into some philosophy, such as "The Second Sex."
Tim,
First, Disingenuous. Ms. Althouse did not specify that we were discussing a corporation. In her example, I could be a mom-and-pop antique store for all you know. How many bakeries are corporations, or wedding photographers?
Second, corporations have rights. If the New York Times has the right to freedom of speech, it also (ought to) have the right of freedom of association. We're not (or we shouldn't) be cherry picking which constitutional rights corporations have, if we accept the idea that they have them at all (which despite Ed Shultz's best efforts, we do).
Third, I suspect this is one of those cases where "the government is allowed to make you agree to certain stipulations because it is a government created entity" is a "for me but not for thee." It's always okay to stipulate a company must do something that the left favors, but what if the government passed a law, to give a hypothetical requiring that every corporation allow any employee to carry a firearm on the premise, in accordance with their second amendment rights.
Somehow, I think the left would demand the government not intrude into the sanctity of private business determining their own in-house policies.
When I was in high school, during the late 1970s, I was nice to gay guys, which was an act of minor courage, because if the thugs caught you being nice to a gay guy, then you risked getting the same treatment.
I'm not saying I was some kind of a hero. Just trying to be nice.
Hey, Rome wasn't built in a day.
Look, I'm into facts as much as the next guy, but I don't like people yammering about them when I'm in the middle of having my Outragenous Zones so expertly massaged.
tim maguire said...
Alexander said...
Why should the law compel someone to hire someone they can't stand? Why should someone be forced to be miserable in the workplace of their own business, simply because you don't think it's a legitimate reason for being miserable.
Because you don't have a right to from a corporation, they are an indulgence of the state and the state has every right to place limits on what they will allow from corporate forms.
Employment and discrimination laws are not limited to corporations. Even if they were, it's a bullshit argument. Corporations are just people acting through a legal entity.
rhhardin: Where did you pick up the "Other" rhetorical turn?
As far as I know, it's a postmodern term from Levinas, inverted by academics to a negative.
Hey, I'm barely literate and "the Other" (negative meaning) has managed to osmose its way into my vocabulary. No exposure to faculty meetings required.
"I knew a Gay Engineer from Purdue who never stopped talking about what a dumb hicks everyone in Indiana was."
Seems a little unfair to lump us altogether like that. We were't all dumb hicks. Many of us were hoosiers. Some were hillbillies. And quite a few of us were dumb hayseeds.
Ann Althouse said, "Try reading beyond the dictionary and into some philosophy, such as The Second Sex.
You are not worthy. Read more. Pass the bar. Get a PhD. Read Simone de Beauvoir. Only then will I grant you license to comment without dumb insults back from my high horse.
"That lasted until until around 1995 when many gay friends suddenly joined a new Gay Army's culture war which identified Christians as their enemy."
I hope the gays are as happy when they run into real hostility, say from Muslims, and their former allies the Christians say, "Sorry, I've got a dentist appointment. You'll have to fight that guy yourself."
The gay mafia has been encouraged to think it is much larger than it is. The Facebook allies will run at the first sign of serious trouble.
Tolerance might turn out to have been worth keeping.
Michael, the left has pre-packaged response to that:
They quote Martin Niemöller at you, and expect you to believe that they are, in fact, the first group to be attacked and everything previously they did to you never actually happened.
Indiana is nothing social. Outside of San Fran, Hollywood, the West Village, Fire Island and a few small university towns, gay jokes were common and tolerated through at least the late 1980s. People of taste didn't make them, but nobody flipped out when they heard one.
This is a manufactured controversy. It's deflecting scrutiny away from Iran....and whatever else makes Obama uncomfortable.
Althouse asked:
"What if the girls at school we're superficially friendly to your daughter, but then they got together without her and talked about how she's too ugly and stupid to be seen socially with them?"
Why, you would work to have a law passed prohibiting meanness in women.
"What if your wife expressed love for you but secretly despised you?"
Then you wait for the moment you make a lot of money and she divorces you. Otherwise, the feeling is possibly mutual.
Or if you saw she was reading "The Second Sex" you would know that you and a lot of other people were despised.
Argh. Should have been "nothing special".
Why the hell does anybody care if users of fucking Twitter are upset?
If they can't be bothered to leave their house and do anything, then they aren't that upset.
A response of "Twitter? That place where people who have no point have a brief amount of space to demonstrate it?" works.
"That lasted until until around 1995 when many gay friends suddenly joined a new Gay Army's culture war which identified Christians as their enemy."
I feel like it was the early 2000s. It seems like Facebook then gave every loser license to become an anti-Christian bigot in "support" of their gay friends. Of course, many of the sane people are also on an anti-Islamophobia Jihad. Which, taken together, is kind of hilarious.
Ann Althouse said...
"To give an obvious example: What if a black person sat through a perfectly pleasant interview with a prospective employer who smiled warmly throughout, but then he didn't get the job because the employer can't stand black people?"
Well, what if? What if the stated reason was that the employer just clicked better with a different applicant, but the black person felt that he didn't get the job because the employer can't stand black people? Should he be able to go to EEOC, get a right-to-sue letter, and effectively kill the employer's business by lawsuit? (Can Twombly's concern about threshold standards given the expense of discovery really be confined to antitrust discovery?) Whether such intrusions can be justified, it seems to me, depends upon the state of society. In the 1960s, the answer was probably yes, the societal interest in breaking the back of entrenched racism as probably strong enough. Is it today, given all the irrevocable changes of the last five decades?
Why and in what circumstances should society exercise the power to destroy recusants?
Try reading beyond the dictionary and into some philosophy, such as "The Second Sex."
I'd recommend Derrida "Spurs," for a positive take on the second sex.
I think "Other" does not turn up. The feminine does.
If you look at red-lining, I think you will see that liberal lawyers like Ann are OK with the idea that seller's rights are less important than buyer's rights. Especially when government knows best!
I'm blonde and I hear blonde jokes all the time without wilting.
@Simon
I agree that the right to sue on the basis of a particular type of discrimination brings a risk that persons who experienced something negative — like not getting a job — will sue even though the real reason is not discrimination against them as a member of the protected class. So, as you realize, the question is when is that risk worth it?
Some of the risk can be balanced by the burden of proof and the filtering that takes place in the government agencies and when lawyers decide whether to take cases.
I don't think that Indiana was that different from the rest of the country. I grew up in the western Denver suburbs, and in high school, there was always talk about going to a certain park, and rolling queers, which presumably means beating them up. Not sure if anyone actually did it, but it was considered safer than beaners (Mexicans), because the latter tended to have lots of friends, who would show up with baseball bats. It was only when I went off to college, in the late 1960s, that I saw (mostly male) homosexuals starting to come out.
Now, of course, the young people from good families, etc., don't care. The 40 years between when I graduated and my kid did have greatly changed the view of gays on campus, at least. You are mostly going to be very gay tolerant these days if you are a recent graduate of many liberal arts colleges, and even a lot of big state universities.
"Spurs" made Derrida's translator Gayatri Spivak very angry, by the way, so feminists didn't like what was said.
Why this was, I can't say.
Something didn't fit the story.
@rh
You are so focused on otherizing women that it's hard to picture what would become of you if you got some anti-otherizing perspective on it. It's what makes you you.
Not only is "Othering" a useful term (like "politically correct, which also escaped from the academic dungeon, and for the same reason)-- it's a term which can be used against its creators. How cool is that?
Otherizing women is my feminism. They are not interested by what interests men, and vice versa.
I want to point this out, poetically if possible, which is to say in some interesting way. Some way interesting to women.
Derrida in Choreographies (an interview variously reprinted) lays it out nicely in the beginning pages.
It is beneath women, or ought to be, to try to be like men.
They won't do well at it.
If you otherwise clothing, it won't shrink when it's washed.
The debate over the Indiana RFRA is pissing off a lot of people in middle America, and, in particular, the more devout Christians. Homosexual actions and behavior are considered major sins throughout much of Christianity. And, this country was, and may still be, a very Christian country. It is one thing to accept that others will sin, and that you should look to your own sins first. But, it is quite a different thing to demand that people accept and support your sinful activities. And, that is what many people think that this thing in Indiana is all about.
Yesteryear is not today. What U.S. wasn't homophobic back in the day. Johnny Carson was working in LA for laugh's sakes.
The Rewrite (DVD) had a nice couple of segments with Hugh Grant talking to the academic feminist, the former taking reasonable but unfavored lines of explanation and the latter taking the outraged and insulted feminist line.
He was always nice to her in her rage, which is how those things go.
I doubt many people think homosexuality is a sin.
Vast numbers think that civil unions are not marriage.
And favor civil unions.
It's deflecting scrutiny away from Iran....and whatever else makes Obama uncomfortable.
Not Obama - he no longer needs the media cover. Someone else, who could it be...
Hey, remember when the news cycle was full of the fact that the leading Democrat candidate for president was balls-to-the-wall lying about why she went about bypassing government recording and security systems while she held a cabinet level post?
"Vast numbers think that civil unions are not marriage."
But vast numbers also think that many marriages are not marriage... And they are right!
Oh, look a squirrel.
But vast numbers also think that many marriages are not marriage... And they are right!
I disagree. Marriage covers the way the relationships fail as well as succeed. It has a whole grammar for the way man and woman relations go.
That's why it's worth defending the word and the institution.
. Oppressed groups nearly always become oppressor groups the first chance they get (the Puritans had barely shaken the sand out of their boots before they started executing people for heresy)."
Good point, being Catholic was a death sentence at that time in Massachusetts.
I've never said or done anything homophobic in my life, but I disagree as a matter and faith & public policy on the concept of marriage, so I yeah I may get my head served on a platter like John the Baptist.
Don't fool yourselves into believing Indiana is special.
"Yesteryear is not today. What U.S. wasn't homophobic back in the day. Johnny Carson was working in LA for laugh's sakes."
I remember when the theme song to the Johnny Carson show meant "New York," as in the old Mothers of Invention song "Billy the Mountain.
"We're going to... da da da da da... New York!"
I can't be the only one with the "Billy the Mountain" point of reference, can I? Please show your hands if your mental landscape looks like mine... with a tree named Ethel growing out of its shoulder.
rhhardin said...
"I disagree. Marriage covers the way the relationships fail as well as succeed. It has a whole grammar for the way man and woman relations go.
That's why it's worth defending the word and the institution."
Fine, but how far back do you want to go? There was a time when marriage meant that divorce was not possible.
rh - You got me to reach for a volume of Derrida. "'This knowledge is part of my Dionysian patrimony. Who knows? Maybe I am the first psychologist of the eternally feminine. Women all like me . . .'" Derrida, "Spurs," quoting Nietzsche, Ecce Homo.
Fine, but how far back do you want to go? There was a time when marriage meant that divorce was not possible.
Marriage changed from political to romantic around Shakespeare's time, which is what Antony and Cleopatra was about.
So about then.
The marriage not working, divorce or not, is within the performance of the word for man and woman relations.
It includes failure.
Milton wrote something about mute and spiritless mates being a reason to allow divorce.
rh - You got me to reach for a volume of Derrida. "'This knowledge is part of my Dionysian patrimony. Who knows? Maybe I am the first psychologist of the eternally feminine. Women all like me . . .'" Derrida, "Spurs," quoting Nietzsche, Ecce Homo.
"Spurs" is a great romp to read. Just skip the preface written by some idiot.
Weren't Paul Lynde and Charles Nelson Reilly among Johnny Carson's favorite guests? I don't think either of these two were open about their sexuality, but it was pretty obvious. And yet I don't recall Johnny ever making any disparaging remarks about them.
Forgive me for coming in so late, but I read through Prof. Althouse's posting and my thought was "How can she STILL be surprised at how nasty lefties can be?"
All of us here have known various extremists --- the bigot who just won't shut up about the "damn k*kes, the damn n****rs", "the aliens are HERE NOW", the 9-11 truthers, but all of us who have ever lived urban or especially have been in academia have run into the "Lefty nut job", and we know that they're some of the most unpleasant people on the planet.
I've had feminists who wouldn't shake my hand, Stalinists who defended the Soviet murder of millions, a guy tell me that North Korea was "freer" than the USA, someone tell me how "great" it was that white girls have such a high suicide rate, etc. I've seen them them flecked with rage & spittle after they find out that I know Marx & Marxists better than they do, and can correct their "heterodox" beliefs in public.
Rest assured, these nutjobs are standing behind the public figures handing out the talking points (e.g. Media Matters, Journo-List). They do those jobs because they really, really care about these issues & nobody else will hire them for very long.
"So about then."
About, meaning before Shakespeare's "lost years"? Or after?
Marriage probably took on its modern form with Anthony and Cleopatra, timewise.
Reference, Stanley Cavell, "Disowning Knowledge in Seven Plays of Shakespeare," the introduction.
where Hoosiers are stereotypically friendly and nice to everybody. That's what he remembers, and that is the Hoosier brand.
Put things into the context of the times.
Letterman is 67 (had to Google **scratch that** Bing it) and grew up during the 50’s-60’s way before the gay rights controversies began and when technology was primarily a tv, phone and automobile. During that time while still emerging/recovering from the depression and war years, I doubt if the general population was terribly concerned with, or aware of homosexuality. With current technologies, Hoosiers, as well as others, are no longer community insulated. Don’t know any Hoosiers but I suspect they are as aware as any and have their biases as well.
It used to be unfashionable to deny evolutionary principles and the fitness function. Today, not only is denigrating individual dignity tres chic, but so is debasing human life as many women, men, and trans follow the secular profits of wealth, pleasure, leisure, and narcissistic indulgence.
That said, [unqualified] progress has resulted in selective exclusion, rather than principled tolerance... and womb banks and sperm depositors. Thanks to selective normalization, male and female Femenists, and Democratic principles, human life and relationships have been reduced to a commodity, exchangeable, disposable, and fungible.
@Wilson,
And yet I don't recall Johnny ever making any disparaging remarks about them.
Oh, but Carson had an on-going bit about calling Wayne Newton's sexuality into question that was so harsh that not only would Newton not appear on the show, he ultimately tries to sue Carson to get him to cease & desist.
I'm sorry, if we try & excise gay jokes from the history of American comedy like we dis with racist humor, huge swaths will just disappear.
Just like Eric Idle is reported to have said when he learned that Graham Chapman was gay: "Wait, this doesn't mean we can't do any more fag jokes, does it?".
I have to comment on the fact that so many are giving their children pats on the back for being so much more tolerant towards gay people than their peers. It's not just gay people, it's people in general--the idea of a BMOC trying to find the geeky kid to beat up on is completely gone because social status is so fragmented, Which in the context of HS politics is a good thing.
We had a group of kids at my HS who loved Professional Wrestling. They recreated fights, wore wrestling make up, the whole shebang. In another place and time, those kids might have been candidates for Columbine like attacks. At my school, no one cared. THey performed at the school talent show--people thought they were weird, but really good at making wrestling matches. Everyone clapped and cheered.
AA: What if the girls at school we're superficially friendly to your daughter, but then they got together without her and talked about how she's too ugly and stupid to be seen socially with them?
What about them? Back to Big Mikes's original question, does one's daughter caring about being perceived as ugly and stupid indicate that those girls are wrong to have that perception, and that their perceptions need to, and can be, "fixed"?
Codes of civility are established to solve a certain set of social problems. The problem of how to deal with the backstabbing apes in the compound is a different social problem requiring different social skills. Why are you conflating them?
I note in passing that neither of the above solutions are in the province of law. In sane societies, anyway.
Of course, there's value to superficial politeness and we wouldn't be free if we had to show exactly how we feel about other people. That's a good idea as far as it goes. It just doesn't go all the way into what really matters in human relations.[emph.added]
Now that's a chilling phrase. Just how far into "what really matters in human relations" are you planning to galumph in your jackboots in order to "fix" what's beyond the reach of "superficial politeness"?
Man, some people will never, ever be put off, no matter what, from the project of creating New Soviet Man.
To give an obvious example: What if a black person sat through a perfectly pleasant interview with a prospective employer who smiled warmly throughout, but then he didn't get the job because the employer can't stand black people?
Well, what about it? The problem for this individual here is "limitation of employment prospects because prospective employer doesn't want to hire people like you". (Been there, done that, like millions of other job seekers from "unprotected" classes, so I don't consider your example to be the egregiously obvious proof that you think it is for the necessity of legal measures and obnoxious social justice warrioring.)
So, what effect does the employers "superficial" civility have on his problem? No effect. Rude, polite, result is the same.
What effect does the interviewee's knowing and caring that this employer "can't stand black people" have on solving his problem? (Well, he can't know that for a fact in the scenario you've set up, but let's assume he does.) No effect. The employers real attitudes can't be "fixed" to solve the job-seekers problem. We can do as we do now, trying to address the problem in a general way via (highly problematic) efforts to "make windows into men's souls" with crude statistical tools like "disparate impact" and "patterns of behavior", and affirmative action. Can't see that the practice of "superficial politeness" has anything to do one way or another with any of the above.
I remember the days when late night comedy hosts would make fun of gay people. It was more-or-less of the same vein as how they might make fun of vegans now. Joking about people who are unusual in some way, might hurt their feelings but the jokes never conveyed hatred.
Watch any late night comedy show now and you will see an unending torrent of anti conservative hatred. It is obvious, bigoted and palpable.
As a founder of the Log Cabin California organization (aka gay Republicans) in the 1980s, I lived in gay mecca San Francisco. Much to my surprise (then) I always got more shit from Democrats and lefties for being Republican than I did from Republicans--including the Moral Majority types--for being gay. The PC disease was already then spreading its virulence across the state and now it has the capacity to trip up decent leaders like Pence and Hutchinson.
I hope and pray that, like other epidemics, this one will eventually burn itself out, but it has been going on for quite some time.
I've pointed this out before: a root cause is the toxic postmodernist rejection of Reason as a metric for social dialogue. Once you throw Reason out the window, all you have left (you pardon the pun) is Emotion.
As the nice NPR lady said this morning, Arkansas and Indiana have been hit with "a firestorm," which is in fact an Emotional irrationality in service of bludgering everyone into conformity with the leftist project of replacing citizenship with the condition of being wards of the State.
It's hard to see this ending nicely.
Ann Althouse said...I'm going to defend Letterman a bit, even though I'm sure Meade is right about Hoosiers and homosexuality in the 1950s. One thing is, Letterman makes no effort to understand what RFRA actually says and how it is likely to work in practice: "Honestly, I don't know what [Mike Pence] is talking about."
The defense of Letterman is that he's reacting to something he doesn't know anything about, and criticising others based on his own ignorance combined with a biased response?
@Marty Keller,
I've pointed this out before: a root cause is the toxic postmodernist rejection of Reason as a metric for social dialogue.
BINGO!
Did we hear someone at the back just yell "BINGO"?
Ann Althouse said...Some of the risk can be balanced by the burden of proof and the filtering that takes place in the government agencies and when lawyers decide whether to take cases.
Good thing people don't have reasons to distrust their government agencies, or feel like they're overly partisan in their approach to issues like this (with a finger on the scale), right? Since we all trust Eric Holder to play things right down the middle I can't see why anyone would have a problem with relying on government agencies (some of whose very existence is predicated on determining there is a problem for them to fix) acting as filters to prevent spurious use of the law.
Ouch, subject verb agreement, sorry.
"Now that's a chilling phrase. Just how far into "what really matters in human relations" are you planning to galumph in your jackboots in order to "fix" what's beyond the reach of "superficial politeness"?"
No. Why did you read it that way?
All I said was niceness has some function, but if you think it covers what's most important in human relationships, you're wrong. How could I possibly be talking about coercion? My examples were about kids' friendships and husbands and wives.
"Try reading beyond the dictionary and into some philosophy, such as "The Second Sex.""
But first, try reading De Beauvoir's memoirs, in French, just to get the full flavor. Then let's talk about this "philosophy."
Of course, after you hang out with Sartre long enough, you're bound to feel like "Second Sex."
These were also the sorts of people, incidentally, who really did think that living authentically meant always being honest. No civility bullshit for them. (Not that B. in her selective self-disclosure practiced what she preached.)
To put the "philosophy" in perspective, here's bit from Wikipedia:
"De Beauvoir was known to have a number of female lovers. The nature of some of these relationships, some of which she began while working as a professor, later led to a biographical controversy. A former student, Bianca Lamblin (originally Bianca Bienenfeld), in her book, Mémoires d'une jeune fille dérangée, wrote that, while she was a student, she had been exploited by her teacher de Beauvoir, who was in her thirties at the time.[18] In 1943, de Beauvoir was suspended from her teaching job, due to an accusation that she had, in 1939, seduced her 17-year-old lycee pupil Nathalie Sorokine. Sorokine's parents laid formal charges against de Beauvoir for abducting a minor and as a result she had her licence to teach in France permanently revoked. She and Jean-Paul Sartre developed a pattern, which they called the “trio,” in which de Beauvoir would seduce her students and then pass them on to Sartre. Both he and she later regretted what they viewed as their responsibility for psychological damage to at least one of these girls."
In the example about intentional race discrimination in employment, however, I do think there's a proper govt remedy, but for the discrimination, not to coerce some relationship beyond superficial politeness.
"The debate over the Indiana RFRA is pissing off a lot of people in middle America, and, in particular, the more devout Christians. Homosexual actions and behavior are considered major sins throughout much of Christianity. And, this country was, and may still be, a very Christian country. It is one thing to accept that others will sin, and that you should look to your own sins first. But, it is quite a different thing to demand that people accept and support your sinful activities. And, that is what many people think that this thing in Indiana is all about."
Maybe some of these devout Christians don't like politicos leveraging their careers off their religion. I don't know. I don't speak for the,. Do you?
Maybe some devout Christians and Middle America don't like legal professors twisting their genuine concerns into a hypothetical question about what politicos are doing regarding leverage and religion...
I don't know. But what I do know is that people who would have at one time say live-and-let-live decided to actively support Chik-fil-A. And Hobby Lobby. And push back against Firefox. And the majority still votes against gay marriage, even if the judicial system has decided that hey, turns out you suckers should have pushed for the constitutional amendment when you had the chance.
I never supported gay marriage, but I didn't see any real need to fight it. If a gay couple wants hospital visitation rights or wear a white dress, that was there business. Had my state had a vote on the issue, I more than likely have abstained from voting on it.
But now it is clear that "toleration" is code for forcing the populace to actively cheer-lead. The option to live-and-let-live has been removed by the same people who swore blind all they wanted was to be left alone with the same rights as everyone else. So bullshit, if it ever comes to a vote (impotent as it may be), I will vote against it.
So, the plural of anecdote isn't data, up until the moment that it is.
Ann Althouse said...How could I possibly be talking about coercion? My examples were about kids' friendships and husbands and wives.
How could I possibly be talking about coercion? My example was a small business owner deciding what kind of work she didn't want to do (since it conflicts with her personal religious beliefs)?
I think the implied argument is one of a slippery slope, Professor, whether one buys that argument or not is another matter.
In the example about intentional race discrimination in employment, however, I do think there's a proper govt remedy, but for the discrimination, not to coerce some relationship beyond superficial politeness.
Here's an opportunity for an intellectual advance.
How about discrimination doesn't matter unless it's in a monopoly market?
The law says one thing, and it should say another.
That maximizes welfare by way of using voluntary transactions instead of coerced ones.
The math on this is not hard.
Conor Friedersdorf made a good point when he noted that it seems those who are late to the party on gay rights seem to be the most zealous about attacking others who haven't "come around" yet.
What we're seeing here is going well beyond trying to assert rights and dignity for gay people--which is something many of us have supported since the days the Clintons decided that, being the paragon of marital bliss, they could sign a law to stymie gay marriages. This is becoming bullying and harassing, and it's not only ugly but it serves no purpose. If someone opposes gay rights, fine--let them make their case, and reason with them--that tactic has done more to change attitudes over the past decades than any "shaming" and boycotts.
Letterman's always been a mean-spirited, entitled tool, from the days he couldn't hack Leno taking his job (one of the few things I'll thank Leno for) to his rude behavior towards guests like Bill O'Reilly (note--if you refer to yourself as "thoughtful" you probably aren't). He doesn't seem to even understand the Indiana law in question, which isn't surprising because he's an idiot, and fails to see the progress gay people have made since he was a stupid kid.
Even though I'd like to see gays treated as equals and given the right to marry, it's obvious that this is a far more prevalent attitude than it was even when I was a kid in the '80s (and calling someone "gay" was a more common, and more hurtful, slur).
Fine, but how far back do you want to go? There was a time when marriage meant that divorce was not possible.
A Progressive idea ruined marriage. Marriage should be markedly harder to get into and markedly harder to get out of.
Maybe some of these devout Christians don't like politicos leveraging their careers off their religion. I don't know. I don't speak for the,. Do you?
Honestly, who does that? They ALWAYS cave to pop culture.
As a Christian, I know any pol claiming to support my faith is lying. So be it.
On the times when I do vote, I have few qualms about leaving a lot of votes uncast.
"Some of the risk can be balanced by the burden of proof and the filtering that takes place in the government agencies and when lawyers decide whether to take cases."
heh... right. Sorry sister - but after 6+ years of the Obama DOJ, I've lost any belief or confidence in the 'filtering' that takes place in your great and powerful government agencies with their armies of lawyercrats.
Are they from the same area of Indiana? In Arkansas, which part makes a world of difference.
To give an obvious example: What if a black person sat through a perfectly pleasant interview with a prospective employer who smiled warmly throughout, but then he didn't get the job because the employer can't stand black people?
There was such active discrimination in the hard science faculty hirings in the mid-1990s. I heard such things as "we'd hire you except that we need to hire a a woman or a minority." There's no reason to get all butt hurt--you just apply someplace else that isn't so constrained.
AA: All I said was niceness has some function, but if you think it covers what's most important in human relationships, you're wrong. How could I possibly be talking about coercion? My examples were about kids' friendships and husbands and wives.
You were responding to Big Mike. Neither he nor I nor anyone else made any claims whatsoever that went anywhere near the notion that niceness is "what's most important in human relationships". You dragged that in yourself with a couple of examples that were irrelevant to the context - the function of impersonal "good manners".
And since you did not restrict your examples to the context-irrelevant examples of "kids' friendships and husbands and wives" - emotional, private relationships - but responded with a third example of an entirely public, impersonal relation (employer/prospective employee), an area where you do support coercive measures for specific social goals, it's a bit disingenuous for you to ask "[h]ow could I possibly be talking about coercion?".
In any negotiation of a private contract for personal services, including wedding-related services, both parties should be free to walk away.
Contracts made under coercion are not binding, correct, professor?
I heard from a colleague, an acqaintance and group of students I worked with in Kenya today.
They narrowly escaped a terrorist incident and thankful simply to be alive.
Our trivial first world problems that take so much time and effort to litigate seems a little tiresome.
My former business partner is gay. I found him to be one the best sources of gay jokes; a bottomless well of gay humor. I could always count on him to cheer me up ... And make me laugh with high drama.
Too bad we all can't laugh at ourselves a little more.
I went to high school in Indiana in the late 70s and early 80s in an all-white school. That is, except for one black guy who also turned out to be gay (although at the time one didn't admit to being gay, but it was pretty obvious).
I remember people giving hit a lot of shit, but also remember people befriending him and standing up for him, including the BMOC at the school who happened to be the star running back of the football team.
So I guess in Indiana people are a little bit of a mixed bag; some cool people and some jack wagons. Pretty much like everywhere else.
Seems a little stupid to characterize a state as either homophobic or tolerant.
Jokes about homosexuals go back a lot further than Johnny Carson. Try Aristophanes. From The Clouds as our playwright introduces the chorus of clouds:
STREPSIADES
Tell me then why, if these really are the Clouds, they so very much resemble mortals. This is not their usual form.
SOCRATES
What are they like then?
STREPSIADES
I don't know exactly; well, they are like great packs of wool, but not like women-no, not in the least....And these have noses.
SOCRATES
Answer my questions.
STREPSIADES
Willingly! Go on, I am listening.
SOCRATES
Have you not sometimes seen clouds in the sky like a centaur, a leopard, a wolf or a bull?
STREPSIADES
Why, certainly I have, but what of that?
SOCRATES
They take what metamorphosis they like. If they see a debauchee with long flowing locks and hairy as a beast, like the son of Xenophantes, they take the form of a Centaur in derision of his shameful passion.
STREPSIADES
And when they see Simon, that thiever of public money, what do they do then?
SOCRATES
To picture him to the life, they turn at once into wolves.
STREPSIADES
So that was why yesterday, when they saw Cleonymus, who cast away his buckler because he is the veriest poltroon amongst men, they changed into deer.
SOCRATES
And to-day they have seen Clisthenes; you see....they are women.
Clisthenes was (probably) an effeminate homosexual. Aristophanes abuses him further in other plays for similar gags. Furthermore, Clisthenes was probably in the audience for all this abuse and probably laughed along with it. IIRC, when Pericles was being lampooned by some comedy or other went up to the stage to compare his face to the likeness of the actor's mask.
Might as well explain the other jokes. Xenophantes's son was Hieronymus who wore his hair very long, Simon stole public funds (we know nothing else about him), and Cleonymus lost his shield in the retreat from Delium (Athenian defeat) and was branded a coward. And Socrates is that Socrates; Plato did not much like this play as it made his mentor look like a gas bag.
Oh, and people who cannot laugh at themselves are boring.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा