You are so dead on with this that I can't even express how damn right you are. Spouting hate is not an expression of freedom but the road to its antithesis. I think its high time we stop acting like every argument has two sides! Rock on!
I'm crying. Geez, I'm crying. Thank you for this.
"The conservatives are crying foul, claiming Sorba's freedom of speech was restricted"
Well Boo Fuckin' Hoo 
Not like they've ever given a shit when anybody else's freedoms were restricted
The conservatives are crying foul, claiming Sorba's freedom of speech was restricted
Somebody call a waaaaaambulance!!
Awesome post. And good on you for expressing your opinions so vigorously. A right to speak does not include a right to be heard, after all.
Thank you Sarah in Chicago. You are right, this is our lives. A woman, Eudy Simelane, that played for our national women's soccer team was raped and murdered recently. There is speculation that this was a hate crime, because Eudy was a lesbian.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/a.../2005-
7565.html
This is happening more frequently. It has to stop.
I agree.
And I'd like to add that free speech was totally exercise. The whole point of free speech is to guarantee the rights of citizens to call their government or other institutions of authority on bullshit. The protesters were exercising their right to free speech, and damn they did it well.
I disagree with the ideas presented by the group that was drowned out, but I don't think you have done anything constructive. These people aren't going to go home and change their minds because you did not allow them to speak. These people will not stop communicating their point of view to others because you did not allow them to speak. It may be your life but anyone has the right to say what they want about it. Who is to decide what a person can say and what they cannot?
Further there is nothing you can do to stop them from communicating their views unless you persuade them to change their minds. If it made you feel better to drown them out while they were speaking then it sounds like the evening was worth while for the satisfation it gave you. But these people will continue on.
"These people will not stop communicating their point of view to others because you did not allow them to speak. It may be your life but anyone has the right to say what they want about it. Who is to decide what a person can say and what they cannot?"
No one decided what they "could say" or "could not say" -- Sorba could have chosen to go on speaking -- he was drowned out by the voices, not stopped from speaking.
And that is an apt metaphor for how change has really happened in this country, in terms of homophobia, racism, able-ism, sexism, etc. -- it's not that truly confirmed homophobes, racists, sexists, able-ists, etc., have stopped speaking -- it's that their speech has been overwhelmingly repudiated and dwarfed by the voices of people of conscience.
Let the tiny, mewling voice of bigotry be drowned by the roar of equality.
You know what, Quilter? Segregation wasn't changed because racist bigots suddenly became enlightened. They became enlightened because we, as a nation, finally said no to segregation.
I say "no" to homophobia.
Oh -- and Sarah?
Great post, you big old lesbo you.
{{OSarah&SZO}}
This ISN'T merely the exchange of opinions and ideas. This isn't about people on differing sides of issues finding together common ground and the best solution. THIS IS OUR LIVES.
Precisely how many people would have died if Sorba had been able to stand up and have his rubbish exposed on stage? Be exact here - he has given this speech at other campuses and no doubt will do so in the future - how many people have died as a result?
The brave and noble rhetoric, Sarah - is extremely stirring, especially to those of us who have suffered or seen our friends suffer due to prejudice. I realised back with the 1984 Homosexual Law Reform Bill just where I stood on the issues, and I've been more than willing to deal with people calling me a fag as a result. And we've (largely) won in NZ.
But your defense is rhetoric. The action has achieved worse than nothing - it has given Sorba the only victory he might ever claim from his "theory" - that you're so frightened of it you cannot allow him to speak.
And no doubt he or the wingnuts will be pushing precisely this line for years to come. Used skillfully, it will make this crap seem more plausible.
Another gay opinion on the matter.
I note Carol Christ's comment on the matter. Their is a deep incompatibility between Christ's statement:
"As clearly affirmed in Smith’s statement of academic freedom and freedom of expression, "Once members of the Smith community extend an invitation, others may not abridge a speaker’s freedom of expression because they dislike or oppose the speaker, find her or his ideas noxious, or perceive the speaker to be associated with policies or practices believed to be erroneous or even evil." We are investigating possible violations of college policy, including the policy on the conduct of demonstrations and protests."
and your statement:
"So yes, we will take this fight to you. We will shut you down. We will drown out those that would spread hate and intolerance under the 'protection' of freedom of ideas. Because you aren't spreading ideas and debate; even if you dress it up in the trappings of such a Trojan Horse, we recognise it for what it is—hate."
The ethical response to this incompatibility for anyone at that campus that holds to your opinion, as I assume most of the protestors did, is to resign as a member of the Smith community - to leave the uiversity because of its statement on academic freedom.
Try to avoid an ad hominem attack on me, or holding me as somehow agreeing with Sorba or the anti-gay wingnuts - do you agree or not agree that a protestor at Smith, disagreeing with tenets of academic freedom the university expouses, should ethically leave the university?
t's that their speech has been overwhelmingly repudiated
Drowning out an opinion is not repudiating it. If anything, it just adds more creedence to the opinion among those who might give it some credit.
I love you, Sarah. 
This is exactly the right response. It's the right response to the Phelps people, it's the right response to KKK rallies, it's the right response whenever this kind of hatred is brought out in public. Free speech means that others can express theirs, too, not that they have to wait silently while crap is spewed. The only way to get rid of this is to stamp it out when it happens, to make it absolutely clear that NO, society will not tolerate this shit. The point isn't to change the mind of the person saying it, it's to make it socially unacceptable for them to say it so that everyone on the sidelines sees that it's wrong.
do you agree or not agree that a protestor at Smith, disagreeing with tenets of academic freedom the university expouses, should ethically leave the university?
Phoenician in a time of Romans | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 4:50 am | #
Whilst I'm sure you'd prefer to leave it as a yes or no question, being an ethics grad student I must muck up your nice dichotomy.
Like most interesting ethical questions, under most any ethical theory worth its salt, the answer is 'it depends'. If nothing else then on the other circumstances involved. Your question presents an incomplete case. Does the protester in question have other options for their education if they leave Smith? Do they have other options for employment if they don't have educational options? Do those employment options meet with moral principles they hold with equal standing to the one for which they are considering leaving Smith? What are their options for addressing their disagreement with Smith? And so on and so forth.
I'm sorry, Sarah, to derail the comments to your post - I thought it was powerful, and I applaud you for drawing the line - but the whole 'ethical question for serious' thing, I just couldn't resist.
this is an incredibly amazing post. really and truly.
beautiful.
*blub*
Precisely how many people would have died if Sorba had been able to stand up and have his rubbish exposed on stage? Be exact here - he has given this speech at other campuses and no doubt will do so in the future - how many people have died as a result?
As a direct result of his speeches? Probably no one. As a result of the hatred he pushes, though? Many. Those who advocate dehumanising other people are responsible when others who hear their words translate them into action. You know this, and trying to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Not that I'm surprised.
But your defense is rhetoric. The action has achieved worse than nothing - it has given Sorba the only victory he might ever claim from his "theory" - that you're so frightened of it you cannot allow him to speak.
When someone stands on a podium in front of many people and says "These people here are not true humans, are not worthy of the same respect and rights as we are", why on Earth should the targeted group not be frightened? Drowning out his vile message with protests is not granting him a victory, it's handing him a defeat. And here you try to pretend otherwise, pushing the "if you ignore it, it'll go away" meme. I know you live on the opposite side of the planet from most of us, but I happen to know that reality does NOT work oppositely down there.
The ethical response to this incompatibility for anyone at that campus that holds to your opinion, as I assume most of the protestors did, is to resign as a member of the Smith community - to leave the uiversity because of its statement on academic freedom.
No, because nobody was silenced. Sorba came to speak, and nobody forced him to stop. He decided to stop because he realized it was fruitless. He realized he had lost. No one's freedom, academic or otherwise, was impeded in any way.
Try to avoid an ad hominem attack on me, or holding me as somehow agreeing with Sorba or the anti-gay wingnuts
Awfully hard not to, when that looks like exactly what you're doing. Or perhaps you just felt like lecturing the silly wimmins on their silly misconceptions about standing up for themselves. Again, not surprising.
But hey, you wanted a substantive rebuttal, you got one. This time.
>Segregation wasn't changed because racist bigots suddenly became enlightened. They became enlightened because we, as a nation, finally said no to segregation.
I say "no" to homophobia.
PortlyDyke | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 4:45 am | #
Absolutely, people said NO... Not sure if bigots got enlightened or just went underground, until they either mellowed with age or keeled over. Some stayed around in our Congress for a very long time, though; and some learned how to put on sheeps' clothing until something (usually a public speech) gives them away. The same thing would/does happen with any prejudice, I think.
"Precisely how many people would have died if Sorba had been able to stand up and have his rubbish exposed on stage?"
As a direct result of his speeches? Probably no one. As a result of the hatred he pushes, though? Many.
Further to Flewellyn's point, "This is our lives" doesn't just refer to potential death; it refers to the concrete lives that LGBT people are leading, and which the likes of Sorba wish to force them to abandon.
Sarah: that was an awesome post.
These people aren't going to go home and change their minds because you did not allow them to speak.
The Great Progressive Fallacy is that they'll go home and change their minds after a thoughtful, reasoned debate. That people in the audience will go home and change their minds after a thoughtful, reasonable debate.
You know what? I was one of these people. Oh, I don't think this ex-gay movement was as big back then, but it was the same shit, with different packaging. Such attitudes are fueled not by rational choices between different theologies, but by isolation from other world views. It was like living in a world where we had always been told that 2+2=5; debating, then, whether 1+2=3 or 4 is pointless - we're not even doing the same math.
What finally opened my eyes was meeting actual gay people, actual atheists, agnostics who were (surprise surprise) capable of as much love and compassion as anyone I had known before. The solution to bigotry caused by isolation is to disabuse them of their faulty logic by showing them, loudly and strongly, that 2+2 will always equal 4.
Piator -
Other's have well refuted your points quite well, so I don't need to go over those again and be repetitive.
However, I would honestly have expected better of you. I did in no place say that we should completely abandon the tools of rhetoric and debate. I mean, after all, our argument is right, both in ethics and in simply being grounded in reality, so it is a strong argument.
But as I said in my post, the rightness of an argument isn't the only consideration in many spaces and confrontations. Hate masquerading as reasoned argument and protected as such does not respond to enlightened appeal. It is the antithesis of such, and so to play along with the pretence of such is merely to hand defeat to those that know very well that their position is not based on reality and reason.
And directly killed? Please, that's almost insulting. I cannot believe you would even include that, and I know you're miles more intelligent than that, so don't offend me with such a straw-question. You know very well the connection between hate-speech and hate-acts.
And as to your ethics question, as so well pointed out above, your binary is a false dichotomy.
And thanks everyone, this was written because I was sick and tired at having our pleas for our rights and lives falsely positioned and equated as the flip-side to those of these hate-mongers.
We often hear ourselves repeating the old saw that the solution to the problem of free speech is *more* free speech.
In these events, we see this demonstrated. The problem of hate speech is solved by the speech of self-respect.
Perfect. Good post.
As a recent Smith graduate who still lives up the road from her alma mater, lemme tell you a couple things about Smith.
One -- the Christ, that is, the college's president, really does not get it. She straight up does not get Smith. One of the things she does not get is how gay gay gay-y gay the school is. And how many of the non-queer students are strong allies. Also, I swear, she reminds me of Condi Rice -- something about the hair and the smile. Or maybe the Grinch, with that smile.
Two -- the Smith College Republicans are a joke. They are offensive, useless, ridiculous and pathetic. The hold conservative coming out day every year. They protest knock-off handbags (no really, that happened). Also, there's like 6 of them.
Third -- they paid Sorba with college money. If nothing else, the protesting students should very well be angry that their money is going to a person who is oppressing them.
... we recognise it for what it is-hate .... And we know what to do with hate.
You cannot dress it up, you cannot make it pretty or acceptable .... it is not. Call it out, name it and demand that it be recognised for what it is. He who dealt it must be made to wear it! Freedom to speak is an essential weighing of our responsibilities ... No one kept Sorba from speaking, no one told him he could not, he made a choice to stop ... and exposed himself as a coward.
Beautiful post Sarah .. thanks!!
"Who is to decide what a person can say and what they cannot?"
Certainly not bigots. There, that was easy.
Who defends bigots, seriously, unless they are one?
I was under the impression that the First Amendment protection of speech had to do with protecting individuals' right to expression from government action:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If the government were exercising power in an effort to prevent Sorba's speech from taking place, there might be reasonable grounds to consider that an abridgment of free speech. But the case Sarah describes has nothing to do with government interference in protected speech.
Instead, there were citizens on both sides of an issue expressing themselves. To say that Sorba's speech is protected but that the protesters' speech is out-of-line is to privilege Sorba's right to speech over the protesters' rights.
In other words, the free speech complaint is crap. Sorba and the protesters each got to express themselves, and Sorba found himself overmatched by the circumstances.
oh i am so proud of my fellow smithies, and i think i'll write one of those angry-alum letters to carol christ now. the students there are so wonderful!!
What guys like Sorba and his ilk think, is that everyone should sit quietly in their "Free Speech" zones and nod their heads in assent to his nonsense.
Protest is protest and if his opponents show up and outnumber him and drown him out, so be it. Deal with it. Go on Faux Noise and whine away the day.
Homophobia will end in this country when the day comes that anyone who wants to come out, will be able to without fear for how their families and friends react.
I think those Smith kids were fantastic.
Right on, Smith. And right on, Sarah.
Spot on Sarah! Wonderful post.
No free speech abridged there; at least not constitutionally speaking. Said suppression of the right to free speech can only become a First Amendment issue if perpetrated by a government entity. These were students and other private citizens, so the college rethugs don't have a constitutional leg to stand on.
I would, however, like to introduce them to the concept of equal protection and how it applies to everyone, even people of whom they don't "approve".
Sarah, amazing post. Thank you so much for letting us read it.
Although, after the first paragraph the first thing that popped into my head was, "Wait, Smith has College Republicans? Smith??"
-a former MoHo
Personally, I think it's a fine idea to let these hate-filled homophobics see that they can't always keep their ideas in a bubble (i.e., preaching to the choir). I think it could be instructive for them to see that so many people challenge their pathetic and inexcusable viewpoints. Not unlike, say, when the Nazis come to town. Of course, they're free to speak but they should never go unchallenged.
We often hear ourselves repeating the old saw that the solution to the problem of free speech is *more* free speech.
In these events, we see this demonstrated. The problem of hate speech is solved by the speech of self-respect.
What Tata said. A lot. With a hug and a big thank you.
Sarah, wonderful post!
To those who object to the vocal protest, would you feel differently if the speaker had been advocating the inherent inferiority of people of color or women? This is not some well-meaning person who said something stupid that can be addressed in private. Silence would be seen as equivalent to acceptance, and that's not acceptable.
So you claim that he deserves to be silenced because he dehumanizes you with his opinions, but you do not for a moment consider that you essentially dehumanize him by silencing him and deciding that his opinions are not worth hearing.
So he's a bigot but you're not, even though you've done the same thing that you allege (with a big question mark on that) he would have done to you.
Classic feminist doublethink. You can't make this stuff up even if you wanted to.
"To those who object to the vocal protest, would you feel differently if the speaker had been advocating the inherent inferiority of people of color or women?"
People of color and women are born that way. It is still an open question scientifically whether gay people are born that way, or become gay due to environmental conditions. That was to be the topic of the talk as I understand it, and the rest is just triggering rhetoric by the typical terror-anarchists.
"So you claim that he deserves to be silenced because he dehumanizes you with his opinions, but you do not for a moment consider that you essentially dehumanize him by silencing him and deciding that his opinions are not worth hearing."
Hate is not something worthy of tolerance. Ignorance is not something worthy of tolerance.
This ain't rocket science, troll.
And, who's advocating who should be oppressed, "cured", ostracized and/or exterminated again?
"so many people challenge their pathetic and inexcusable viewpoints"
This is not a challenge. This is silencing. It is nothing less than violence.
Shut the fuck up, Jim. You clearly have no concept of violence.
"Hate is not something worthy of tolerance. Ignorance is not something worthy of tolerance."
If you claim that a certain opinion or conclusion is mistaken, there are legitimate avenues of challenging it. You invite the speaker to a debate. You publish papers. You write op-ed pieces. What you do not do is mob the speaker and prevent him from being heard, even though he has legitimately secured the right to be there and speak there.
This is nothing less than mob mentality and it is despicable.
"Shut the fuck up, Jim."
I refuse to shut the fuck up. What are you going to do, silence me through violence like your hateful sisters at Smith College?
I'm also proud of my fellow Smithies. I'm a chair of our campus feminist org and a lot of our members attended the protest (the details and aftermath of which were hammered out on the feminist mailing list!) and I'm glad to see a blog post not slamming our methods. It was discussed on our blog as well, so check it out (linked from my name).
I'm so sick of the infighting among the queer community at Smith in regards to this issue when we should be busy with the real enemy, who is Ryan Sorba and his ilk, and NOT the Smith Republicans. If we are going to have a reasoned debate, let's have it with them, not him. They are members of our community, he is not.
Thanks again, Sarah, and all the supportive people in comments. I know tons of Smithies will be excited to see this up on Shakes!
"Who defends bigots, seriously, unless they are one?"
Who gets to decide who's a bigot? I think you're a bigot, personally. So do I get to shut you up now?
"If we are going to have a reasoned debate, let's have it with them, not him. They are members of our community, he is not."
Do you only have debates with your own community? Is that how you achieve a heteroculture of ideas and opinions? Or do you only want to "preach to the choir" because you know that nobody there will challenge your bullshit?
"If you claim that a certain opinion or conclusion is mistaken, there are legitimate avenues of challenging it. You invite the speaker to a debate. You publish papers. You write op-ed pieces."
Except, that's not what this guy did, is it.
"What you do not do is mob the speaker and prevent him from being heard, even though he has legitimately secured the right to be there and speak there."
And they have the legitimate right to respond. Freedom of Speech doesn't equal the right to be heard, the right to not be disagreed with, or the right not to be offended.
"This is nothing less than mob mentality and it is despicable."
So why are you an MRA, then?
"Who gets to decide who's a bigot? I think you're a bigot, personally. So do I get to shut you up now?"
Do I really have to define bigot for you, troll? Big boys do their own research.
bravo. never fucking shut up sarah. never give a goddamn inch. never.
"The Great Progressive Fallacy is that they'll go home and change their minds after a thoughtful, reasoned debate. That people in the audience will go home and change their minds after a thoughtful, reasonable debate."
Maybe that is a fallacy, at least with regards to people in that audience. But what about the broader picture? I remember reading something years ago (pre-blog era) in the same vein as Sarah's beautiful writing here that really got me to think. As a straight person, I have the privilege of counting on future generations to grow up to be less bigoted than people today. Gay people don't have that option; as Sarah says, it is their lives RIGHT NOW that are affected, to the point of being under threat. It was a piece of writing similar to Sarah's that got me to see gay rights as a human rights issue. Even if no one in the audience at Smith changed their minds, someone reading this post might start having that thoughtful, reasoned debate with themselves or people they know and understand what they're doing when they offer their opinion on what other people are allowed to do with their lives.
So thank you, Sarah.
Jim,
The fact that you come into a feminist blog and specifically insult feminists - that erases all of your credibility.
Sarah, thanks.
May I suggest you send this to studentactivism.net (or maybe someone in the the Smith organizing apparatus could connect)?
And rock on Smith, from an Amherst/Northampton native, who knows that even in the Happy Valley, gaybashing happens.
There's nothing more putrid than a misogynist homophobe claiming he's being oppressed -- violently, no less.
Jim is made of fail.
oooh... we've got us a new troll!
"Do I really have to define bigot for you, troll? Big boys do their own research."
Who says I have to be beholden to your definition? Perhaps according to my definition, you're a bigot. Do I get to shut you up now, bigot?
"The fact that you come into a feminist blog and specifically insult feminists - that erases all of your credibility."
Where's the insult? I don't see it. Show me one deprecating comment that I made that I have not backed up with facts.
Jim, just like Sorba, you are free to go elsewhere and spew your views. No one is oppressing you; no one is oppressing him. Grow up.
"And they have the legitimate right to respond. Freedom of Speech doesn't equal the right to be heard, the right to not be disagreed with, or the right not to be offended."
This isn't about freedom of speech anymore. The student-terrorists mobbed the auditorium and silenced the man through the use of organized mob tactics. This goes beyond the pale.
"Who says I have to be beholden to your definition? Perhaps according to my definition, you're a bigot. Do I get to shut you up now, bigot"
Um, no, sweetie pie, the dictionary defines the words. Words mean things, you see, and not always what you want them to mean.
"Jim, just like Sorba, you are free to go elsewhere and spew your views."
I am also free to stay and speak. Why don't you leave?
"This isn't about freedom of speech anymore"
how convenient. it's not about that, it's about Jim's deliberate misrepresentation of the events now!
"I am also free to stay and speak. Why don't you leave?"
Is this your blog? Do you pay the fees? Do the upkeep?
Once again, this ain't rocket science. Not your blog. Start you own blog to whine.
"Um, no, sweetie pie, the dictionary defines the words. Words mean things, you see, and not always what you want them to mean."
That's funny. I thought language was a living, changing structure that catered to the needs of society, not the other way around. I thought people defined and used words as they wished, and the dictionary tried to catch up with current usage. Which universe do you come from in which dictionaries are not descriptive (and not up-to-the-minute current at that) but rather prescriptive?
"Is this your blog? Do you pay the fees? Do the upkeep?"
This is HaloScan, a free comment forum. The authors of the blog associated with this forum haven't paid any fees to use this facility, either. So we are on equal footing.
"I thought language was a living, changing structure that catered to the needs of society, not the other way around."
The needs of society, yes. Which is not the same thing as the needs of a whiny misogynists and homophobes, is it.
What universe do you live in that revolves solely around you and your bigotries?
"The needs of society, yes. Which is not the same thing as the needs of a whiny misogynists and homophobes, is it."
As I see it, you're the hate criminal here. You support the actions of an angry mob. I support the right to free speech and reasoned debate.
So shut the fuck up already, bigot.
So shut the fuck up already, bigot.
Jim | 05.07.08 - 9:48 am | #
Oh hai! Julius, sweetums, is that you?
"So we are on equal footing."
No, dumpling, you're not. Haloscan's services on this blog are reliant on the blog existing, wouldn't you say?
Oh wait, I forgot - you, personally, get to redefine words to mean whatever you need them to mean at any given moment. So, when you say "we are on equal footing", today that means "rainbows are pretty".
I thought people defined and used words as they wished, and the dictionary tried to catch up with current usage.
Someone is suffering from some seriously acute right-wing thought poisoning. Language DOES change, over time. But it doesn't change just because you want it to. You could call us a banana or plastic or scissors or whatever other word you want to misappropriate, it won't make your usage any less of a misappropriation.
Jim, no one "silenced" the speaker. He came to a public venue, thinking he was going to speak to a few like-minded individuals who would nod throughout his spiel and clap when he was done. He left the stage because he could no longer put up with the heat. No one threatened him, no one burned his books, no one silenced him. The numbers were no longer on his side, so he scarpered. Too bad.
Oh, and hi, CScarlet! I almost went to Smith, and now I kind of wish I had. Great work.
"As I see it, you're the hate criminal here."
Okay, I'll go more slowly for you. The. Way. You. See. It. Is. Irrelevant.
"You support the actions of an angry mob."
Nope. I support the actions of students speaking out against a homophobic bigot.
"I support the right to free speech and reasoned debate."
Which today means: I can't tie my shoes.
"No, dumpling, you're not. Haloscan's services on this blog are reliant on the blog existing, wouldn't you say?"
No actually. Delete the blog, see if anything happens to the HaloScan forums. They'll stay right where they are. They are hosted and served from different hosts. This forum is free. None of you own it or rent it, and therefore cannot claim ownership rights on it.
"No actually. Delete the blog, see if anything happens to the HaloScan forums"
Ah, I see. You have no reading comprehension skills. Let me repeat:
Haloscans services ON THIS BLOG are reliant on the owner's paying for it to exist, wouldn't you say?
"No one threatened him, no one burned his books, no one silenced him."
The mobbing he faced could very easily be prosecuted under "disturbing the peace". It was not peaceful protest. It was an angry, hateful, bigoted mob, with the very real possibility of further violence developing. No one could really say at that point. I wish someone had called the police and gotten these criminals arrested.
Delete the blog, see if anything happens to the HaloScan forums.
Can we just delete you? Because seriously, we've heard it all before, and it's honestly kind of boring. Trolls are fun to poke at and all, but you're not saying anything new here. If you're going to troll, could you at least be original?
"Haloscans services ON THIS BLOG are reliant on the owner's paying for it to exist, wouldn't you say?"
No, for two reasons.
1. HaloScan services are not on any blog. They are hosted on their own server.
2. No one has to pay for a blog. Free blog hosts are available in a million places.
Ignorance must be bliss for you.
"The. Way. You. See. It. Is. Irrelevant."
That right there is proof of your bigotry. You are trying to silence me and dehumanize me. So shut the fuck up, bigot.
"Can we just delete you?"
Is that slang for killing me? Did you just threaten me with physical violence?
Would you really have the protesters arrested for "disturbing the peace?" During gay pride rallies, we have right wingers protesting all the time with megaphones. So if we should arrest people who come to a public rally to protest the College Republican speaker, then shouldn't those protesters be arrested as well? Or is the long baton of law only meant to smash down on a few queer faces?
You are trying to silence me and dehumanize me. So shut the fuck up, bigot.
Jim | 05.07.08 - 9:56 am | #
Are you, or have you ever been, Julius? You sound just like our most recent obsessive troll with a victim complex. 
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
"You sound just like our most recent obsessive troll"
Actually I tried to parallel Sarah's rhetoric from the original piece. She was claiming that Sorba's ideas somehow dehumanizes gay people, so she decided that it was a good idea to dehumanize him instead by silencing him. I am showing how behavior on this blog is no different from behavior that people are attributing to Sorba.
Is that slang for killing me?
Um, no, asswipe. It's "slang" for banning your IP address so you can stop spamming us with stupid, but since that's not my call, I was - what's that word again? - oh, right! Joking.
Nice try, though. Do keep going; I have to get my popcorn.
I think Jim is laboring under a common misconception about public debate- the point is NEVER to change your opponents mind but to change the minds of those who are watching. In the case of the Smith students, they showed that people are overwhelmingly in favor of treating gays and lesbians like human beings. And seeing other people humanize a person of group of people makes it easier for others to humanize them as well.
That Sorba chose the losing side and got his voice drowoned out is his own fault.
I am showing how behavior on this blog is no different from behavior that people are attributing to Sorba.
Jim | 05.07.08 - 10:01 am | #
But is it made of particles?
"During gay pride rallies, we have right wingers protesting all the time with megaphones."
Not a direct analogy. A rally is a sort of crowded celebration where hearing any specific person is not a high priority, but this was a speech that was being sabotaged by mob tactics. I'm pretty sure the police would be a lot more willing to arrest in a Smith-like case.
Juicy strikes again...
You are trying to silence me and dehumanize me.
Yup, we are silencing you. In a public forum. Where we have no ability as mere participants to ban you. In the slightest. In fact, we're so good at silencing you, you've managed to post more than anyone else in this thread, including myself, the author of the post.
And dehumanise you how precisely? Are we denying you are humanity, as Sorba does? Do we advocate for laws against you? Do we want to define you as somehow not worthy of the same citizenship or legal protections?
I'm unsure precisely how we are either silencing you (because, if so, we're doing a piss-poor job of it) or dehumanising you. All is asked of you is to take your bigoted views elsewhere (and yes, your views are bigoted. Either you support equal rights for LGBT people, including marriage, or you don't. Either you're not a bigot, or you are. Pick one) and display basic civil and polite human behaviour and leave, you know, the kind of thing civilised people do?
You have no credibility here, particularly from the moment you called the student protesters "terrorists". I mean, seriously, are you just defining words out of whole cloth now? Civil disobedience has a well established and respected history in this country, a fact you shouldn't try to pretend it doesn't.
But I'm sure you'll discount all this ... in fact, your language sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it Julius?
"In the case of the Smith students, they showed that people are overwhelmingly in favor of treating gays and lesbians like human beings."
I'm sorry but I don't consider an angry mob to be composed of human beings, only hateful bigots.
"2. No one has to pay for a blog. Free blog hosts are available in a million places."
Wow. You are an idiot, aren't you.
"That right there is proof of your bigotry. You are trying to silence me and dehumanize me. So shut the fuck up, bigot."
Words mean things, kitten. Try to learn them before you try to argue with the big kids.
I'm pretty sure the police would be a lot more willing to arrest in a Smith-like case.
Oh, I'm positive they would. Police are always a lot more willing to arrest teh gayz than those upstanding citizens who picket our rallies screaming about how God hates us and our children are going to hell.
"Not a direct analogy."
Incorrect. The protestors are attempting to shut down the festivities, but are unsucessful. unlike the students in the piece who beat the bigots at their own game.
Fail again, kitten.
If police are more likely to arrest in the Smith case, it's because the protesters were mostly young lesbian women instead of old Christian men (one of whom threatened to beat me up for singing hymns to him at a war protest once.)
Grow up, Jim. City governments have brought in helicopters to KKK rallies and nobody claimed a free speech violation because hey, they were still speaking. Free speech doesn't mean anybody has to listen. It also does not mean the right to speak without being heckled.
But I'm sure you'll discount all this ... in fact, your language sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it Julius?
Sarah in Chicago | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 10:05 am | #
Careful, Sarah, he might try to sue you for defamation of character.
I'm laughing so hard I can barely type!
so she decided that it was a good idea to dehumanize him instead by silencing him
Again with the specious redefining ... how do we dehumanise him? He advocates denying us rights and citizenship on the basis of who we love ... we don't advocate any such thing.
Tolerance of bigotry does the opposite of increasing tolerance, it actually promotes intolerance. The way to increase tolerance is to stamp out bigotry.
Ah yes, that old conservative "But you're oppressing me cause you won't let me oppress you!" shit.
That's an old and boring line - please try a new rhetorical trick if for no other reason that to save us from troll fatigue
Jim seems to forget that it's always a "mob" when it's a group of people he doesn't agree with. For example, the Republicans that shut down the vote count here in Miami in November 2000 weren't a "mob," they were "demonstrating vigorously."
""But you're oppressing me cause you won't let me oppress you!" "
Like that pol cartoon of the xtian whacking a gay man over the head with a 2x4 for three frames. The fourth has the gay man rubbing his head and saying "please stop that" to which the xtian replies "You're oppressing me!"
Or was it an atheist. I can't remember.
Oh Betty, it could have been either. Or it could have been a woman. So many possibilities for the upstanding Christians to oppressed in their oppressing
Damn- I am Queen of the typos this morning. Sorry folks- it should read to BE oppressed in their oppressing
No, you're right Betty, I actually have a copy of that comic
Is that slang for killing me? Did you just threaten me with physical violence?
Jim | 05.07.08 - 9:57 am | #
Report it to management. Take it to the Supreme Court. Call a fucking waaaaambulance. weeeeeeee!!!
I wish there was a waaaaaambulance smiley
Would it jinx things to say I think Julius is gone?
Prolly Sarah- and awesome post btw.
Symptoms:
telling everyone else to leave if we don't dig his shtick
imagining threats of physical violence over the interwebz
references to being oppressed and dehumanized
blanket demonization of "feminist" thinking
Diagnosis: JULIUS!
i guess the FBI is on the way to arrest us all for defamation and harassment
I sure hope he is gone...
Fantastic post Sarah!
" Would it jinx things to say I think Julius is gone?"
I dunno. Bigot trolls are like a Hydra. Cut off one head 1,000 whiners pop up in its place.
Sarah, I think his mother called down to the basement, "Julius, will you please stop messing with that computer and take out the trash? There are Cheetos bags all over the house!"
"It's not the basement, Mom! It's the Man Cave!"
Thanks guys for all your kind words ... it was just something that was swirling around in my head, and given the night wind was blowing up an incredible pre-storm before the thunderstorms arrived, it seemed like the time to write.
That, and someone incredibly awesome had made me feel very special.
Not to mention, 'Liss, despite being totally and completely taken down by the dreaded lurgy, was kind enough to pop it up for me.
Awe Sarah- I'd ask for details but I don't know you that well. But you sound like someone who had a really awesome first (?) date. You have that new person glow about you 
"Julius, I have had enough with your Man Cave. It's stinking up the whole house. And if you are going to keep sending up those stiff socks, you can do your own damn laundry!"
This was a very powerful and well-written post. You actually nailed the same concept I was trying to articulate in a (truly surreal) email exchange I somehow got into with a local hate group. Of course, there was no getting through to them, but it's great to see the argument I was trying to make done right.
Yay for Smithies -- I am one, and I'm so proud of the current students for refusing to remain silent when hateful and bigoted ideas are presented as a valid "side" of a debate. *Of course* the SC republicans are welcome to have speakers, and they have many speakers who don't express the kind of hurtful, untrue thesis that this author did. But they have to realize that expressing an agenda that questions the lgbt community's legitimacy is going to touch people deeply, because of the long, long history (and current circumstances) of discrimination and violence. Language and actions that intend to dehumanize and diminish the rights of others to simply live will always have a harmful effect on the community, and it's only fair and just that conscientious people indicate to those writers/speakers/etc. that they strongly disagree with them.
Julius/Jim is even better at being a wankstain troll than Dewd. How I would love to witness "Battle of the Trolls" between those two. Great Post Sarah! Way to beat down the troll, y'all. By the time I got here, he was already gone. BTW, troll, I meant "beat down" in a purely eupemistic way, in no way condoning actual violence. Thank you so much for shutting the fuck up.
"And dehumanise you how precisely? Are we denying you are humanity, as Sorba does? Do we advocate for laws against you? Do we want to define you as somehow not worthy of the same citizenship or legal protections?"
One of the moderators here just tried to dehumanize me by attempting to ban me and silence my voice. And a lot of you told me to fuck off or shut up. Typical mob tactics. Is that the best you can do?
*smile* Red Queen.
No, I wish it had been such. The story is that I had been trying to track down this one travel coffee mug that I really wanted. I went to a whole bunch of places, and finally found it in a sale stack at this one place.
I was totally bubbly and stupid over this coffee-mug, and my friend teased me about it, but was so cool.
Anyway, what did I promptly do, but leave it on the damp subway. I realised as I walked across the platform and was so pissed off and disappointed. I know it's silly to do so over a coffee mug, but I really liked it.
I texted my friend, and she consoled me. Then later that night, I get another text from her. Despite having just finished her last exam of the semester and having a large headache, she had gone to a place near where she lived, and searched through, and found another one of the exact mug for me.
She said "Just so you can sleep well tonight".
It's things like this that make a woman fall for someone.
To this post, I can only say
"Word."
i dont think his freedom of speech was restricted because a bunch of people exercised their freedom to assemble. its not like he got arrested for his views.
Dammit! I think I jinxed it. Seriously, Jim, go away. You are making no sense, really. I'm sure you think you are, but you aren't.
And a lot of you told me to fuck off or shut up.
Yeah, free speech sure does suck, doesn't it, troll?
Now fuck off and shut up.
One of the moderators here just tried to dehumanize me by attempting to ban me ...
oh the humanity!
Beautiful post Sarah.
"they have many speakers who don't express the kind of hurtful, untrue thesis"
So if you don't like something that someone has to say, you get to silence him. Is that what they teach you at school?
"i dont think his freedom of speech was restricted because a bunch of people exercised their freedom to assemble."
Freedom to PEACEBLY assemble, an important word which you conventiently chose to omit. The protesters did not do this. They intentionally created a ruckus in a way that violates the rights of others, for which they should have been arrested.
"You are making no sense, really."
I am, really. If you don't get it, that is really not my problem.
They intentionally created a ruckus...
They intentionally created a ruckus in a way that violates the rights of others, for which they should have been arrested.
I can see the scene in court now ... "What precisely are they charged with?" "Creating a 'ruckus', your honour!" "A ruckus?! The bounding cads!"
Seriously Julius, how were they doing anything illegal?
They were in a public space, exercising their freedom of expression, speech and assembly, just as Sorba was (course, he was also being paid to do so). His rights were not abridged in the slightest.
You may want to bone up on your law a tad, both civil and constitutional.
"Now fuck off and shut up."
Or what? What if I don't?
Freedom to PEACEBLY assemble
PEACEBLY?
HELP! The stupid! It burns!
Oh no, not a "ruckus!" Did they have hooligans and scalliwags?
"Seriously Julius, how were they doing anything illegal?"
The legal term is "disturbing the peace". They could all be arrested. You know it and I know it. Sorba was very merciful in not bringing the police into it. I would have.
Sorba was very merciful in not bringing the police into it. I would have.
First report it to management. That's always the first thing you must do.
Jim, are you disturbing the peace when you stand outside an abortion clinic screaming at the women going in about how they're murderers and whores?
Just wondering.
Wow, Jim,you just don't shut up do you?
You ask for one depreciating comment? Well, you've made more since then I see, but the specific one was so obvious that your oblivousness to it says quite a bit. It's when you said
Classic feminist doublethink.
You come on a feminist blog and insult feminists in this way, and then you throw a tantrum because we have the audacity to disagree with you.
You truly are stupid.
The legal term is "disturbing the peace".
But if they were, why didn't the College Republicans do so? They easily could have, according to you. But they didn't.
It's because this kind of protest has a well established position within civil rights actions. It's known and understood. Unless there was obvious threat of harm or of property, the police won't do anything. Hence, peaceful.
You really need to work on your definitions.
Yes Sarah- it is things like that. I just fell for someone cause he brought me groceries and (evil evil) cigarettes. Way more romantic than flowers I tell ya.
Glad you got your mug
The right to peaceably assemble covers everything from a nice quiet march to an angry protest. If they chased the speaker off the stage with pitchforks and torches, or threatened to tar and feather him, that would be one thing. Chanting "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" does not a mob make.
Oh no, not a "ruckus!" Did they have hooligans and scalliwags?
JoshWatermanMN | 05.07.08 - 10:42 am |
If you corner them, they might become ruffians!
Belial | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 10:49 am | #
Or wogues and wapscallions.
BWIAN! EXECUTE BWIAN!
Jim needs one of those pocket constitutions and he needs to learn how to read. I think he is confused about what kinds of rights he has to keep insulting people on a private (not publicaly owned) blog.
Is it my imagination, or has there been a proliferation of trolls lately? Or is it all Juicy?
Awesome. Just awesome.
I responded at length on my blog, but let's just say this misunderstanding whiny conservatives have of "Free Speech" is something that is commonly on my nerves.
I think the world is definitely more trolly lately. Maybe it's the longer hours of daylight, they have less time to skulk around outdoors in the dark?
"Could you describe the ruckus, sir?"
Red Queen | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 10:56 am | #
I suspect this is so!
"Could you describe the ruckus, sir?"
"Could you describe the ruckus, sir?"
I daresay it bordered on a fracas! *adjusts monocle*
It's Julius -- same IP masker.
One of the moderators here just tried to dehumanize me by attempting to ban me and silence my voice.
Sounds like Orientrollism to me!
It's Julius -- same IP masker.
I KNEW IT!
The particular brand of stupid is so distinctive.
Hai Julius!
First of all, this:
The authors of the blog associated with this forum haven't paid any fees to use this facility, either. So we are on equal footing.
...is wrong. If there are no ads in Haloscan, that means the blog owner's paying for it. See any ads?
Secondly, Jim is Julius/Lucy/etc. He uses an IP masker (or floating IP) and cannot be banned. So I strongly recommended ignoring the fuck out of him.
So I strongly recommended ignoring the fuck out of him.
Melissa McEwan | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 11:18 am | #
*pout*
If we do that, we won't get to be schooled in particle physics!
All right, all right, I'll stop now.
So I strongly recommended ignoring the fuck out of him.
Melissa McEwan | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 11:18 am | #
But ... but ... 'Liss, I wanna feed the troll!
I daresay it bordered on a fracas!
Thank God it stopped when it did, it might've turned into a donnybrook!
I think the world is definitely more trolly lately. Maybe it's the longer hours of daylight, they have less time to skulk around outdoors in the dark?
Red Queen | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 10:56 am | #
Well, everybody else is working or going to school and stuff.
liberalandproud, first I would recommend you leave some sawdust on the floor, to soak up any droppings.
When the the motorcycle dudes drown out the Phelps clan at soldiers funerals it is celebrated. When the clowns disrupt the KKK rally it is celebrated. When the students disrupt hate speech at their college they are threatened by the College administration? WTF?
Student protesters do not equal government. No ones right to free speech violated.
If you yell and someone yells louder your rights are not violated.
PiaToR - your belief that the righteous Smithies should pack up their toys and go home because a group on their campus invited an ass to speak is no different than all of the "wingers" yelling "if you don't like it leave!" when anyone voices opposition to US government policies. An unhelpful, unrealistic and unimaginative response.
If personal ethics required us all to make such a rigorous and false choice in association most of us would not be able to hold employment, find housing or purchase goods.
I celebrate the students actions.
Rock on Smithies and rock on Sarah!
"Jim, are you disturbing the peace when you stand outside an abortion clinic screaming at the women going in about how they're murderers and whores?"
Never done it, never would. I'm pro-choice. Don't go making assumptions. You'll only embarrass yourself.
I don't even necessarily subscribe to Sorba's views. I don't know what he has to say. He may have a point, he may not. But to attack his right to speak simply because you may not like what he may or may not have to say is simply unconscionable. It is inhumane. And it is unfortunately the kind of barbaric behavior that feminists are desperately trying to legitimize.
"Classic feminist doublethink."
I explained the exact nature of the doublethink. It's not an insult, it's an empirical observation. A statement with a sound basis in fact cannot possibly be an insult.
"But if they were, why didn't the College Republicans do so? They easily could have, according to you. But they didn't."
Neither did Sorba. They were being nice. I wouldn't be so nice against a mob out for my blood. I'd get the cops there and give them a taste of their own medicine. Violence only begets violence.
"It's because this kind of protest has a well established position within civil rights actions."
There's nothing civil about what these terror-anarchists did.
"The right to peaceably assemble covers everything from a nice quiet march to an angry protest."
It does not cover disturbing the peace the way these people did. There was nothing peaceful about this group of hateful bigots.
P.S. May I ask who's trying to ban me over and over, and for what reason? Is it a feminist habit to violently silence those who make good points that make you look bad?
"It's Julius -- same IP masker."
I don't know how you can say such a thing. I've had to change IP's half a dozen times in the past couple of hours just to have my say. It was not the same one every time. And if it was, it wouldn't have worked because you keep banning it.
I've had to change IP's half a dozen times in the past couple of hours just to have my say.
That's because you're a troll, and because insulting feminists is unwelcome at a FEMINIST SAFE SPACE.
Life: FAIL.
I've had to change IP's half a dozen times in the past couple of hours just to have my say.
why are you even bothering? that's what i don't get. and no, you don't need to answer. it was a rhetorical question.
"Could you describe the ruckus, sir?"
Deeky drinks my milkshake.
____
"it a feminist habit to violently silence those who make good points that make you look bad?"
Translated using Julius dictionary means: won't you be my neighbor?
Guys, I know a bunch of you are having fun, but could we please take 'Liss' suggestion and ignore Julius?
He's not contributing, he's offensive and insulting, and he's repeatedly shown that he ignores reasoned argument in favour of nothing but catch-phrases and hate. I'm just disappointed that he chose my post this time to do such on.
So, can I please ask everyone to just not respond to anything he says? Just ignore him and focus on the substantive stuff.
Thanks
BTW -- I just watched Sorba's "Born Gay Hoax" speech on Google Video (as delivered at Cal State -- highly NOT recommended).
He should be booed off the stage just for being such an atrociously bad speaker . . . . and . . . . wait for it . . . . he opened his speech with a string of quotes about the "truth" . . . the was from Socrates!
"That's because you're a troll, and because insulting feminists is unwelcome at a FEMINIST SAFE SPACE."
But feminists get to insult, harrass and mob whoever they want? Doesn't sound like a very safe space to me at all.
Sure, Sarah. Sorry for my part in allowing him to drop turds of stupid all over your thread.
"why are you even bothering? that's what i don't get. and no, you don't need to answer. it was a rhetorical question."
Ask yourself the same question. The answer may enlighten you.
I *must* kick my whack-a-troll habit. It's just every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in.
Sorry, Sarah.
Oh, no need to apologise guys ... I engaged him as well, and in a few places our responses did actually contribute to further fleshing out of the substantive stuff from the post.
However, think those places have now past, and I think the best for the conversation is for Julius to not be given any more attention.
Here. *passing out Model 4-Ls*
Secure the neck-seal -- otherwise the fumes from the troll-froth will get to you.
"our responses did actually contribute to further fleshing out of the substantive stuff"
Yeah, such as the fact that what was done was illegal -- disturbing the peace -- and hypocritical -- dehuminizing the speaker -- as well as all of you berating me and trying to ban me merely because I point out the truths that discomfort you.
"Secure the neck-seal -- otherwise the fumes from the troll-froth will get to you."
Shouldn't we give those to to the trolls.
Sarah your post was over-the-top awesome! Thank you for saying it so well.
"This is not a debate. This is our lives."
Wonderful post, Sarah. Thanks for sharing it! (And such a sweet story about the mug - yay for nice people!)
Yes Sarah, mobbing people is wonderful. Silencing those we do not agree with through terror tactics is wonderful. It is the pinnacle of western civilization.
Great post, Sarah! I completely agree with your point, we must never negotiate on basic human rights.
"we must never negotiate on basic human rights"
Prezactly. Is it possible to negotiate with bigots in the first place?
Thanks Jewel and cate, much appreciated
I think it's something we shouldn't forget; that you don't get far with appeasement. Our history of getting rights has been a fight, not a discussion.
I mean, sure, there is a place for negotiation, compromise, politics and rhetoric, and that also tends to be the place where I'm strongest. But to ignore that we need the rowdy activists, that we need those that would storm the Bastille, is just a recipe for failure.
A couple years ago when i was working for a campus LGBTQ faculty-level organisation advising the university chancellor, our advisory org was described as the nicest and most polite one, out of all the minority advisory committees.
We were kinda taken aback, because we weren't getting as far at the time as the other groups in terms of recognition. Platitudes were given, but we seemed to be spinning our wheels. It's apparently very easy to ignore someone that won't kick up a storm if their needs aren't met.
There is most definitely a time for politeness. But there's also a time for activism, and we've lately been considerably ignoring the latter ... to our detriment I would say. Time to stop being Ms. Nice Queer.
Here. *passing out Model 4-Ls*
Secure the neck-seal -- otherwise the fumes from the troll-froth will get to you.
PortlyDyke | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 11:48 am | #
PD, are you as excited about the new Get Smart movie as I am? Trailer looks good, anyway.
"It's apparently very easy to ignore someone that won't kick up a storm if their needs aren't met."
I think the "family values" crowd has proved that in spades. As my mum says "the loudest and whiniest wheel gets the grease"
Just to be clear, she says that about the "family values" crowd. Not those with legitmate concerns needing to be addressed.
One of the things that I thought while reading this is that I can so easily see the reverse in my head. What I mean is, I grew up in the conservative state of South Carolina. I'm trying to picture a speaker that would come and speak on equal rights for homosexuals in my area and not have huge protests from homophobic groups. I can't imagine it because I've read and seen the sort of reaction events like that get. Why should Sorba get a free pass when, in the reverse situation, we would not?
I do admit I'm always a bit iffy about breaking up speeches and protests because I'm so very much opposed to censorship, even when I disagree, but on the other hand I see Sarah's point and the point of several commenters here. It wasn't a violation, I can see that. I guess I'm a big weenie when it comes to conflict like this, and I know I'm an idealist who believes in always trying to talk things out even though I know firsthand it's damn near impossible to change their minds with words alone. So, I'm realistic and realize this was necessary, but that other part of me is just wishing for that perfect world.
I went and watched a clip of this Ryan Sorba guy, and had a thought, just to emphasize everything you've already said Sarah. Sorba's speech, from what little I've seen and the title, is based on the idea that by "disproving" that being gay is innate and something we are born as, therefore we are not deserving of the rights and liberties that heterosexuals receive. To debate him on whether or not it's something born with (no matter if you "win" the debate or not) would be to acknowledge that our rights are dependent on that, when really rights have nothing to do with that. The protesters effectively rejected the very basis of his debate in a way that reasoned conversation could not.
Great post, really inspiring.
Do not back down, do not go quietly!
PortlyDyke | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 11:43 am | #
Don't you just love that? (T_T)
They hate on 'teh gays'; but are *so* willing to forget that in ancient Greece homosexuality was commonplace; and in many ways *idealized* as being a more ideal form of love (x_x)m
Ahh the mental contortions of the right...
So, I'm realistic and realize this was necessary, but that other part of me is just wishing for that perfect world.
Oh Jade, I completely agree. I pine for the Greek/French ideal of the enlightened, educated, and engaged populace, swayed by intelligence, argument and reason. When I was younger, I used to daydream about sitting in a cafe in Paris, and debating with Marx and Hegel, or attending the parlour seminars given in Weber's home, etc.
But the trouble is, we don't live in that world, if that world ever really existed. As I said above, there is certainly a time for persuasion, rhetoric and reason. But far more often than not, we're dealing here with bigotry and oppression, privilege and power, and those that will do anything but give that up.
And we need to hunt those prejudices down, even where they go to ground. We need to fight them with civil disobedience, activism and deny them any possible validation. Because the arena that we are fighting in are, as I say in my post, our very lives.
And unfortunately, that's gonna involve not being all that nice.
Next time someone like Sorba tries to say that if homosexuality is a choice then they don't deserve to be treated like human beings, we should point out the religion is a choice too.
Next time someone like Sorba tries to say that if homosexuality is a choice then they don't deserve to be treated like human beings, we should point out the religion is a choice too.
Red Queen | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 1:00 pm |
To which they'll probably just respond that, indeed, atheists and muslims shouldn't have rights either.
.....
I made myself sad.
"PD, are you as excited about the new Get Smart movie as I am?"
Because of my undying adoration of Barbara Feldon, I am reserving judgment until I see it.
Because of my undying adoration of Barbara Feldon, I am reserving judgment until I see it.
PortlyDyke | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 1:07 pm | #
But Anne Hathaway is pretty awesome, too, right?
This post was amazing. Just sayin.
It's kind of sad, though, that everytime I see a long comment thread I know it's because of a Troll Invasion, not awesome feminist discussion.
In case anyone wonders why this is our lives:
"Michigan Supreme Count: marriage amendment means same-sex partner benefits must be denied"
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.d...NEWS06/
80507064
Hat-tip: Pam's House Blend
We told them this would happen. We showed them how it would. But no one listened. And you ask us to continue to talk?
*applauds* I love your posts, Sarah. And you're right on with this one.
"And you ask us to continue to talk?"
Hal no. I can get access to a bulldozer, if ya want to knock over some bigotry.
and given the night wind was blowing up an incredible pre-storm before the thunderstorms arrived, it seemed like the time to write.
- Sarah in Chicago
Brown-nosing I know, but that sounds really atmospheric.
But if they were, why didn't the College Republicans do so? They easily could have, according to you. But they didn't.
It's because this kind of protest has a well established position within civil rights actions.
- Sarah in Chicago
And because they might get awkward questions about their own reliance on such tactics. (Coupled with heightened intimidation and violence).
I think the world is definitely more trolly lately.
- The Red Queen
The trolls copying the names of existing posters seem a new development (eg "Danielle"); but then I'm fairly new too, so I could be wrong there.
We need to fight them with civil disobedience, activism and deny them any possible validation. Because the arena that we are fighting in are, as I say in my post, our very lives.
- Sarah in Chicago
Analogy time:
Any of you guys heard of David Irving? He's a leading UK Holocaust denier (and how depressing is it that we have enough of them to separate some out as "leading?"). When he got tried for it in Austria a few years ago, some blogs defended his right to "free speech" and championed "academic freedom" - as if it were just a theory that could be debated like any other. But it's not a legitimate theory: it's a lie, it's slander against entire races of people (and gays for that matter, though Irving is targeting Jews); and it cannot be propogated without an agenda of hate.
The same principle applies here. There might be legitimate reason to debate the science of sexual orientations - but the legitimate place for such debates is a scientific forum. To bring it into a political forum cannot be other than debating - in this case denying - its moral legitimacy. It cannot be other than about the denial of moral legitimacy to people that Sorba and his kind would like to see as abstract, but are in fact real.
And the appeal of polite discourse is not a good enough reason to allow them to get away with pretending that their agenda is not to destroy real lives and real people.
It's kind of sad, though, that everytime I see a long comment thread I know it's because of a Troll Invasion, not awesome feminist discussion.
Leah | 05.07.08 - 2:01 pm | #
Ur in my hed, readin my mind! I was just thinking this yesterday. Sigh. There's still awesome discussion though--we just need hip waders (troll froth, y'know).
Portly Dyke:
I never said civil rights laws were brought about by debate. I said that people are going to think what they are going to think whether you let them speak or not.
I agree that freedom of speech does not include the right to speak in my livingroom, therefore if the portesters wanted to heckle, they have that right. If Smith college did pay Sorba to speak, something ought to be done about that by the student body.
Sunless Nick, prosecuting Irving is not going to change his views or those of his followers one iota and it has the additional problem of putting us all in the position of determing who can say what they want and who cannot. The gov't should NEVER be in the business of censoring speech.
An earlier poster, I forget who pointed out that most changes in attitudes of bigotry come about by contact with the group the person dislikes. I think that is true. I support legislation to give gay people the same right as heterosexuals inclduing same sex marriage. Working on getting such legislation passed is the way to change things I think. When people come into social contact with same sex married couples, I think you will see less hatred becasue people will see them as less of a threat.
Sunless Nick, that's not the worst of it. When Deborah Lipscomb(?) called Irving a Holocaust Denier in her book, he sued her for libel and lost. Supposed liberals wrote about the decision as if she had sued him.
The book's called "Lying About Hitler."
Also, I see absolutely no reason to dialogue with people like the guy that gave this speech because they deny the essential humanity of gays and that's not acceptable. What can you possibly SAY to someone who thinks you're an abomination or otherwise not human?
Lipscomb
Lipstadt, and you're right; that was apalling.
The gov't should NEVER be in the business of censoring speech.
This is besides the point of this post, but honestly, I don't agree with this. I think a civilised mature stable society CAN make decisions for itself about what constitutes invalid speech and what isn't.
How do I think this? Because the majority of western countries don't have free speech laws, and they've managed not to slip into the oft-invoked example of totalitarianism. It's done in order to prevent oppression of minorities, not the reverse.
An absolutism of free speech does nothing but reduce all speech to the level of the same lowest common-denominator, and allow those with privilege in our society to continue to oppress through hate-speech under the guise of the protection of worthwhile speech.
I know loads of people on this blog disagree with me on this one, and I tend to often run into this as a cultural difference, so I am not going to tell you what to do with your country when it comes to speech.
But don't then try and tell me what my government should or should not do. Especially when it's doing a miles better fucking job at it.
Oh, and prosecuting Irving for hate speech isn't about convincing him or his followers that he is wrong.
It's about protecting the people his hate speech would victimise.
I'm more than comfortable with that.
LOL Sarah,
I take it you do not live in the USA if you think your country is better at protecting human rights than other Western countries.
I live in the USA, but I'm not an American, Quilter.
I'm a New Zealander.
Quilter, your unspoken assumption is that different classes of people have to wait and earn those rights. A lot of people work from that assumption, but it looks at things backwards.
We should all be the same in the eyes of the law. The same rights for all people, no exceptions, and that is how we should talk about this. Any discrimination, therefore, becomes the exception and not the rule. Discriminating laws become the issue, not advancement, because advancement as an idea is getting us as a society nowhere.
So please: the same rights for all people, no exceptions.
Nick, Sarah, Irving has been amazingly cruel and hateful to Jewish people all through his career, to the point of asking Holocaust survivors, "How much did you pay for that tattoo? Where did you get it?"
There's no point in engaging these people. There's a reason it's called hate speech.
There's a reason it's called hate speech.
Truth to Power, ginmar hon.
How much did you pay for that tattoo?
Does he want that in family members? Or Reichmarks?
"How much did you pay for that tattoo? Where did you get it?"
I didn't know he'd done that - that is foul. I'd say foul beyond belief, but I do believe it. He's engaged in victim blaming - the "if Jews say they were persecuted by so many, perhaps they should ask what they did to provoke it" kind - so little would surprise me.
I think a civilised mature stable society CAN make decisions for itself about what constitutes invalid speech and what isn't.
And talk - in a political forum - about the "causes of homosexuality" has no possible purpose other than to make claims about its legitimacy. It can only be there as an attack on gay (and other nonhet) people. It can only be there to prepare the way for denying them legitimacy as people.
We know that's the agenda here.
And that makes such speech an advocacy of violence - more, it makes it already violence.
Who defends bigots, seriously, unless they are one?
Voltaire.
And they have the legitimate right to respond.
Agreed. Responding is a matter of showing how he is wrong, of pouring scorn on him, and of dissecting his motives.
It is not a matter of drowning him out. Anyone who says that they didn't stop him from speaking is being disingenous - that's *precisely* what they action was intended to do.
His voice was not heard. Not being heard, it can never be refuted.
i dont think his freedom of speech was restricted because a bunch of people exercised their freedom to assemble. its not like he got arrested for his views.
I refer you back to Christ's comment:
The event was planned and funded by the Smith Republicans, which, like every student organization, has the right to invite speakers of its choice. The decision to halt his presentation was made jointly by public safety, student affairs and the Republican club leadership. There were serious concerns about overcrowding, audience and speaker safety, and facility damage. On a pragmatic level, after about 10 minutes the speaker could not be heard.
This is not about providing alternative comment, or showing that he was in a minority with his opinion, no matter how obnoxious. This was about preventing him from speaking.
As regards freedom of speech, citing Smith's statement of academic freedom:
"Once members of the Smith community extend an invitation, others may not abridge a speaker’s freedom of expression because they dislike or oppose the speaker, find her or his ideas noxious, or perceive the speaker to be associated with policies or practices believed to be erroneous or even evil."
Quite simply, it comes down to a simple ethical stance. If you object to Sorba's comments so much that you wish to deprive him of the opportunity of speaking them, you cannot hold to that statement of academic freedom. If you cannot hold to that statement, then you should not consider yourself a member of "the Smith community".
I will accept an alternative - that the same protesters who drowned Sorba out are also pressing to amend the statement on academic freedom to explicitly allow this sort of action against sufficiently obnoxious opinion.
Are they doing so?
They were in a public space, exercising their freedom of expression, speech and assembly, just as Sorba was (course, he was also being paid to do so). His rights were not abridged in the slightest.
Sarah, I refer you to Christ's statement above:
"The event was planned and funded by the Smith Republicans, which, like every student organization, has the right to invite speakers of its choice. The decision to halt his presentation was made jointly by public safety, student affairs and the Republican club leadership. There were serious concerns about overcrowding, audience and speaker safety, and facility damage. On a pragmatic level, after about 10 minutes the speaker could not be heard."
PiaToR - your belief that the righteous Smithies should pack up their toys and go home because a group on their campus invited an ass to speak is no different than all of the "wingers" yelling "if you don't like it leave!" when anyone voices opposition to US government policies.
You are misstating my stance. It is my belief that the righteous Smithies should pack up their toys and go elsewhere because they're not able to accept an invited ass speaking.
There is no ethical requirement for a US citizen to approve of US government policies.
An university's statement of academic freedom forms part of its fundamental values. People freely choose to associate with the university; they have chosen to abide by its values.
If they cannot do so, they should leave.
The better analogy is with taxes; paying taxes is a fundamental obligation of being a citizen. If you do not want to pay taxes to a government, then you should leave the country.
Any of you guys heard of David Irving?
You mean the guy who was given a chance to speak in court and was not only thoroughly discredited, but made a laughing stock?
Tata,
I have NO idea where you got the idea that I think people should have to wait to EARN rights. I never said that and I do not believe that. I may have said that rights for different minorities have come about through legislation and people's exposure to others that they had bigoted feelings against. That does not mean I think they should have to earn their rights. That simply means what I have said, historically that is the way it has happened.
I am strongly against ANY censorhsip whatsoever, people are going to believe what they believe. Even when you try and shut them up, the groups these people have targeted are STILL targets. I also believe there is no way to decide what can be banned and what cannot be banned. Here in Canada we have laws against hate speech and they have been a failure. It is very difficult to get a conviction and every yahoo wants to be the one who goes to jail for his/her cause. Hence it is no deterent either.
Not being heard, it can never be refuted.
His views HAVE been heard, and refuted, time after time after time. yet STILL they are propagated. This is bigotry, hate, and prejudice.
Reason has it's limits. I admire your faith in the ideal of reasoned argument, but reality simply does not reflect such. There is a time and a place for it, but in confronting bigotry, it's not.
I really don't see the point you're arguing here Piator, seriously.
Great post, Sarah.
There's an Overton Window element to it, too. One benefit of situations like this is that as demonstrations get more visible, the more people start to realize that a large number of people don't agree with the haters, and the easier it is for us shy types to speak up when we see people espousing hatred. And that's not really an Overton window at all the way I described it, but I'm too tired to parse it out correctly. Yadda yadda Overton extremists more moderates supportive yadda yadda.
Awesome post Sarah and I agree 100%.
You're doing Wellington proud!
"I said that people are going to think what they are going to think whether you let them speak or not."
Frankly, I don't really care what people "think" -- I care how they act, and speak. The inside of their brains belong to them, and as long as toxic waste from inside their brain doesn't leak out into actions and words that harm other people, it's their business AFAIC.
There are still plenty of people in our country who "think" racist -- but there are now laws (some, anyway) that don't allow them to act/speak racist in ways that detriment others.
I believe that this will (and has), over time, change thinking. In the meantime, I want them to stop acting and speaking in oppressive and detrimental ways.
His voice was not heard. Not being heard, it can never be refuted.
Ever heard of blogging? Youtube? The fact that his "speech" can be heard on the internet proves that his voice has been heard. I heard it.
The fundamental cog in the machine that is missing in many of the "non-censorship" arguments here is a complete disregard for this reality:
Queers have been institutionally censored for hundreds of years -- the voices of people of color and women and the poor have been institutionally censored for years -- with complete impunity. They are STILL being institutionally censored.
So, unless the Quilter and PiaToR are advocates of affirmative action programs which assure an equal hearing of these voices, I say: Let Sorba experience what I've experienced all my life.
Portly Dyke,
I am speaking of gov't censorship, not protestor heckling. Nobody has even been able to show ANY connection between gov't censorship and a reduction of bigotry. While I think the protesters were wasting their time, I certainly agree they had the right to come in and heckle if they wanted too.
His views HAVE been heard, and refuted, time after time after time. yet STILL they are propagated.
And, strangely enough, the tide of history is towards gay rights. This is because, hearing both sides, the majority of people, especially the young, are persuaded by the logic of the pro-gay side - it's no skin off anybody else's nose if you love a man or a woman.
I really don't see the point you're arguing here Piator, seriously.
People - you, included - are using their passion in something that they consider right to justify something that is wrong. I may agree with you that your cause is right, but I disagree to the death that it gives the protestors the right to stop someone from speaking where he had a right to do so.
Sorba had that right at Smith. In stopping him from speaking, the protestors were in the wrong, regardless of the merits of their cause.
I point to the movie "Expelled", which shows that many creationists believe that teaching evolutionary theory is directly linked to genocide.
If people honestly consider the standards they have used to applaud the protesters preventing Sorba from speaking - and I have shown that it was just this - then on what basis would they object to, say, a bunch of creationists stopping a Dawkin's lecture with the same tactics?
This is because, hearing both sides, the majority of people, especially the young, are persuaded by the logic of the pro-gay side
Actually, no it hasn't come that way. The majority of civil rights advances, especially in the US, have come despite public opinion, not because of it. It's come at the hands of the courts, using the law to force through required change. Cultural change (ie public opinion) came later, and that in itself has just as much involved protest, civil disobediance, as it has argument.
I really think you have a rather idealistic and myopic approach to how civil rights have been won.
I disagree to the death that it gives the protestors the right to stop someone from speaking where he had a right to do so.
Then we're going to have to agree to disagree here. Because I think we have EVERY bloody right to do so. As I said in my main post, this ISN'T a debate, this is OUR LIVES. You may see such as overly dramatic rhetoric, but we don't. It's OFFENSIVE to be told that these 'people' can have an opinion on our lives.
I'm sorry, I'm supposed to RESPECT that? Fuck that.
I see such acts of protest and civil disobedience to be a well established and effective part of our push, and we're damn well gonna protect the others in our communities from the hate that is spread without validity against us.
Oh, and as to invading a lecture by Dawkins, he has precisely the same ability as the college president: call security. Which is often done.
Again, I really seriously don't see the point to your argument here.
Sarah,
Loved every word, hon.
Keep at it.
I lift my mug to you!
"I really think you have a rather idealistic and myopic approach to how civil rights have been won."
Not only idealistic and myopic, Sarah -- but just plain factually wrong.
PiaToR -- queer rights didn't change because of calm debate. One primary change was that an institution finally removed homosexuality from the DSMII. A friend of mine was actually legally committed to a mental institution by her mother when we were in High School (circa 1972) -- because she was sleeping with her girlfriend.
This is someone's LIFE -- not a debate.
1978 -- Four years after I "came out" as a lesbian, Harvey Milk was assassinated in San Francisco.
This is someone's LIFE -- not a debate.
1992 -- Two queer activists who I knew and worked with in Oregon were killed when their house was fire-bombed.
These are human LIVES -- not a debate.
The common denominator in these events? People like Sorba, who believe that queers are "not normal" and worthy of exclusion from society, forced "rehabilitation" -- or worse.
Sorba is not a scientist. Sorba is not a published author. Sorba is, therefore, simply a "performer" -- and if the audience does not like the "act", then they have every right to stand and boo the performer off the stage -- or perhaps you are one of those people who believe that a performer is "owed" an attentive audience, no matter how poor the act, how shoddily performed, or how hateful the rhetoric?
HUGE love to you from Auckland, Sarah :]
Oh -- and some new information -- apparently, while the College Republicans paid for Sorba's travel expenses with Smith funds, they selected a venue which was too small to allow everyone on campus to attend -- which is why protesters are seen in the video crawling through windows -- they were turned away.
So, how, PiaToR, does this fit in your insistence on a narrative of "free speech" and lack of censorship -- if some students at Smith were literally debarred from entering to have such a dialogue -- even though their tuition money was paying for the speaker? (Taxation without representation, anyone?)
Also -- I watched the Google vid of Sorba -- please note -- he does not include any of the questions at the end (probably because they were smart and shot his theories full of holes) -- So much for "debate".
Finally -- a link to a student's perspective, where the writer aptly points out that when Sorba presented his "talk" at Farmington, the silent protest there was interpreted and touted by Sorba's allies as: they were so outdone that they were speechless.
And on top of it all -- just google "Ryan Sorba" at this point, and look at the link after link after link that says that the protesters "rioted". Good Maude -- what a bunch of light-weights -- if that's a riot, I'd love to see them deal with what queers deal with ALL. THE. FUCKING.TIME!!!
So, if we are allowed to be present, and say nothing, we've been confounded by their air-tight logic. If we protest being disallowed the presence and the voice, we're "rioting".
I'm so sick of this shit.
On issue that I think is interesting is the role student fees and/or tuition plays in free speech. We all agree that free speech does not give a person the right to speak ANYWHERE they want. For example, Sorba is not welcome to come to my house even if he agrees to remain silent.
I think that if the cost of the speaker is paid through a fund that is funded by student fees then this is a different kettle of fish. Students should not be forced to pay fees which go to pay speakers who argue for their demise. For example if Sorba was a nazi he would want to put all gay people in concentration camps. He would come to Smith at the invitation of a student group and explain why he wants to do that. No gay student (or any student with morals) should be forced to contribute financially towards that. I wonder how they work that in universities.
Piator:
For someone allegedly so committed to reason, your understanding of ethical reasoning, as far as can be seen here, is absurd. Please stop with the 'simple ethical stance' bollocks, at least until you actually present a complete case.
Failboat: you has it.
Sarah: This antipodean lass shares your view on the whole 'absolutist free speech' thing.
"Voltaire."
Great. Has nothing to do with the topic, but, great.
PortlyDyke -
Excellent outline of the bullshit. Those pretending this douche's right to free speech was impinged have a similar agenda, I think.
The old "pay no attention to the real issue - look over here!!" game.
Great. Has nothing to do with the topic, but, great.
And the hilarious thing is, Voltaire merely said he will defend the right for people he disagrees with to say what they have to say. The ludicrous thing is, Sorba can say whatever he wants to say, via books, online postings, a veritable cornucopia of ways. No one is stopping him from disseminating his bigotry.
There aren't "two sides" of equal though opposite value.
There's right and there's wrong.
It's wrong to speak against a group of people (who've done no harm) having the right to live as they choose and love whomever they want to.
It's right to tell those who are trying to justify hatred for an oppressed group that they're FULL OF SHIT and you're not going to listen to their crap.
"So you claim that he deserves to be silenced because he dehumanizes you with his opinions, but you do not for a moment consider that you essentially dehumanize him by silencing him and deciding that his opinions are not worth hearing."
*sigh*
The shrieking flaw in your so-called "logic"is the dehumanization inherent in the "opinions" themselves in the first instance, absent in the substance of the opinions in the second. It's not a parallel analysis.
But as a respectful ally, I'll let others continue to eviscerate your yappage, since they're doing so well.
Piator:
Why does the written statement on academic freedom have to be treated as asbsolutely authoritative - as either obeyed, or changed? What is it about the process of drafting that statement or the mechanisms available to amend it that make it a touchstone - "fundamental" as you say - of the values of all the stakeholders in the institution? Why do you not view direct action demanding the realisation of certain values through other means as potentially equally legitimate?
The university is a group of many actors with many stakes and competing values, not something monolithic and univocal which one set of written words can exhaustively encapsulate. An attachment to this legalistic, form-bound, technicality-loving stance ("Change the document, or leave") expresses certain values, too, about how institutions should be run. Those underlying values are also up for grabs and the protestors are (whether consciously or not) through their actions implicitly challenging them too.
To add: the question then becomes whether you think that challenge is legitimate, in part because of the question of what the basis for the protestors having standing in the university is. Is it their agreement to follow this particular document? Or is it their broad participation in the community of the university in accordance with a living vision of that community's ethos (of which the document is only one part)?
many creationists believe that teaching evolutionary theory is directly linked to genocide
...
then on what basis would they object to, say, a bunch of creationists stopping a Dawkin's lecture with the same tactics?
To be comparable, Dawkins would have to be delivering the lecture to Britain's BNP (who have only one use for the theory of evolution) - and in that case, the agenda behind the lecture would as clear as the agenda behind Sorba's, and I'd support anyone who decided to heckle it.
Commenting by HaloScan
