I got paid to make this cartoon because of my Patreon supporters. Thanks, patrons!
Transcript of cartoon
Panel 1
There are two women talking. One has streaks dyed in her hair; the other has black hair.
STREAKS: We can’t talk about gay rights without talking about the history of homophobia which–
BLACK: Stop GAY BULLYING me!
Panel 2
STREAKS: Pardon me?
BLACK: Anyone who disagrees with the queer agenda gets called a “homophobic,” “intolerant” “bigot!” That’s BULLYING!
Panel 3
STREAKS: Look, I’m not talking about you. It’s not personal. But can I talk about the general social context?
BLACK: Of course!
Panel 4
STREAKS: Great! Like I was saying, in a context of bigotry and homopho–
BLACK: GAY BULLIES! I’m being GAY BULLIED! HELP! HELP!
The right eye (of the person) in panel 3 of the person on the left looks odd.
O.K. But let’s take the statement by BLACK in panel 2 and – unlike what STREAKS says in panel 3 but very like what is so often done – apply the word “homophobic” to individuals. What then?
Or worse, what if she insisted on using the term “SJW“?
I’m not sure what you mean by “what then”?
It depends on the person and the context. But in general, the answer is to either continue the conversation and deal with personal attacks, or to say “look, I’m willing to discuss policy, but please let’s make this about policy and not about me personally,” or to step away from the conversation.
But in my experience, there are MANY people who won’t make the distinction you just did, and who respond to mentions of homophobia as if they’ve been personally attacked.
What does previous prejudice have to do with denial of individual rights of association/contract/speech/conscience?
This is a typical leftie identity-politics argument – akin to the argument for reparations, which many fair-minded people dismiss out of hand – not because they’re raaaacists, but because extorting an entire class of innocent people for acts they didn’t commit is morally repugnant. Because individual rights are more important than theories of class warfare to many Westerners who aren’t Lefties.
Shorter gay rights movement:
1. Declare yourself a victim.
2. Rag on anyone who disagrees with you as a “hater”.
3. Lather rinse repeat.
“Lather rinse repeat.”
Seriously?
You clearly have no understanding of gay people and hair product.
@Ben David:
I’ve got an even shorter version of the gay rights movement – just one step!:
1. How consenting adults choose to associate with each other is none of your fucking business unless you’ve got a compelling explanation for how it negatively affects you or society at large, which you don’t in this case.
Of course if you’d like to finally address the many questions put to you in this post for example, maybe you could be part of an honest and open discussion on gay rights. But I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that’s not going to happen.
This cartoon has broad social appeal.
Some folks can look at Stripy and say that Stripy is, actually, insisting on language which goes beyond descriptions, to judgment: language which is designed to make it difficult to oppose Stripy’s argument. They think Curly’s objection is valid.
Other folks can look at Curly and say that Curly should not complain about the language Stripy uses. Even if it is judgmental, it’s correctly judgmental, and–as Stripy claims–even if you find it personally insulting, there’s no basis for objection when it “isn’t about you.”
Personally, from a social perspective I support gay rights, like Stripy. From a conversational perspective I dislike those types of conversational tactics, like Curly. Like I said: broad social appeal ;)
I’m not sure why Stripy persists, though. There are plenty of other words which work better, in my experience, because they separate the facts, inferences, and judgment. Most of the opposition comes from the inferences and judgment, so (just like cross examination!) it is helpful to get agreement on the broad facts and reduce wiggle room before you get to the meat of the argument. Especially if you’re just summarizing history anyway.
When you get to descriptions, some of my preferred words include: Oppose; very few anti-gay people dispute that they “oppose” demands for gay rights, or that they are “in opposition to” them. Hostility ; oftentimes, anti-gay people agree that they are “hostile to” positions, arguments, or claims. Different treatment: trickier, but often successful, since they are as a rule arguing for different treatment (the tricky part is that they’re often arguing for a single “not different” rule, of course.) Anti-gay: to my continuing surprise, often not a label that many anti-gay people actually object to. Competing desires / competing claims; this one has the downside that what you’re asking for loses the mantle of “obvious human right” but in the anti-gay context that is generally moot.
As an example of how I might talk about the historical context: society didn’t accept gays. Being gay was often punishable by laws that were directly written to target gay behavior. The laws and social behavior reflected a widespread belief, strongly linked to religious underpinnings, that being gay was horrible and that any non-homosexual actions deserved punishment. Relative to other targets of violence, many people were openly hostile and physically violent to gays, and the violence was often condoned by the police. Very few people were willing to consider the possibility that homosexuality might be biological in nature, rather than a choice. Discrimination against gay people was permitted by law and was widespread throughout various settings, from housing to employment. Etc.
This vaguely reminds me of a conversation that I’ve had several times, which never fails to confuse me. Essentially:
Other person: Want a brownie?
Me: No thanks.
Other person: Oh, come on. They’re really good. One brownie isn’t going to break your diet or anything.
Me: No, thanks. I’m vegan, and those brownies have egg.
Other person: You’re vegan? So, like, you think that eating eggs is murder? You think I’m a murderer for eating these brownie? Jesus, you vegans are so judgmental.
Me: Whuh?
I’ve pretty much concluded that if people want to think you’re judging them, then they’ll find a way to do it.
You know, that reminds me of a similar conversation:
A: This particular language is a problem.
B: No. It’s not the language. It’s what I’m saying. There have been times when I have said something to others that I perceive as unproblematic, and the other person has complained about what I said anyway.
A: Well, ignoring the accuracy of your “what I said was fine” perception entirely, without conceding it: That may be true. But the fact that some folks don’t react perfectly doesn’t change my point that me, and other folks, would prefer it if you used different language. You can still make your point.
B: No. I will not change my language, because it’s not about the language. You don’t really care about the language. You care about what I am asserting.
A: I am standing here. Right here. And I am, actually, saying that I DO care about the language. I’m not sure why you are ignoring me, though.
B: I’m not ignoring you. But I know that even if I stop using ___ and use ___ instead, you’re going to respond badly anyway. So I won’t waste any time or energy doing what you propose, because you’re lying about the whole language thing.
A: I’m not lying. It’s true that I may challenge some of your claims, which is to say that I expect you to be open to the concept that you’re wrong. And it’s true that, to the degree that you insist on using one-sided conclusory language, that seems like a waste of time. Debating the pros and cons of an economic policy and talking about racial effects is fine. Starting with a claim of “racism” is not, because you are signalling in advance that you’ve discarded the other position.
B: I don’t think so. It’s really about the policies, not the language.
A: Sigh. OK, be a dick about it then.
B: See? Like I said, you were never arguing in good faith.
Lee1:
Which is why private, non-governmental bakeries, catering halls, scouting groups, therapists, and faith communities are enduring legal/media lynches for choosing not to “associate” with certain other adults.
You don’t really mean to trot out the “nobody’s business” trope – not now, surely – when the gay mafia is heavy-handedly imposing my-way-or-the-highway “tolerance” on private speech and relationships – including pastoral counseling and therapy?
…. must just be force of habit – a carryover from the glory days of “keep yer laws off my body”… ’cause it’s obvious that the Left is NOT on the side of personal choice on this issue… just like they are mysteriously opposed to women being able to purchase birth control over-the-counter, bypassing government handlers.
A large, increasingly restive majority of the population thinks religious conscience a sufficiently “compelling explanation” for refusing to enter a private business arrangement – and rejects the idea that free citizens must even explain such choices to government nannies.
Reminder: Jim Crow was about GOVERNMENT MANDATED segregation and separate treatment. Not private contracts, speech, or association. The decision to expand government oversight into these private realms was greeted back then with concern, even by non-racists (that is, Republicans – the Dems were the party of Jim Crow, remember?)
Ben David, don’t use the term “gay mafia” on “Alas” again. (That you’re using the term in a post making fun of “gay bullies” shows an impressive lack of self-awareness). I’m returning you to auto-moderated status, since obviously you’re not willing to avoid using hateful language about gays. From now on, your comments will all require moderator approval before appearing. If you change your email address to avoid the moderation, you’ll be banned altogether.
A few other comments, but if you respond to me, please take it to an open thread, since all of these topics are off-topic in this thread.
* It’s news to me that the left is against birth control being sold over-the-counter – see this lefty site’s article, for one of many examples. I think this is one of those issues, like pot legalization, that the libertarian right and the progressive left agree on.
* Therapy is a form of medical treatment; medical practices are routinely subject to government licensing. There’s no more reason to allow adults to do damaging anti-gay “therapy” on children then there is to allow them to use anti-gay waterboardings.
* I agree it’s bad for pro-gay people to harass bakeries. I also think it’s bad when Christians do the same thing.
* Finally, the civil rights movement was clear in opposing not only Jim Crow laws, but also private businesses choosing to discriminate – that’s what the famous 1960 Greensboro lunch-counter sit-in was about.
@Ben David:
Good for the “large restive majority” (although I’m skeptical it’s actually a majority, at least in the US, if the question is phrased in an honest way as it relates to LGBT rights. Maybe you’d care to provide a link to a poll that includes clear information about question wording and methodology…?) That doesn’t make it right to discriminate against people based on innate biological differences that have no direct impact on their ability to provide, receive, or pay for goods and services. Also, your “religious conscience” has no more value than my “humanist/atheist conscience,” and the laws elevating the former over the latter are completely outrageous.
I imagine this is probably the last time I’ll try to engage with you unless you show some willingness to have an intellectually honest, fair conversation about this, including responding to the many questions in the previous post I linked, not using terms like “gay mafia” or “compulsive promiscuity” among gays without some actual evidence for the latter, and not paranoically speaking about “the Left” as if there’s some liberal monolith opposed to you. I find it highly doubtful that will happen, so assuming it doesn’t I’ll just say best of luck to you. But I’ll finish by following up Amp’s comment pointing out how absurd it is to talk about Jim Crow while totally ignoring the private discrimination that was also broadly opposed by the civil rights movement in the 1960s. That is some zany ahistorical bullshit there.
I’m not “compulsively promiscuous.” I’m promiscuous of my own free will, because it gives me pleasure and is a useful, healthy, fulfilling way of interacting with other people. I notice that many (#not all) people in coupled, committed relationships are “compulsive” about them. If one fails, they immediately try to start another, and they continue this cycle for years. They feel that they aren’t mature adults unless they’re in a committed relationship. Because of this they tend to stay in each relationship much longer than they should, after it not only stops giving either partner any happiness but after it makes them both miserable. Can’t something be done for these wretched, dysfunctional people? I hope I’ve cleared that up.
Lynching is actually pretty silly hyperbole here. Especially when the religious persecution complex gets going. Simply expecting someone to follow the laws of the state in which they’re incorporated, or criticizing them on the internet, is somehow equivalent to stringing them up now? (Yes, there have been death threats against, say, Memories Pizza. There have also been death threats against practically every feminist blogger ever, and none of them have been given hundreds of thousands of dollars for their trouble.)
But I take it from your argument that the mean evil gays need to leave the poor innocent bakers alone that any business should be able to post a “Jews Not Welcome” or “No Christians Allowed” or “No [Racial Slur]” sign out front? After all, it’s their choice to associate with certain other adults, right?
If someone *chooses* to open a business and serve the public, they should actually serve the public.
Also, the bit about pastoral counseling and therapy has been applied exclusively to *minors.* It’s perfectly reasonable for laws protecting a vulnerable population to apply to minors, particularly when we’re talking about “therapy” that has the potential to drive people to suicide. If competent legal adults want to go to “ex-gay therapy,” they can do that, but that doesn’t mean that “because religion” is a free pass for child abuse.
I’d also like to see the cite for this being a majority. It also ignores a couple major points. First off, the anti-gay folks are very good about twisting their so-called “religious conscience” to refuse to serve gay people in situations that have nothing to do with their religious beliefs. Providing flowers or a cake for a same-sex wedding doesn’t require you to support the marriage itself, any more than baking a cake for, say, a pair of divorcees does. And yet, these terribly pious folks don’t ever seem to ask if the couple are both virgins, or whether it’s their first marriage. So forgive me if I’m a little cynical about this “religious conscience.”
Secondly, the “freedom of religion” side completely ignores any responsibility on the part of business owners—or in some cases employees—to choose careers that align with their values. Like, for example, North Carolina, where magistrates get to refuse to do their job and continue to be paid, on religious grounds.
If your conscience is truly so sensitive that you have sincere moral qualms about selling a wedding cake to a couple whose relationship you don’t approve of, perhaps you should stick to birthday cakes.
Fixed that for you.
But, Amp, it’s only harassment when *gays* do it. When good, God-fearing Christians do it, it’s standing up against persecution. /sarcasm