Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this entry.

Comments

• 5/8/2009 9:27 AM Jim wrote:
  I wonder why some people think it is helpful to participate in name-calling when there is just an honest difference of opinion.
  
  Bigot is the example of name-calling I see here, but that is just the tip of the iceberg in our current nasty and mean political discourse.
  
  I learned in fourth grade that when people use swear words or vulgarities, that usually indicates a limited vocabulary.
  
  In like manner, I see name-calling as an easy way to demonize those with a different opinion rather than engaging an issue using facts and reason.
  
  Just my opinion.
  Reply to this
  1. 5/10/2009 9:59 AM Larry Bradley wrote:
     

     From Webster's Dictionary--
     
     bigot

     
      

     Main Entry:

     big·ot

     Pronunciation:

     \ˈbi-gət\

     Function:

     noun

     Etymology:

     French, hypocrite, bigot

     Date:

     1660

     : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

     — big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective

     — big·ot·ed·ly adverb
     
     This issue is not about a difference of opinion. This is about denial of equal protection under the law by applying sexual and social prejudice based on hatred and intolerance. It's a straightforward application of the Constitution. I (like Frank Rich) see the denial of a minority group (Gays, I read somewhere are about 3% of the population) of their civil rights as bigoted. That's not name calling. Bigot is not a swear word or a vulgarity (although, in a sense, the practice of bigotry is a vulgarity). The word simply reflects an accurate assessment of the circumstance.
     
     That's how I see it, anyway.
     
     
     
     Reply to this
• 5/27/2009 5:12 PM Jim wrote:
  Here is a good discussion on gay marriage in California.
  
  This analysis points out that the attacks on opponents didn't work for gay marriage advocates. Calling supporters of Prop 8 "Haters", demonizing the Mormon Church, and, of course, heaping abuse on Miss California, hurt their cause by alienating potential supporters.
  
  In other words, their use of polarizing behavior backfired on them.
  
  The article offers the opinion that in order to prevail, the California Gay Marriage movement needs to lay off the attacks and just make a better case for Gay Marriage. Honey attracts more bees than vinegar does.
  
  That sounds reasonable to me.
  
  http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gay-marriage-advocates-in-california-face-another-setback/
  Reply to this

Leave a comment