An Extremely Politically Incorrect Blog Post

[The Nehor]

Your call, of course.

 

From Elder Ballard's clarion call: 'Satan ... also wants you to stand on the sidelines in today’s important and crucial battles'.

 

I guess we each have to decide which battles are 'important and crucial'.

 

I don't see this political and social wrangling as that important and critical and I don't really like either side in any case.

[mormonnewb]

I don't view any tax benefits as an unalienable civil right. If the people of the country I live in decide that my chosen form of marriage does not provide a net positive and should not be promoted they may vote to discontinue these benefits.

I hope you don't teach physics mormonnewb, because your reactive posts are never in proportion to what was originally written (Mr Newton would object). It is entertaining though. It's like watching someone throw a knuckleball. You may strike the batter out, or you may hit the kid in the 3rd row in the head.

-guerreiro9

Your last point is both well-taken and cleverly stated. Touché!

Mobile rep point for you!

[slamarwi]

With all the vitriol, hyperbole, sarcasm and characterization, I would rate the blog as a rant as much as it was informative.

I would agree that it is somewhat of a "rant," but it is spot on.

 

It's great to hear someone unafraid to speak the truth in this PC infested country.

 

Kudo's to Matt Walsh! 

[california boy]

I found the post to be hyperbolic, sure, but I too don't think it should be dismissed as a rant.  The author brings up some good points.

 

I will admit that as one who tends to lean liberal/libertarian on social issues I get very frustrated when my fellow supporters of SSM or gay rights bring out the "bigot" or "hate" card at there mere suggestion that -- *gasp* -- someone may dare hold a different opinion.  

 

If we call what Tony Dungy said "hate", we have made it, the word "hate", absolutely meaningless. Dungy was right.  Sam's sexuality *will be a media distraction* as is clear by the coverage Dungy's remarks are receiving!!

 

Could Dungy have stated this view more delicately given our hyper-sensitive outrage culture fueled by FB and Twitter?  Absolutely.  Is Dungy a hate-filled bigot who would not draft Sam because he is gay?  Absolutely not.  I don't see how an intelligent person could read Dungy any differently.

 

The problem is that if we get hysterical over remarks that perhaps could or should have been stated more clearly or delicately (and even this drive me nuts.... it seems that no one can simply just state their views these days without getting killed by the mob of public opinion and its seemingly faux outrage) we cheapen the experiences of those who have been the victims of true hate and true prejudice.  And then, as the blog author points out, we get to see real hate on display.  Bringing up the suicide of Dungy's son and suggesting that it was due to Dungy's views?  Absolutely disgusting.

 

I support SSM because I desire the maximum liberty and freedom for *all.*  Not just those who conform to some notion of social orthodoxy.

 

 

I don't think that anyone is disagreeing with Tony Dungy that drafting Sam will cause some distractions from the media.  I think the pushback is when someone says they have nothing against gays, and are against discrimination yet are willing to themselves discriminate when it is inconvient for them.  This coach should watch "42" to see what inconvience and media distraction was like when a much braver coach drafter Jackie Robinson.  And yes, I agree with you that calling someone a bigot or hater is just as much hyperbole.  Something I also find offensive.  But like this blogger, there are extremes on both sides.

 

There is a bit of irony in a post that calls for taking up action so strongly to protect themselves from proceeved discrimination and uses an example of a man who can't be bothered to stand up against discrimination of a gay player.  And then to imply that Sam is an insignificant player who seemed to be lucky to be even drafted shows how much hyperbole is in this "blog".  Does painting Sam as an insignificant draft choice somehow make discrimination more justified??  Maybe someone can tell me why the blogger needed to dimish Sam's college career in order to make his case.  From the blog

 

Sam is a mediocre talent and a marginal prospect. He’s too slow to be a linebacker and too small to be a defensive end. He doesn’t have the athleticism to be a starter, and he may very well lack the talent to make the squad. At best, Michael Sam will see the field for kickoffs and punts, and that will be it.

 

from Wikipedia

 

 

As a senior in 2013, Sam recorded 11.5 quarterback sacks and 19 tackles for a loss. He led the SEC in both categories, and tied Missouri's single-season record for sacks.^[9] He was named the SEC Defensive Player of the Week in two consecutive weeks, after recording three sacks apiece in games against the Arkansas State Red Wolves and the Vanderbilt Commodores.^[10] After the season, Sam was named the SEC Co-Defensive Player of the Year, with C. J. Mosley of theUniversity of Alabama,^[11] and a first-team all-SEC selection.^[12]

Sam was named a first-team All-American by the Walter Camp Football Foundation, Associated Press, Sporting News, theAmerican Football Coaches Association, and the Football Writers Association of America.^{[13][14][15][16]} He was also named a semifinalist for the Chuck Bednarik Award, the Hendricks Award, and the Lombardi Award.^[2][13] Missouri played in the 2014 Cotton Bowl Classic, in which Sam forced a fumble that was returned for a touchdown, securing Missouri's victory over the Oklahoma State Cowboys.^[17

 

I have reread the blog several times and have yet to find the reasons he seems to indicate as reasons to call christians to arms.  The one example he uses to build his case around certainly doesn't stand up.  The only thing he has as far as I can tell is extremely ignorant remarks by a group of idots posting hateful statements in the comments section.  Nothing new here for either side.

[california boy]

About a month ago, I read a statement that said "As soon as you hear the words "Politically Correct"  you know it is going to be followed by some derogative statement about gays or blacks.  Every since then, I have been watching.  And every time, this statement has been true.  It is as if people have decided that it is ok to make derogatory statements against gays and backs if they preface their remarks with the statement "I know this is not PC. but".  Why not just make derogative remarks and don't bother with the justification.  Wouldn't it be more honest to start this tread with simply "Another great derogatory blog against gays?

[mormonnewb]

About a month ago, I read a statement that said "As soon as you hear the words "Politically Correct"  you know it is going to be followed by some derogative statement about gays or blacks.  Every since then, I have been watching.  And every time, this statement has been true.  It is as if people have decided that it is ok to make derogatory statements against gays and backs if they preface their remarks with the statement "I know this is not PC. but".  Why not just make derogative remarks and don't bother with the justification.  Wouldn't it be more honest to start this tread with simply "Another great derogatory blog against gays?

 

I've noticed the same pattern.  It's the adult equivalent of yelling, "Ollie ollie oxen free," as a way to give a free pass to otherwise unacceptable behavior.  "I know this is not PC" is just the latest in a string of "safe phrases."  Some Southerners use "bless her heart" in this way (e.g., "Those blacks are always having babies out of wedlock.  My housekeeper, Taquanda, has four babies with five different men ... bless her heart."  On the other hand, people in the Northeast might use the "no disrespect" suffix (e.g., "I remember when you could get a beer in this town, but now, that the gays have taken over, it's nothing but fruity drinks in every bar ... no disrespect").

 

We'll seem to go to any lengths NOT to correct our prejudices.

[longview]

About a month ago, I read a statement that said "As soon as you hear the words "Politically Correct"  you know it is going to be followed by some derogative statement about gays or blacks.  Every since then, I have been watching.  And every time, this statement has been true.  It is as if people have decided that it is ok to make derogatory statements against gays and backs if they preface their remarks with the statement "I know this is not PC. but".  Why not just make derogative remarks and don't bother with the justification.  Wouldn't it be more honest to start this tread with simply "Another great derogatory blog against gays?

I saw exactly zero derogatory statements against homosexuals (just simply a desire to NOT be forced to "celebrate" this lifestyle).

But what we do see are the attempts to dictate the dialogue and controlling the premise of arguments. Hence the concerns about the "Cult of Leftism." This is about the basic first amendment rights to free expression.

Edited July 24, 2014 by longview

[rodheadlee]

I don't think that anyone is disagreeing with Tony Dungy that drafting Sam will cause some distractions from the media.  I think the pushback is when someone says they have nothing against gays, and are against discrimination yet are willing to themselves discriminate when it is inconvient for them.  This coach should watch "42" to see what inconvience and media distraction was like when a much braver coach drafter Jackie Robinson.  And yes, I agree with you that calling someone a bigot or hater is just as much hyperbole.  Something I also find offensive.  But like this blogger, there are extremes on both sides.

 

There is a bit of irony in a post that calls for taking up action so strongly to protect themselves from proceeved discrimination and uses an example of a man who can't be bothered to stand up against discrimination of a gay player.  And then to imply that Sam is an insignificant player who seemed to be lucky to be even drafted shows how much hyperbole is in this "blog".  Does painting Sam as an insignificant draft choice somehow make discrimination more justified??  Maybe someone can tell me why the blogger needed to dimish Sam's college career in order to make his case.  From the blog

 

 

from Wikipedia

 

 

 

I have reread the blog several times and have yet to find the reasons he seems to indicate as reasons to call christians to arms.  The one example he uses to build his case around certainly doesn't stand up.  The only thing he has as far as I can tell is extremely ignorant remarks by a group of idots posting hateful statements in the comments section.  Nothing new here for either side.

Being a great or good College football player doesn't always transfer to being a great or even good NFL player. Tim Tebow broke many CFB records and he was not expected to be drafted high, nor was he expected to do well as a QB in the NFL. He is out of the NFL now after just a few years.

[Scott Lloyd]

About a month ago, I read a statement that said "As soon as you hear the words "Politically Correct"  you know it is going to be followed by some derogative statement about gays or blacks. 

Yeah, it's common for the political correctness crowd to try to shut down discourse by pulling the race card as above, whether or not it is actually pertinent to the conversation at hand.

 

The term political correctness has quite deservedly taken on a negative connotation over time as being synonymous with what Pahoran in an earlier post on this thread so aptly characterized as "manipulative propaganda."

 

Thus it was that I chose the thread title I did as an apt -- and not unfavorable -- description of the blog I Iinked to, which pulls no punches in railing against such heavy-handed propaganda.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

So I ask again, should we start killing them or wait for them to start killing us?

 

Your histrionics notwithstanding, I don't see that it has come to the point of kill or be killed.

 

What we do have, as the blog post made clear, is a war of words in which one side is endeavoring to recast the discourse to allow no middle ground or abstention -- and apparently is being quite successful at it.

 

Afterthought:

We see it on this very board with the threads that get hijacked into discussions on gay rights -- so much so that the moderators in a pinned thread have called a halt to it.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

Your histrionics notwithstanding, I don't see that it has come to the point of kill or be killed.

 

What we do have, as the blog post made clear, is a war of words in which one side is endeavoring to recast the discourse to allow no middle ground or abstention -- and apparently is being quite successful at it.

The reason I made the comment is that the blogger explicitly agrees that there can be no middle ground or abstentions. I disagree and will continue to abstain.

[Scott Lloyd]

The reason I made the comment is that the blogger explicitly agrees that there can be no middle ground or abstentions. I disagree and will continue to abstain.

Good luck with that.

 

I think the point that the blogger made is that the gay rights pressure groups won't allow abstention. They insist that you embrace and celebrate their stance, and if you refuse, you are just another bigot.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

Well, since YOUR sexual proclivities get tax-favored treatment, on what grounds do you object? Because God likes YOUR proclivities better?

 

No.

 

For one, while there is unavoidably a moral component to this issue, it is primarily a rational state interest issue. Coloring it as a civil rights issue is propaganda at its worst and pretzel logic at best. 

 

And, for another, it isn't sexual proclivity that is given preferential treatment, but the formal and long-term committed and legitimized context in which the sexual proclivity is exercised. Promiscuous heterosexual teens are not incentivized by tax breaks to fornicate

 

In short, marital laws were intended, among several things, to minimize out-of-wedlock births. The benefits to society resulting from such minimizing far outweighs the costs (as attested to by the mounting and very costly social ills most manifest in this regard within the black community). Since the exercise of homosexual proclivities can't result in pregnancy, in or out of wedlock, the state has no rational interest in promoting homosexual behavior in this respect. The cost of promoting formally committed homosexual relationships isn't outweighed by the benefits (there are none), and is thus irrational and even contrary to state interest in other respects.

 

But, some may label me a bigot and a homophobe for stating this salient point. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I found the post to be hyperbolic, sure, but I too don't think it should be dismissed as a rant.  The author brings up some good points.

 

I will admit that as one who tends to lean liberal/libertarian on social issues I get very frustrated when my fellow supporters of SSM or gay rights bring out the "bigot" or "hate" card at there mere suggestion that -- *gasp* -- someone may dare hold a different opinion.  

 

If we call what Tony Dungy said "hate", we have made it, the word "hate", absolutely meaningless. Dungy was right.  Sam's sexuality *will be a media distraction* as is clear by the coverage Dungy's remarks are receiving!!

 

Could Dungy have stated this view more delicately given our hyper-sensitive outrage culture fueled by FB and Twitter?  Absolutely.  Is Dungy a hate-filled bigot who would not draft Sam because he is gay?  Absolutely not.  I don't see how an intelligent person could read Dungy any differently.

 

The problem is that if we get hysterical over remarks that perhaps could or should have been stated more clearly or delicately (and even this drive me nuts.... it seems that no one can simply just state their views these days without getting killed by the mob of public opinion and its seemingly faux outrage) we cheapen the experiences of those who have been the victims of true hate and true prejudice.  And then, as the blog author points out, we get to see real hate on display.  Bringing up the suicide of Dungy's son and suggesting that it was due to Dungy's views?  Absolutely disgusting.

 

I support SSM because I desire the maximum liberty and freedom for *all.*  Not just those who conform to some notion of social orthodoxy.

 

I heartily agree with most everything you said.

 

My only real objection is in how you got the "freedom" aspect of this issue exactly backwards.

 

For decades homosexuals have been free to "marry" as they please. No government entity has stopped them. So, freedom to "marry" isn't what this is about.

 

Rather, it is about government sanctioning and promoting and normalizing homosexual relationships.

 

Up until recently, societies, through their governments, have been free to decide, on rational basis, not only which relationships to sanction and promote and normalize and deem as moral, but also how to legally define "marriage/" The courts of late, through unprecedented pretzel logic, have increasingly denied societies and governments those freedoms.

 

So, the only loss of freedom here is from inane judges foisting pop cultural immorality down the throats of good and decent people.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

So, the only loss of freedom here is from inane judges foisting pop cultural immorality down the throats of good and decent people.

 

That's a pretty good description of what has been happening in the past several years since the California voters approved Prop 8.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

That's a pretty good description of what has been happening in the past several years since the California voters approved Prop 8.

 

Sadly, it began four years earlier with judges in Massachusetts.

 

Even in California it began months earlier with rogue judges inanely striking down Prop. 23.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 24, 2014 by wenglund

[sethpayne]

I heartily agree with most everything you said.

 

My only real objection is in how you got the "freedom" aspect of this issue exactly backwards.

 

For decades homosexuals have been free to "marry" as they please. No government entity has stopped them. So, freedom to "marry" isn't what this is about.

 

Rather, it is about government sanctioning and promoting and normalizing homosexual relationships.

 

Up until recently, societies, through their governments, have been free to decide, on rational basis, not only which relationships to sanction and promote and normalize and deem as moral, but also how to legally define "marriage/" The courts of late, through unprecedented pretzel logic, have increasingly denied societies and governments those freedoms.

 

So, the only loss of freedom here is from inane judges foisting pop cultural immorality down the throats of good and decent people.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

Well, Wade.  You disagree with me on SSM an and so I think it is clear that you are a hate filled bigot with genocidal tendencies.

[sethpayne]

I don't think that anyone is disagreeing with Tony Dungy that drafting Sam will cause some distractions from the media.  I think the pushback is when someone says they have nothing against gays, and are against discrimination yet are willing to themselves discriminate when it is inconvient for them.  This coach should watch "42" to see what inconvience and media distraction was like when a much braver coach drafter Jackie Robinson.  And yes, I agree with you that calling someone a bigot or hater is just as much hyperbole.  Something I also find offensive.  But like this blogger, there are extremes on both sides.

 

There is a bit of irony in a post that calls for taking up action so strongly to protect themselves from proceeved discrimination and uses an example of a man who can't be bothered to stand up against discrimination of a gay player.  And then to imply that Sam is an insignificant player who seemed to be lucky to be even drafted shows how much hyperbole is in this "blog".  Does painting Sam as an insignificant draft choice somehow make discrimination more justified??  Maybe someone can tell me why the blogger needed to dimish Sam's college career in order to make his case.  From the blog

 

 

from Wikipedia

 

 

 

I have reread the blog several times and have yet to find the reasons he seems to indicate as reasons to call christians to arms.  The one example he uses to build his case around certainly doesn't stand up.  The only thing he has as far as I can tell is extremely ignorant remarks by a group of idots posting hateful statements in the comments section.  Nothing new here for either side.

 

Hey CB,

 

As always, I appreciate your perspective and you raise some good points.  The strongest point you make here IMO is that media attention will always follow a significant social change in sports, business, etc...  As such, we shouldn't let concerns about media distractions dictate -- in itself -- our choices.  Fair point, and I agree.

 

So let me talk football.  I'm just a long-time fan and certainly no expert so take anything I say with a grain of salt.  

 

Before last season ESPN wanted to do one of those reality shows where they follow a team through the season etc...  I forget the name of the show.  Anyway, they asked the Seahawks if they would be the subject of the show and Jim Carroll immediately said no.  He believed that their presence would be a massive distraction as the Hawks were trying to go for their first SB.  So, is it reasonble for a coach to make choices based on the media impact to the team?  Absolutely.

 

And what about Tim Tebow?  He too had an amazing college career.  And I mean, amazing.  But everyone focused on his religion and, just like Sam, he was open about his true self -- his true beliefs.  He wasn't going to be ashamed and try and hide who he really was.  He was absolutely murdered in the press.  "Leave Jesus at Church!" etc...  How is this any different from Sam?  Why should Tebow be ridiculed as a Christian for daring to kneel and pray while Sam can put his sexuality out there and be put out as a hero?  There is a terrible double-standard here.  The fact is, if we want to live in an open pluralistic society, we need to let people express themselves as who they really are.  This includes both Tebow and Sam.  And hey, let's ask the Jets and Mark Sanchez about how the media's fixation on Tebow impacted the team.  The fact that Sam signed a reality show contract without telling the Rams raises some red flags.  Is this rookie going to be 100% focused on making the roster or is he more concerned about being a reality star?  Gay or straight, this was a really crappy thing to do.

 

And let's not forget something else.  Tebow is simply not a very good NFL player; especially not a QB.  He's too small.  Not fast enough, etc...  So just because you are a college All-star and future NCAA hall-of-famer (which Tebow most certainly is) does not mean that you will have success in the NFL.  And here's the other thing.  People were talking about this when Tebow was a Jr. in College.  Analysts, coaches, etc... said he's just not the right fit for an NFL QB.  This isn't uncommon.  Doug Flutie was great in college, flopped in the NFL.  Ty Detmer (go Cougs!) was an amazing college player and had a long, but below average, NFL career.  

 

So did the author disparage Sam's college career?  Yeah, perhaps.  There is no doubt Sam is a superstar college player.  Like Tebow, he's a hard worker and a great athlete.  But if Tony Dungy, along with others, believe that Sam is not a great NFL talent, then I tend to trust their judgment.  Now, like Dungy said, Sam should have the chance to prove himself on the field.  He may blow us all away.  

 

And let's get real.  NFL teams want to win games, period.  If Sam were Jadeveon Clowney, he would have gone in the first round.  There are just a lot of question marks around Sam -- none of which have anything to do with his sexuality.  And so to even suggest (and I don't think you are doing this, just to be very clear) that his NFL career is being hampered or that people aren't' giving him a chance because of his sexuality -- is pure nonsense.

 

So now the Rams are in a tough spot.  If Sam plays well then there will be a huge sigh of relief coming out of St. Louis.  If he doesn't, and the Rams cut him, there is a good chance they will be accused of homophobia etc...  

 

So here is hoping that Sam is the NFLs Jackie Robinson.  I really do hope he does well because I think it is a big step for the NFL to have openly gay players.  But as a gay rights and SSM advocate, I think it is dangerous to make heroes of people primarily because they are gay.  I'm sure Sam wants to be an NFL player who happens to be gay rather than a gay NFL player.

[wenglund]

Well, Wade.  You disagree with me on SSM an and so I think it is clear that you are a hate filled bigot with genocidal tendencies.

 

I appreciate how well you tote the party line.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[wenglund]

Here is the Readers Digest version of the blog post:

 

Where once people were rightly outraged for good reason when people discriminated against certain classes of people, nowadays people are wrongly outraged for political reason when people DON'T discriminate FOR certain classes of people, 

 

We now live in an inverted world, and we can either let it be or attempt to right it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

I would agree that it is somewhat of a "rant," but it is spot on.

 

It's great to hear someone unafraid to speak the truth in this PC infested country.

 

Kudo's to Matt Walsh! 

 

I find "rant" and "spot on" to be oxymoronic.

 

But such is the finickiness of human nature.

 

One man's rant is another's spot on......all depends on where your biases lie.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Well, Wade.  You disagree with me on SSM an and so I think it is clear that you are a hate filled bigot with genocidal tendencies.

 

I was going to say that you forgot "Nazi-loving" in there, but realized you covered it under "genocidal tendencies."

[Senator]

Well, Wade.  You disagree with me on SSM an and so I think it is clear that you are a hate filled bigot with genocidal tendencies.

 

Maybe you're just a pompous, pasty white carnival barker sycophantic hack.................

 

to use the words of another

[The Nehor]

Good luck with that.

 

I think the point that the blogger made is that the gay rights pressure groups won't allow abstention. They insist that you embrace and celebrate their stance, and if you refuse, you are just another bigot.

I have been called worse things.

[The Nehor]

I was going to say that you forgot "Nazi-loving" in there, but realized you covered it under "genocidal tendencies."

Are you still a bigot if your genocidal tendencies are divorced from your political and social views? My genocidal tendencies are just a casual hobby.