When you are part of a group that has been harassed, oppressed and just killed for millennia, having representation and voice is pretty excited. In an effort to find common ground, I'd ask that you try to imagine who liberating and empowering such news is, rather than mocking it. Or is your intent to mock or belittle the news of a gay person being in this position?
Actually, I wasn’t mocking Pete’s presumptive cabinet position, as much as I was mocking the unbiased, fact driven media and idiots like you who are so driven by partisanship that you ignore the fact that the story is factually wrong. He’s not the first gay cabinet member, he’ll be the second. But y’all are so obsessed with giving Biden this “honor”, that y’all ignored the fact that Trump nominated and confirmed the first gay cabinet member,
You’re correct of course, and Dan let his assumptions and prejudices lead him to multiple wrong conclusions. Just like the MSM and their high regard for accuracy and truthful reporting.
Sorry, that last comment was cut off. What I started to say was the media I've read noted the distinction that, if confirmed, Buttigieg would be the first confirmed by Congress. Since Grenell was not. Doing some research, it appears other media outlets were less cautious. I, of course, recall the news about Grenell when it happened.
Regardless, being part of an Administration that will support gay people, Buttigieg's appointment is significant and nothing to be scoffed at.
I guess we have the choice between believing that that the media was trying to push a false narrative or that they were too stupid or lazy to fact check themselves.
Clearly PB's appointment is based on the fact he's a homosexual, as opposed to qualified for the position, just as Biden tapped Harris because of sex and skin color. There's far too much of this in politics in general, though I'd argue the GOP at least seeks a token with ability and proven track record. Of course, the Dems are sorely lacking in that regard, so I suppose pure tokenism is all they have.
I think that it's a big part of it. I also think that Pete was pretty likeable during his campaign and that Biden is trying to create the illusion that he's giving bringing in the opposition to form his cabinet. What's not mentioned is that he doesn't think enough of the gay dude to give him one of the prestigious positions. Maybe Pete will be the designated survivor.
The only real point here was to watch Dan jump in with both feet, and then point out his partisan hackery.
Craig... "y’all are so obsessed with giving Biden this “honor”, that y’all ignored the fact that Trump nominated and confirmed the first gay cabinet member,"
In an effort to find some common ground around reality, let me just clarify a couple of misunderstandings you've had.
1. I didn't say anything about Buttigieg being the first to hold a cabinet position. I just didn't. Right?
2. Trump did not nominate and confirm the first gay Cabinet member. Correct?
Craig... "Dan let his assumptions and prejudices lead him to multiple wrong conclusions..."
"real point here was to watch Dan jump in with both feet, and then point out his partisan hackery."
I suppose you realize now that these claims were, themselves, a mistake and factually wrong? The stories I read reported the news correctly. And I was just speaking of the importance of this nomination and a cabinet looking like all of the United States. That I did not say anything about Buttigieg being the first to serve a cabinet position... and thus, there was no partisan hackery in anything that I said. And that there were no assumptions or prejudices what I said...
Clearly PB's appointment is based on the fact he's a homosexual, as opposed to qualified for the position, just as Biden tapped Harris because of sex and skin color.
So much wrong in that comment, so much sick in this attitude. Marshal, these are extremely intelligent, extremely capable people. It didn't matter to you that DeVos knew nothing about education when she was appointed to administer the education department, nor that Carson had no experience in housing when appointed to HUD... etc, etc with the Trump administration appointing sorely unqualified people to so many departments, and yet you want to nitpick extremely intelligent and qualified Harris and Buttigieg and make sexist, hateful accusations that they were nominated because of their categories?
Come, now. Buttigieg, besides being extremely intelligent, by all counts, has experience running a city, which includes transportation matters. What qualifications would make one qualified to run Transportation Cabinet that he doesn't have? Why does that matter now, when you were silent when Trump appointed those completely unfamiliar with their appointed cabinets?
"1. I didn't say anything about Buttigieg being the first to hold a cabinet position. I just didn't. Right?"
Are you so egomaniacal that you just assume everything is about you and what you said? Did you read what I actually wrote? Start there. Then look at the headlines and the news stories. They got it wrong, you jumped in by attacking my motives.
"2. Trump did not nominate and confirm the first gay Cabinet member. Correct?"
Read what I wrote in the original post very carefully, then think about it, then decide if this question makes sense.
"The stories I read reported the news correctly."
Except you earlier said...
"Doing some research, it appears other media outlets were less cautious."
Are you suggesting that "less cautious" is code for "reported correctly"?
The fact that you (finally) did your own research and (grudgingly) sort of acknowledged that I was correct, before you went into CYA mode is amusing.
" And I was just speaking of the importance of this nomination and a cabinet looking like all of the United States."
Really, noting in your first comment, especially the part where you accused me of being "mocking" and "belittling" Pete. Is that the "looking like America" part?
FYI, unless Biden nominates some conservatives to his cabinet, it's not going to "look like America". Unless you only view America through the superficial lens of skin color.
"And that there were no assumptions or prejudices what I said.."
Really? So, you have objective roof that I was "mocking" and "belittling" Pete in my original post?
"nor that Carson had no experience in housing when appointed to HUD"
!. "Carson" has ample experience in public housing, he was raised in it. 2. If "y'all' are going get pissy for not referring to Jill Biden as "Dr", then you damn sure better refer to one of the most well qualified pediatric neurosurgeons in the country as "Dr".
Which is it? Was Pete nominated because he helps fill a box to make a "cabinet looking like all of the United States.", or because he's an expert in transportation? Is his experience as a mayor of a city with roughly 30 busses, really an expert? Really? I think you were right the first time, that you are looking for a cabinet that is "looking like all of the United States".
Craig... "Are you suggesting that "less cautious" is code for "reported correctly"?
The fact that you (finally) did your own research and (grudgingly) sort of acknowledged that I was correct, before you went into CYA mode is amusing."
AGAIN, I'm sorry you're failing to read and understand my words correctly. What I have said is that when I INITIALLY READ stories about Buttigieg, they ALL reported the facts correctly. That is, they weren't saying "Buttigieg is the first gay person in a cabinet, in any context whatsoever." They factually reported that he was the first openly gay person to be nominated to serve in the cabinet and, if approved, the first to be approved to serve in a cabinet position." THAT is factually correct.
Your claim, on the other hand, " y’all ignored the fact that Trump nominated and confirmed the first gay cabinet member," ...is factually incorrect.
So, the news stories I read initially were factually correct, while you are factually mistaken.
After reading your post, I looked further and was able to find one or two news groups (out of many) that used words that made it sound like Buttigieg was the first gay person to serve in a cabinet, which is not correct. They were imprecise in their language hinting at a factually wrong conclusion.
Those (one or two) less precise, less cautious news group(s), should have done better. But in the main, the stories I read in multiple places reported it correctly, while you have not done so.
Does that help you understand what I have said?
Does it help you to understand that you have made a factually incorrect claim?
Are you prepared to correct your false claim?
Craig... "The fact that you (finally) did your own research and (grudgingly)..." I don't routinely check each and every news groups coverage of the same item. Nothing to do with "grudgingly" or "finally," and everything to do with the reality that I'm a finite person.
I suspect you're misunderstanding what I have and haven't said. Feel free to ask questions, if you're not sure.
Case in point, Craig... "noting in your first comment, especially the part where you accused me of being "mocking" and "belittling" Pete. Is that the "looking like America" part?"
I asked you a question ("Or is your intent to mock or belittle the news of a gay person being in this position?") seeking to understand your position. That's not accusing you, it's asking, because it sounded like you were belittling this news.
Do you understand how important such events are for an historically oppressed minority group?
Craig... "unless Biden nominates some conservatives to his cabinet..."
Biden will likely nominate some Republicans to his cabinet. According to Politico...
"Biden, who pledged to unite the country during the campaign, will likely try to keep his coalition together by nominating a mix of progressives, moderates and even a few Republicans."
Did Trump nominate any Democrats to his administration? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm doubting it.
"And I was just speaking of the importance of this nomination and a cabinet looking like all of the United States."
There's nothing particularly important in nominating a homosexual, except for the fact it is evidence of our nation's moral decline that people like you lefties find it noteworthy.
"That I did not say anything about Buttigieg being the first to serve a cabinet position... and thus, there was no partisan hackery in anything that I said."
The first quote of yours in this comment is itself partisan hackery...to pretend nominating a homosexual means anything, aside from, as I said, evidence of moral decline of our culture in celebrating the nomination of someone based on his perversion.
"So much wrong in that comment, so much sick in this attitude. Marshal, these are extremely intelligent, extremely capable people."
What's wrong in that comment of mine is the fact that Biden chose this dude because he's a homosexual. He has no particular background in transportation, and his time as mayor was not particularly noteworthy. Indeed, blacks in his town were less than impressed.
An "extremely intelligent", "extremely capable" person doesn't get the level of criticism from constituents like PB.
"It didn't matter to you that DeVos knew nothing about education when she was appointed to administer the education department."
She had been involved in education in her state for quite some time before Trump tapped her for the Dept of Ed, a department we don't even need. Likewise, Ben Carson isn't short on accomplishments (his work as a neurosurgeon proves his intelligence):
We can compare cabinet and administration appointments all day long. But it wouldn't be fair. Dems start out with morons who support moronic policies, so...
"yet you want to nitpick extremely intelligent and qualified Harris and Buttigieg and make sexist, hateful accusations that they were nominated because of their categories?"
Again, neither has a stellar track record in anything. They were picked because of irrelevant and superficial reasons. There's nothing sexist or hateful about stating fact. It is sexist to pick a VP because she's a woman, and by virtue of that pick it's insulting to actual qualified people if not hateful to them.
Craig... " If "y'all' are going get pissy for not referring to Jill Biden as "Dr""
I follow the standard followed by most newspapers and refer to political actors by their last name when writing my stories and comments.
The complaint about Dr Jill Biden came only when someone specifically said to her she should forgo being introduced as Dr Biden. The complaint was NOT directed at media groups referring to her as Biden. For instance, in this CNN article...
"The school said in a statement on Saturday that it disagrees with the "misogynistic views" of Joseph Epstein, an author and former professor at the Illinois school who wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published Friday that Biden should drop the "Dr." because it "sounds and feels fraudulent, not to say a touch comic."
Having been schooled in journalism, I have taken to using that same rule, as a norm. Consistency would be the main thing. If I opted to refer to Biden as Dr Biden but in Carson's case refused to call him Dr Carson, then that would be inconsistent.
As it is, I'm consistently following that guideline that I was schooled with.
I will note that, with multiple people in the same family, I may opt for different practices. For instance, generally, I would refer to Hilary Clinton as Clinton. BUT, if I was writing comments about both Hilary and Bill Clinton, then I might use their first names for clarity's sake. Same for the Bidens, moving forward. Same for the Carsons. If I ever write commentary about Dr and Mrs Carson, I may refer to him as Dr Carson for clarity's sake. But generally, I will refer to people by their last names.
Craig... "Which is it? Was Pete nominated because he helps fill a box to make a "cabinet looking like all of the United States.", or because he's an expert in transportation? "
He was nominated because he's very intelligent and capable. No one suggested otherwise. Except for Marshal. Marshal made the damnable claim that he was nominated because he was gay. How awful of a suggestion.
This is one problem that many conservatives fall into: They want to pretend that, when we celebrate historic nominations and elections of people from historically oppressed groups, that we're celebrating their being in those positions BECAUSE they were black, female, transgender, gay. No, of course not. And the very suggestion is demeaning and part of an historic trend of oppressing these groups.
If you recognize that very real history of oppression, then it would be wise and decent of you to call out fellow conservatives (or liberals, for that matter) if and when they make such claims.
Craig... "Dan let his assumptions and prejudices lead him to multiple wrong conclusions..."
And...
"real point here was to watch Dan jump in with both feet, and then point out his partisan hackery."
Also Craig... "Are you so egomaniacal that you just assume everything is about you and what you said?"
Do you realize, now, that I was speaking of your words SPECIFICALLY about me? (Hint: See the DAN in your comments you made about me...)
Now, perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you were referring to some other Dan, just out of the blue. Is that the case? If not, then perhaps you should own it when you make false claims specifically about me and then try to suggest that you were not speaking to/about me later on. Gaslighting does not become you.
Craig... " I think you were right the first time, that you are looking for a cabinet that is "looking like all of the United States"."
Do you know how demeaning that suggestion is? Do you recognize that gay folk are a part of an historically oppressed group who have been attacked, oppressed and demeaned for millenia and that adding to it by suggesting this was his only qualification for the job just continues the attacks?
Do you know that Buttigieg is multilingual, familiar with up to eight languages? That he is a Rhodes scholar who graduated from Harvard AND Oxford universities? That he graduated from Harvard Magna Cum Laude? That he served in military intelligence as an officer? And that he has served in public office, as well as in the military? All by the age of 37?
The man clearly has a great intellect and drive and capabilities. To reduce it down to "he got it cuz he's gay" is demeaning and shame on you. You should know better.
How many languages could you speak at 37? How many towns had you been elected to office in? How many Magna Cum Laudes from Harvard did you have?
Craig... "!. "Carson" has ample experience in public housing, he was raised in it."
I drive a car. Doesn't mean I'm qualified to work on it. Managing housing IS something my wife did for years and it's not easy stuff. Of course, oftentimes the people heading these agencies don't know much about what they're doing, they're just figureheads who rely upon their staff. But it helps if you believe in the cause you're overseeing.
That, more than a lack of field-specific knowledge, is what troubles me. Trump appointed an anti-public education rich woman to head Education, a man who has overseen dismantling of HUD efforts to head HUD, Coal apologists to head EPA, etc, etc, etc. That is what I find troubling. And this, from a man who promised to drain the swamp.
"He was nominated because he's very intelligent and capable"
As was/is Dr Carson. It takes a fair degree on intelligence and capability to move from abject poverty to being the preeminent person in a difficult medical specialty.
"No one suggested otherwise."
Except you. You are the one who said he was nominated to make sure the cabinet looked like the US.
"They want to pretend that, when we celebrate historic nominations and elections of people from historically oppressed groups,"
I guess if you consider being the second of something "historic" that's your call. I would have thought that you'd have been at least this excited the first time we had an openly gay cabinet secretary.
" that we're celebrating their being in those positions BECAUSE they were black, female, transgender, gay."
Really? Other than Pete being the second openly gay cabinet secretary, what is special or historic to celebrate?
"And the very suggestion is demeaning and part of an historic trend of oppressing these groups."
I completely agree that it's demeaning to construct a cabinet based on filling slots with minorities so that it looks like the US. It's always demeaning to select someone for anything based on the demographic box they check.
You see, folks like me begin with the notion that there are capable, qualified people in all groups... women, lgbtq folk, racial minorities, etc, AND we recognize that historically, people in these groups have factually been excluded and kept out of being represented. Because of that real world oppression, we want to make sure that they are included. Ignoring that reality and not actively looking for opportunities to include them will only serve to further the oppression. That is why it's a big deal.
"He was nominated because he's very intelligent and capable. No one suggested otherwise. Except for Marshal. Marshal made the damnable claim that he was nominated because he was gay. How awful of a suggestion."
LOTS of people are suggesting otherwise, as you'd know by reading the links I posted or, I dunno, actually doing some research before getting a tingle because Biden nominated a homosexual. He's referred to by those in South Bend as "Pothole Pete" for the condition of roads not leading to the university. This is the new transportation secretary (should he be confirmed)...a guy who couldn't get streets fixed in the sleepy hamlet of South Bend, Indiana...Population: about 100K. He was nominated because he's a homosexual. What's awful is that it's absolutely true.
The first difference is that we realize that people are first and foremost humans created in the image of God, and that our inherent worth comes from that. The second is that we understand that people’s qualifications don’t come from whatever minority you put them in, and that qualifications code despite ones skin color or sexual predilections.
Gotcha, he’ll be the second openly gay cabinet member. Why not just acknowledge that Trump was appointed the first and be gracious, instead of adding additional qualifiers to make a participation trophy seem like a gold medal?
Craig... "that our inherent worth comes from that. The second is that we understand that people’s qualifications don’t come from whatever minority you put them in, and that qualifications code despite ones skin color or sexual predilections."
So, are you suggesting it's wrong to note when someone's coming from an oppressed group? Do you think Jesus was wrong to say what you do for the least of these you do for me or that he came to preach good news to the poor, or saying blessed are you who are poor... was Jesus just stupid for saying that?
Of course, reasonable people can agree, I imagine you can too, that noting the reality of an historically oppressed group and celebrating when they move further away from oppression and further into the mainstream.
Can't you agree with this simple grace? Surely we can find some common ground in a formerly oppressed group moving away from oppression and having a voice? Do you seriously not think that's not something worthy of Celebration?
"2. It will be a step towards normalizing LGBTQ folks having a place at the table where decisions are made."
Why would they need such a place if not to promote their deviant behavior as normal and equal to that which takes place between a man and woman in the bonds of matrimony? There's no legitimate reason to make sure we have some "representative number" of "LGBTQ folks".
Normal intelligent people, on the other hand, prefer those who are best suited to a job, most qualified and able to perform well on behalf of all Americans, hopefully bringing along a track record of success and accomplishments. If that person happens to be a homosexual, a black person, a woman, etc., so be it. The only promotion of a personal agenda must also be of benefit to all Americans. The LGBTQ agenda is not, especially given its basis in lies, falsehoods, distortions and corruption.
What we need represented in government is intelligence, integrity, high moral character, and other such virtues, selecting from those seeking office or appointment those people that are possessed of as many of these virtues as possible (beginning with intelligence). Checking off boxes related to the superficial, such as sex or skin color is only justifiable if all other boxes are checked off...kind of a tie-breaker thing. But even then, such traits have no other real significance or importance in running the nation, state or city.
An open homosexual immediately has demonstrated a failure in the area of moral character, and that trait...which is not immutable...thus is a justifiable disqualification.
You DO agree that gay folks have been traditionally oppressed, harassed, killed, beaten, maligned, demonized, hated... right? Even if you "hate the sin," you DO recognize the great oppression of gay folks throughout history, right? Or do you not?
For the record, I and many others noted at the time the good news of Grenell's being appointed an interim position in Trump's cabinet. It was an important first. I am glad took knowledge that oh, and did so with the time. At least in conversations with friends. And again, we learned that in the mainstream media. I was glad to celebrate that. Were you? Are you not willing to give some grace and joy to the gay community by honoring this first, as well?
Again I would ask, do you recognize the importance of such historic firsts for people coming from oppressed groups?
I would also ask, do you realize referring to this important historic first as a participation trophy is a demeaning attack upon gay folks? I'm not asking that you celebrate this if you don't feel like it, but why not just have the decency to let others enjoy the moment? You could have left this historic moment just pass and be quiet, but you're choosing to attack the media and demean gay Folks at the same time. Do you think that's Grace-full? Christian?
If you aren’t going to read what I actually wrote, I’m not sure how writing more will help,
The problem with making up the non existent first for Pete, is that him being gay is no secret, he’s an upper middle class white guy who’s sole distinguishing characteristic that is celebrated is the fact that he has sex with dudes. Not sure how his choice of sex partners makes him better or worse for a second-third tier cabinet post.
If you think that being second then s historic, then you blow whatever horns you want to, I don’t care.
I love how we’re just supposed to accept your word that you celebrated the real first quietly to your friends, but choose to celebrate the second so publicly. What a fraud. You can’t provide one instance where you celebrated Grennell publicly because the notion that you’d celebrate anything Trump did or would give Trump credit for anything is simply absurd
My referring to Pete being second as a participation trophy is targeted it idiots like you who are obsessed with turning this nonevent into big news.
No, you don’t get to just make these idiotic pronouncements and demand we agree with your attempt to be moose your fantasies on others.
"You DO agree that gay folks have been traditionally oppressed, harassed, killed, beaten, maligned, demonized, hated... right?"
As have so many others who willingly engage in any number of other sinful behaviors.
"Are you not willing to give some grace and joy to the gay community by honoring this first, as well?"
No. Why should anyone give special recognition to someone because of that someone's unique and immoral sexual proclivities?
"Again I would ask, do you recognize the importance of such historic firsts for people coming from oppressed groups?"
Depends on the "oppressed" group. There's no particular importance except to acknowledge that morally corrupt people are exploiting appointments of homosexuals to further normalize and legitimize their immorality, thereby speeding the moral decay of our culture.
"I would also ask, do you realize referring to this important historic first as a participation trophy is a demeaning attack upon gay folks?"
Given that's what it is, it isn't us doing the demeaning. Those who are would be those who have nominated this unqualified buffoon because he's a homosexual. Indeed, doing so is far more demeaning of the position for which he was nominated.
The media is well deserving of attack. Homosexual behavior is a well deserving of attack as any other firm of sexual immorality. It's perfectly Christian to discriminate against bad behaviors. In fact, it's recommended.
Based on Pete’s comments about electric cars, I can say that I doubt that he’s actually informed enough to be anything but a mouthpiece for certain agendas.
1. Y’all had the chance to get a real, big deal, exciting first with Pete. But you didn’t. 2. Biden could have nominated Pete for one of the more visible, bigger deal cabinet positions, but he didn’t. 3. SecTrans will effectively ruin any chance Pete has at higher elective office, because there’s just no history of lower tier cabinet secretaries getting elected POTUS. 4. All in all, it looks like Biden just marginalized someone who might run against him in 2024.
Too be fair. One of the parts of the position of POTUS is that of appointing people to various roles. This constitutional power is pretty broad (much like the pardon) power, and I generally tend not to complain much about these uses of constitutional power. It’s a given that I’ll likely agree more with a GOP president’s pick than a DFL president. But really once it gets to the designated survivor level of cabinet secretaries, it’s hard to get worked up about them. I’m sure Pete will be fine and likely not accomplish much more than any other SecTrans. Pete seems like a nice enough, competent enough, guy and I don’t wish him ill.
I’m just amused by all the folks celebrating this and pretending like it’s a first.
Maybe you missed this reasonable question, respectfully asked, seeking clarification:
You DO agree that gay folks have been traditionally oppressed, harassed, killed, beaten, maligned, demonized, hated... right? Even if you "hate the sin," you DO recognize the great oppression of gay folks throughout history, right? Or do you not?
Craig... "I love how we’re just supposed to accept your word that you celebrated the real first quietly to your friends, but choose to celebrate the second so publicly. What a fraud."
Um, YOU brought up this Buttigieg celebration, not me. I was just explaining why it's worth celebrating. No one (not in my circles, anyway) was disputing the step forward when Grennel was appointed (not nominated), even if it was by an administration with a negative record towards LGBTQ concerns. YOU opted to try to make fun of both the media for covering this first and for gay folk for counting this as important. I simply respectfully asked if you could just try to understand how important such a nomination is.
No, I’ve just decided that if you aren’t going to answer questions or acknowledge/respond to/twist my answers, that I was going to be selective about which questions I answered.
Actually, I brought up the bad reporting on the Pete situation, you brought up the celebration. Look if you want to celebrate the guy who was second, go ahead. Just admit that you weren’t nearly as excited about the actual first guy as you are about Pete being #2.
Please stop with the unctuous, faux sincerely, fake respect crap. Given your past behavior, it’s clear that respect isn’t something you regularly give others.
So, the media and others are stupid for reporting and celebrating this FIRST gay person to be nominated for a cabinet position (hell, you can't even admit that this IS the first person nominated to a cabinet position and correct your false claim you made earlier!), and yet you can't answer the simple questions acknowledging the reality of the pain and harm of our historic oppression of LGBTQ folk?
Do you recognize that turning a blind eye to that oppression IS part of the oppression?
If it's the case that you're not aware of this, I'm letting you know that now. It's a chance to find some common ground with gay folk and their allies. Will you step up and meet us half way? Just by acknowledging the reality of the oppression and marginalization of gay folk?
Craig... "I brought up the bad reporting on the Pete situation, you brought up the celebration."
You brought up the news story about Buttigieg without acknowledging the historic oppression of gay folk or WHY this nomination is important. I tried to help by clarifying your overlooking of LGBTQ folk and WHY it is important. As I said...
"When you are part of a group that has been harassed, oppressed and just killed for millennia, having representation and voice is pretty exciting. In an effort to find common ground, I'd ask that you try to imagine who liberating and empowering such news is, rather than mocking it."
It was an educational effort and an attempt to respectfully reach out to clarify a misunderstanding you are still having. Will you humble yourself and just TRY to find some common ground? Can you recognize how important this is for LGBTQ folk and their allies, to have a WELL-QUALIFIED man nominated for a cabinet position and for that person to be a gay man? MEANING that gay folk are not being kept out of having their voices represented in a way that is unprecedented in US history?
Trump's record regarding LGBT concerns, regrettably in my Christian opinion, is only "negative" when described by lefty LGBT people and their lefty enablers:
The first two links are solid support from two conservative homosexuals. Given they're conservative, their opinions are most assuredly more reflective of reality.
The second two links seek to explain seeming inconsistencies often exploited by lefties to make it appear that Trump is anti-LGBT. Even I, who acknowledges the immorality and disorder of the LGBT agenda favors treating people fairly. This is what the second two links show Trump doing, even though he has no personal problem with LGBT people (so see...he's clearly not perfect).
It seems if Trump haters...especially those claiming journalistic training...would actually spend less time hating and more time investigating, they'd not make fools of themselves.
As to oppression, they've got a ways to go before they catch up to blacks and Jews on that score. Unlike blacks and Jews, they're able to abstain from acting on urges and desires to engage in immoral behavior, which in turn brings about their troubles with those who rightly refuse to tolerate immoral behavior, even if their response to that immoral behavior has been immoral as well. To insist they cannot help indulging in behaviors compelled by lusts and urges suggests mental disorder. But blacks and Jews suffered simply because they're blacks or Jews...not for anything they do. The same is true for women. Thus, there's a good reason to celebrate when blacks, Jews, women and others who been attack due to immutable characteristics, are recognized.
No, the problem is reporting and celebrating the second gay cabinet member as if he was the first. The fact that you can come up with some qualifier to make it seem like a bigger deal than it is.
Yes, I brought up the foolishness of the media, social and otherwise, and people like you celebrating the second gay cabinet member as if it was the first. I didn’t bring up the extraneous crap you need to seem obsessed with, because it wasn’t relevant to the point I was making.
This notion that Trump is beholden to accommodate your Christian beliefs on one topic, while excusing him on others seems strange. The fact that people believe the a Trump is anti gay narrative is also strange.
One of the things conservatives talk about is putting qualified people in jobs because they’re qualified, not because of who or what they choose to sleep with. Either they’re qualified or they’re not, period.
NO, NOT, "either they're qualified or they're not, period." NOT in a world where LGBTQ folk have been oppressed and silenced for centuries. Our cabinets and representatives SHOULD look like the US. It's not enough to say, "Well, these people COULD LEGALLY now be part of the Senate, the House, the Presidency or the administration." If they CAN be there, but they're not - and that IN SPITE of some of them being qualified and exceptional leaders, is a liberty in name only.
It is important to get qualified people FROM ALL groups in our system and, given the very real oppression by wealthy white men over the centuries, it's important to notice when it happens. Now, one day, when black folk, women, LGBTQ folk and other historically oppressed people are routinely equally representative, THEN it will not be a big deal to note the first time one is nominated to a position (as with Buttigieg, in spite of your oppressive dismissal of the importance of this)... when it's the 100th time an oppressed minority is finding representation, then maybe we won't be so inclined to celebrate.
But unless you recognize and acknowledge and know about the oppression of these groups and WHY it's important that they and their allies celebrate such events, you're just siding with the oppressors and gaslighting the recognition of the importance of such milestones.
Won't you join us by just BEGINNING to recognize why it is important by acknowledging the real oppression such groups have faced over the years.
Or why don't you start by asking some LGBTQ folk why it's important to them and trying to understand their reasoning, rather than dismissing it as silly and unimportant?
Gotcha, more quotas and affirmative action where the deciding factor is which box they check
All my LG friends all work hard to achieve their success on their own merits and aren’t interested in being given things based on who they have sex with.
Maybe we should keep government out of peoples bedrooms, and people bedroom activities out of job qualifications.
Of course, I'm not inserting government in the bedroom. I'm recognizing the reality of Oppression that has happened by our white male ancestors. I'm saying we, as white males, need to be responsible for the benefits that we've gotten off the backs of others.
But I guess you're fine with just saying to hell with responsibility, to hell with the oppressed people. I'll just enjoy my benefits cuz I got mines.
Is that what you're saying? Because that's not a moral option. It's not a rational option.
Join us in recognizing the reality of Oppression and in the fight to make things right, won't you? It's your chance to find some common ground with historically oppressed people. Listen to them.
Since that’s not what I’m saying, I guess I’m safe from your moral superiority and claims of not being rational.
I know your memory isn’t a sharp as it used to be, but as someone who was intentionally hiring “hops”, spent 10 years building housing for “hops” and mentors at risk high school “hops”, I think I’m doing just fine. I’d rather not farm out things I can do to the feds.
This notion that white people are the only demographic group that’s ever oppressed anyone doesn’t line up with the reality of history, I suspect you know that but push the narrative anyway.
Of course, the reality is that I have never said that white men are the only people who have oppressed others. You recognize that reality, right?
Likewise, the reality is that white men HAVE historically oppressed women, racial minorities, religious minorities and lgbtq folks. Serious oppression. Slavery. Murder. Extreme marginalization. Endangering lives. Causing harm. That is just an observable reality of History.
I'm wondering if you can't just simply acknowledge that? And I'm wondering why you are so reluctant to do so. I'm relatively certain it's not because you don't recognize that reality. Is it because you have political allegiances to conservative causes and that causes you to refrain from acknowledgement of this reality? Or you tell me. It's a puzzle.
Further, while white men today may not have actively engaged in the oppression of others, we do tend to still benefit from those centuries of Oppression. Recognizing that privilege that racism and sexism and homophobia have brought to us, we are especially obliged to at the very least acknowledge the reality of oppression and how we have benefited from that oppression. Just as a starting place. Once we can recognize that, then maybe we can recognize why it is important to honor extremely talented and qualified gay folk when they get placed in positions of power like this and begin - begin! - to have an equal voice.
Okay, I just read through each and every comment from you in this thread Craig. There is literally nothing, no questions from you, that I did not answer. The closest to a question that didn't answer is when you asked, do you not read what I read? But my answers show that I do read what you read. I was responding to your words I need to know every case. So in this thread, I believe there are handfuls, if not dozens of questions that I asked that have not then answered by you. There are no questions in this thread that I did not answer. Just to clarify that point and be clear. If you think in your head that I have not answered some question in this thread, then by all means, post it. I'm telling you I went through and do not see a single question from you that did not get answered, although there are many from me that did not get answered by you. Do you recognize that reality?
I intended it to refer to you specifically, because you’re complaining that he’s not living up to your sense of Christian doctrine on this one topic, while being less concerned on other issues.
I will point out the obvious, that. POTUS is bound by US law and can’t discriminate based on protected classes. So it makes sense that any POTUS would appoint people from protected classes.
If you’re going to single out white men and hold them accountable for the “oppression ” of their ancestors, why not apply this standard to all demographic groups who’ve oppressed?
Again this “benefit” you talk about applies to any progeny of those who’ve “oppressed” others, why single out white men? Further, if one looks at the current data, white men are being passed by several demographic groups in multiple economic categories, and declining. The issue seems to be less about “correcting” past oppression, but in the timeline and the need to celebrate.
Of course, it would help to acknowledge that the “cure” for the sins of those in the past involves “oppression”, discrimination, and treating those who’ve “benefitted”, unfairly.
Big deal, that you’ve “answered” most of my questions in one thread out of the last several months. You should be proud of yourself.
Craig... "I intended it to refer to you specifically, because you’re complaining that he’s not living up to your sense of Christian doctrine on this one topic, while being less concerned on other issues."
I don't know what you're talking about here. Just fyi. No idea.
Craig... "If you’re going to single out white men and hold them accountable for the “oppression ” of their ancestors, why not apply this standard to all demographic groups who’ve oppressed?"
In our nation, it is white men (and in many cases, white women) who have most been responsible for the oppression of racial minorities, women and LGBTQ folk. They have also most benefited from that oppression.
That isn't to say that there weren't black slave owners or women who fought to deny women the right to vote and other liberties, nor that there haven't been gay people who were racist and oppressed others... of course, that all happened. BUT, it is primarily white men (and especially wealthy white men) who made it a matter of policy and who benefited from it.
Do you disagree with this thesis?
"Why single out white men?"
Because, as a group, white men have most instigated the oppression and most benefited from the oppression of these others. Asked and answered.
For ~150 out of our ~250 years, white women didn't have the right to vote. White men WERE making these policies that benefited white men and oppressed others.
For ~190 out of our ~250 years, black people didn't have the right to vote. White men WERE making these policies that benefited white men/people and oppressed others.
For ~230 out of our ~250 years, LGBTQ folk couldn't even marry the person of their choice. For most of that time in most places, they couldn't even acknowledge their gender orientation/identity! Good Lord, of course, they have been oppressed. While serving in the military, if they were discovered to be gay, they were often killed or jailed! And this, in our lifetime!
Are you not aware of all of this/do you disagree with this?
Craig... "That's because you're a narcissist and assume that everything centers around you."
Really? A narcissist? I see now that Marshal wrote a thing that you were responding to, but I saw that after the fact. And no, when you and Marshal are having a conversation between you two, I don't read those closely. I guess that makes me a narcissist in your mind? Could it not be that, in the middle of a conversation that you and I were having, you wrote this comment with no hint as to whom it was directed and including information about a POTUS conversation that we were having, that it's not unusual for me making this mistake. But my apologies for not being omniscient. I don't think not being perfect makes me a narcissist, though.
I don't see it, but keep trying to find that common ground.
"In our nation, it is white men (and in many cases, white women) who have most been responsible for the oppression of racial minorities, women and LGBTQ folk. They have also most benefited from that oppression."
Ahhhhh, excellent point. Let's take the US out of the context of the entirety of the rest of world history and hold "white men" there to a higher standard that the entire rest of History. But, the irony of this situation is that because "white men" held the majority of the power, you can't place all of the blame on "white men", without giving the same "white men" a significant amount of credit for ending the oppression you complain about. This is an incredibly simplistic and selective look at the entirety of history. Let's take just one example, slavery in the southern US. White, Christian men and women were the primary drivers of the abolition movement, Lincoln was a white man, white men bled, and died in massive numbers fighting a war to end slavery in the US. It seems simplistic, absurd, and biased to ignore those undeniable facts.
"That isn't to say that there weren't black slave owners or women who fought to deny women the right to vote and other liberties, nor that there haven't been gay people who were racist and oppressed others... of course, that all happened. BUT, it is primarily white men (and especially wealthy white men) who made it a matter of policy and who benefited from it."
Again, you're ignoring the entirety of the rest of history, with this. This notion that you can pluck one country out of the context of the entirety of world history, judge the leaders by a 21st century liberal standard, and ignore the rest of the world. Hell, if judged only by length of time, "white men" haven't been in North America long enough to offset the oppression of the native tribes. If you didn't have double standards, it's likely you'd have no standards.
"Do you disagree with this thesis?"
If one looks at history by singling out one country/society from the entirety of history and retroactively applying the standards of 21st century liberals selectively, then there is a degree of truth in your thesis. It just ignores enough of the rest of North American/World history, to make the thesis worthless.
"Why single out white men?"
"Because, as a group, white men have most instigated the oppression and most benefited from the oppression of these others. Asked and answered."
As I've pointed out, this flatly isn't true of applied to the entirety of history and ignores the role of "white men" in changing the behaviors you bitch about.
"For ~150 out of our ~250 years, white women didn't have the right to vote. White men WERE making these policies that benefited white men and oppressed others."
Which ignores the reality that taking one small slice out of the entirety of history and selectively applying retroactive standards to it doesn't make sense if the point is to accurately asses things. It also ignores the role of "white men" in making the changes that ended the "oppression".
"For ~190 out of our ~250 years, black people didn't have the right to vote. White men WERE making these policies that benefited white men/people and oppressed others."
Hundreds of thousands of white men bled and died to move toward the ending of that situation, but screw them, right? Oh, and let's ignore the fact that it was "white men" that passed the legislation?amended the constitution also.
"For ~230 out of our ~250 years, LGBTQ folk couldn't even marry the person of their choice."
Sure they could. FYI, please let me know at which point in history anyone can "marry the person of their choice"? I'm unaware that there has ever been an expectation of unfettered choice in who one marries.
Of course, let's ignore the fact that as things stand today, a significant portion of the world not only bans gays from marriage, but still has the death penalty for them. Of course, that's not "white men". But it's convenient to leave that part out of the discussion.
"For most of that time in most places, they couldn't even acknowledge their gender orientation/identity! Good Lord, of course, they have been oppressed. While serving in the military, if they were discovered to be gay, they were often killed or jailed! And this, in our lifetime!"
Really, can you provide one example of anyone being executed under the UCMJ for being gay? Speaking of being killed of jailed for being gay, are the countries "in our lifetime!" that currently engage in these practices run by "white men"? Are the countries where these pro gay reforms are taking place countries that have historically been controlled by "white men"?
"Are you not aware of all of this/do you disagree with this?"
If you're asking if I'm aware that there are people who want to advocate harming one demographic group, to "benefit" other demographic groups, yes I am.
Do I find the notion of singling out one demographic group, applying a subjective retroactive standard to them, while exempting other demographic groups from the same standard as a compelling argument, no.
I've been following a group of black social scientists discuss a similar topic for a while, and the root problem with this position is that is takes current disparities of outcomes between demographic groups (with the breakdown of the groups designed to skew the results) and starts with the assumption that 100% of the present day disparity is cause 100% by past racism. I rarely see things in the real world that are that conveniently simplistic.
The problem isn't the fact that some "white men" have engaged in some "oppressive" behaviors over the course of history. No one questions the fact that what happened happened. What should be questioned is the wisdom of redrawing history in such a way that it discounts some actions, while overemphasizing others. Or of taking one time/place/society/country out of the context of the rest of history and retroactively applying a subjective, partisan, standard to one demographic group, while exempting others from the same scrutiny. The problem is to look at the entirety of things and to balance the "bad" with the "good", taking context in
I'll point out that it took me three comments to go through one of yours and address each point paragraph by paragraph, or even sentence by sentence when necessary. I'll point out that of one looks at the last several months of conversations that this sort of ratio is the norm for me. The fact that it took my recovery from surgery which caused me to deviate from my norm (while still addressing the points I addressed in detail), to embolden you enough to try to make these absurd assertions is telling. The fact that your argument in both cases ("white men" and my responses to you) is predicated on selectively taking things out of a larger context, applying differing standards, and ignoring things that don't help your cause, is quite illuminating.
"Really? A narcissist? I guess that makes me a narcissist in your mind?"
What makes you appear to be a narcissist, is that you make the assumption that it was directed at you, and get snarky and bitchy instead of simply asking the question.
"I don't see it, but keep trying to find that common ground."
As long as you get to define what "common ground" is and continue to be too lazy to even bother to look for the two requests I made of you.
"This notion that Trump is beholden to accommodate your Christian beliefs on one topic, while excusing him on others seems strange."
I would prefer every United States president accommodate my Christian beliefs on ALL topics. That I might not reject one for failing to perfectly do so on each and every topic is not akin to "excusing". It's allowing for the fact that finding perfect agreement on every topic is unlikely. My comments regarding Trump and LGBT issues was really rather clear and consistent with what I believe is our obligations to our fellow man. His policies on the matter seem to me to be no different than what one would expect toward any American, and not accommodating LGBT people in a manner specific to their agenda at the exclusion of others, in an "unequal application of the law" kind of way. I'm speaking in general terms here, not dismissing there may be a policy or two that doesn't perfectly adhere.
"While serving in the military, if they were discovered to be gay, they were often killed or jailed! And this, in our lifetime!"
Craig addressed this, but I just wanted to reiterate that evidence to back this up is required by its absurdity. I'm pretty sure that in our lifetime, homosexuals were simply dishonorably (appropriate) discharged.
I also wanted to reiterate that absurdity of pretending that we must do more for those considered to be oppressed classes, beyond simply not oppressing them anymore, simply because they're a member of that group. Where a specific case of being unlawful discrimination is obvious, certainly redress is appropriate. But to suggest we must put those of the "oppressed groups" higher up for consideration of a position simply because they are part of that allegedly oppressed group, regardless of whether or not the individual was himself ever oppressed, is insane and just another conflict with the concept of equal protection.
I’d argue that a president who follows biblical teaching on the sanctity of marriage and honors their wedding vows is an area of conformity that I suggest is much more valuable to the nation, than one who appoints gay people to cabinet positions. The willingness to honor vines wedding vows and fidelity to ones spouse are character traits that directly relate to one’s performance in elective office, while appointing a qualified person who happens to be gay to a political post, hardly contravenes anything remotely resembling Christian teaching.
I’m just noting that it’s interesting that you get so worked up about appointing a gay dude, but less so about a history of infidelity.
To back up your point about gays being discharged, which is by far the most common response. I’d add that if you join the military, knowing that homosexual activity (not being gay) was forbidden. Then you weren’t being discharged for being gay, you were being discharged for failing to follow the UCMJ. Strangely enough, people were also discharged for adultery, and other heterosexual activities.
The military interest in these sexual activities was not as much a moral prohibition as it was about good order and discipline.
Example A- Private Bob, and Private Dave are engaged in a sexual relationship. All of a sudden Bob dumps Dave for Corporal Fred. If the three of them are in an ambush, the possibility that Dave shoots one or both of the others, or that Dave fails to support the others, is bad from the standpoint of failure of the unit’s mission and the potential harm to others in the unit.
Example B- If Major Tom finds out that his wife is having an affair with 2LT Jack, Major Tom has multiple ways to harm 2LT Jack ranging from a poor fit rep, to placing him in harm’s way with the intent that 2LT Jack will be killed or injured.
The problem with the assumption that the military ban on various sexual activities was an oppressive moral code, rather than something based on the perception of what was best for the organization, is that it misunderstands the nature of the military and ignores human nature.
Reading your response. I can’t recall ever reading you expound on Trump’s infidelities with as much passion as you did on how he’s dealt with the “gay agenda”.
Excuse me, but my presentation is simply provided facts in response to Dan's suggestion that Trump was bad for his cherished sexual perverts. I can assure you the "passion" you perceived was in your imagination alone. I'll have to peruse my archives to see if I posted my opinions regarding Trump's personal life during the primaries leading up to the 2016 presidential election. I've certainly never ignored it. You're simply focusing on my justified insistence of keeping it in perspective regarding 2020...where it's wholly irrelevant and insignificant weighed against the alternative.
Marshal... "Craig addressed this, but I just wanted to reiterate that evidence to back this up is required by its absurdity. I'm pretty sure that in our lifetime, homosexuals were simply dishonorably (appropriate) discharged."
In our life time, you could be a arrested (or at least there was a fear of being arrested) for being gay, including those in the military. In our lifetime, gay folks have been killed by their fellow soldiers. I'm not saying it was legal or institutionalized. I'm noting the reality of it.
There are stories you hear about "friendly fire" incidents in Viet Nam and WWII (and probably other wars) if you appeared to be gay. There was also the regular harassment and beatings and threat of arrest...
"Service members who admitted to being gay or who were convicted of homosexual behavior were dishonorably discharged and stripped of their pensions. By some estimates, discharges during the Cold War increased tenfold."
You’re the one who thinks Trump should toe the line on homosexuality issues and line those up with Christianity, yet haven’t seemed to have those expectations in other areas.
I’m pointing out that you haven’t been as specific in your wanting to hold Trump to your Christian standards on other topics as you have on homosexuality.
If a subject other than homosexuality comes up that provides me the opportunity, I'll have no trouble demonstrating my desire that Trump, or any president, align with my Christian standards (which are, by the way, Christian standards...not simply mine). In fact, to that end, I found two blog posts of mine that provide some evidence for this either in the post itself or in the comments that follow them (one has 295 comments, but if you simply scroll through to those I posted, it will save a lot of time given mine are fewer given my job schedule inhibiting my ability to post).
As a bit of an aside, I think you'll find that some of my comments from back then have now been validated by Trump's work as president and as such has further justified my continued support for a second term. One might say my comments were somewhat prophetic, if I do say so myself.
"In our lifetime, gay folks have been killed by their fellow soldiers. I'm not saying it was legal or institutionalized."
Then be more specific. To say that "in our lifetime" homosexuals could be killed while serving implies the military establishment had something to do with it. To be killed by a fellow soldier who dislikes homosexuals has nothing to do with the military...at all!
Another article wanted to insist it's about control. But there's something particularly "gay" about wanting to assert control in such a manner. I can't conceive of wanting to perpetrate such a crime against another man. How could a normal man get aroused enough to harm another man in that way without some homosexual desire at the heart of it?
The point here is that each "oppressed" group can have within them people who are equally capable of such evil, and to insist that being a member of such groups must be a factor in hiring or appointments is just another form of the very oppression being criticized.
"In fact, to that end, I found two blog posts of mine that provide some evidence for this either in the post itself or in the comments that follow them..."
How embarrassing. I failed to include links to those posts. Here they are:
Again, the comments sections will provide the best examples of my position on Trump and his less than Christian characteristics. Repeated use of the word "scumbag" in reference to him should help get it across.
79 comments:
Wouldn't that be Richard Grendel? Or are you referring to the first unqualified homosexual to be appointed simply because he's a homosexual?
When you are part of a group that has been harassed, oppressed and just killed for millennia, having representation and voice is pretty excited. In an effort to find common ground, I'd ask that you try to imagine who liberating and empowering such news is, rather than mocking it. Or is your intent to mock or belittle the news of a gay person being in this position?
Actually, I wasn’t mocking Pete’s presumptive cabinet position, as much as I was mocking the unbiased, fact driven media and idiots like you who are so driven by partisanship that you ignore the fact that the story is factually wrong. He’s not the first gay cabinet member, he’ll be the second. But y’all are so obsessed with giving Biden this “honor”, that y’all ignored the fact that Trump nominated and confirmed the first gay cabinet member,
Art,
You’re correct of course, and Dan let his assumptions and prejudices lead him to multiple wrong conclusions. Just like the MSM and their high regard for accuracy and truthful reporting.
The story is, of course, not factually wrong. At least not the stories that I've read. They make the distinction this was the first openly gay person
Sorry, that last comment was cut off. What I started to say was the media I've read noted the distinction that, if confirmed, Buttigieg would be the first confirmed by Congress. Since Grenell was not. Doing some research, it appears other media outlets were less cautious. I, of course, recall the news about Grenell when it happened.
Regardless, being part of an Administration that will support gay people, Buttigieg's appointment is significant and nothing to be scoffed at.
Oh lord, the lengths you’ll go to in order to avoid admitting that you could possibly have been wrong.
Because an administration that elevated gay people to cabinet positions and ambassadorships clearly doesn’t support gay people.
At least I get a good laugh.
I guess we have the choice between believing that that the media was trying to push a false narrative or that they were too stupid or lazy to fact check themselves.
Clearly PB's appointment is based on the fact he's a homosexual, as opposed to qualified for the position, just as Biden tapped Harris because of sex and skin color. There's far too much of this in politics in general, though I'd argue the GOP at least seeks a token with ability and proven track record. Of course, the Dems are sorely lacking in that regard, so I suppose pure tokenism is all they have.
I think that it's a big part of it. I also think that Pete was pretty likeable during his campaign and that Biden is trying to create the illusion that he's giving bringing in the opposition to form his cabinet. What's not mentioned is that he doesn't think enough of the gay dude to give him one of the prestigious positions. Maybe Pete will be the designated survivor.
The only real point here was to watch Dan jump in with both feet, and then point out his partisan hackery.
Craig... "y’all are so obsessed with giving Biden this “honor”, that y’all ignored the fact that Trump nominated and confirmed the first gay cabinet member,"
In an effort to find some common ground around reality, let me just clarify a couple of misunderstandings you've had.
1. I didn't say anything about Buttigieg being the first to hold a cabinet position. I just didn't. Right?
2. Trump did not nominate and confirm the first gay Cabinet member. Correct?
Craig... "Dan let his assumptions and prejudices lead him to multiple wrong conclusions..."
"real point here was to watch Dan jump in with both feet, and then point out his partisan hackery."
I suppose you realize now that these claims were, themselves, a mistake and factually wrong? The stories I read reported the news correctly. And I was just speaking of the importance of this nomination and a cabinet looking like all of the United States. That I did not say anything about Buttigieg being the first to serve a cabinet position... and thus, there was no partisan hackery in anything that I said. And that there were no assumptions or prejudices what I said...
You realize that now, is that correct?
Clearly PB's appointment is based on the fact he's a homosexual, as opposed to qualified for the position, just as Biden tapped Harris because of sex and skin color.
So much wrong in that comment, so much sick in this attitude. Marshal, these are extremely intelligent, extremely capable people. It didn't matter to you that DeVos knew nothing about education when she was appointed to administer the education department, nor that Carson had no experience in housing when appointed to HUD... etc, etc with the Trump administration appointing sorely unqualified people to so many departments, and yet you want to nitpick extremely intelligent and qualified Harris and Buttigieg and make sexist, hateful accusations that they were nominated because of their categories?
Come, now. Buttigieg, besides being extremely intelligent, by all counts, has experience running a city, which includes transportation matters. What qualifications would make one qualified to run Transportation Cabinet that he doesn't have? Why does that matter now, when you were silent when Trump appointed those completely unfamiliar with their appointed cabinets?
"1. I didn't say anything about Buttigieg being the first to hold a cabinet position. I just didn't. Right?"
Are you so egomaniacal that you just assume everything is about you and what you said? Did you read what I actually wrote? Start there. Then look at the headlines and the news stories. They got it wrong, you jumped in by attacking my motives.
"2. Trump did not nominate and confirm the first gay Cabinet member. Correct?"
Read what I wrote in the original post very carefully, then think about it, then decide if this question makes sense.
"The stories I read reported the news correctly."
Except you earlier said...
"Doing some research, it appears other media outlets were less cautious."
Are you suggesting that "less cautious" is code for "reported correctly"?
The fact that you (finally) did your own research and (grudgingly) sort of acknowledged that I was correct, before you went into CYA mode is amusing.
" And I was just speaking of the importance of this nomination and a cabinet looking like all of the United States."
Really, noting in your first comment, especially the part where you accused me of being "mocking" and "belittling" Pete. Is that the "looking like America" part?
FYI, unless Biden nominates some conservatives to his cabinet, it's not going to "look like America". Unless you only view America through the superficial lens of skin color.
"And that there were no assumptions or prejudices what I said.."
Really? So, you have objective roof that I was "mocking" and "belittling" Pete in my original post?
"nor that Carson had no experience in housing when appointed to HUD"
!. "Carson" has ample experience in public housing, he was raised in it.
2. If "y'all' are going get pissy for not referring to Jill Biden as "Dr", then you damn sure better refer to one of the most well qualified pediatric neurosurgeons in the country as "Dr".
Which is it? Was Pete nominated because he helps fill a box to make a "cabinet looking like all of the United States.", or because he's an expert in transportation? Is his experience as a mayor of a city with roughly 30 busses, really an expert? Really? I think you were right the first time, that you are looking for a cabinet that is "looking like all of the United States".
Craig... "Are you suggesting that "less cautious" is code for "reported correctly"?
The fact that you (finally) did your own research and (grudgingly) sort of acknowledged that I was correct, before you went into CYA mode is amusing."
AGAIN, I'm sorry you're failing to read and understand my words correctly. What I have said is that when I INITIALLY READ stories about Buttigieg, they ALL reported the facts correctly. That is, they weren't saying "Buttigieg is the first gay person in a cabinet, in any context whatsoever." They factually reported that he was the first openly gay person to be nominated to serve in the cabinet and, if approved, the first to be approved to serve in a cabinet position." THAT is factually correct.
Your claim, on the other hand, " y’all ignored the fact that Trump nominated and confirmed the first gay cabinet member," ...is factually incorrect.
So, the news stories I read initially were factually correct, while you are factually mistaken.
After reading your post, I looked further and was able to find one or two news groups (out of many) that used words that made it sound like Buttigieg was the first gay person to serve in a cabinet, which is not correct. They were imprecise in their language hinting at a factually wrong conclusion.
Those (one or two) less precise, less cautious news group(s), should have done better. But in the main, the stories I read in multiple places reported it correctly, while you have not done so.
Does that help you understand what I have said?
Does it help you to understand that you have made a factually incorrect claim?
Are you prepared to correct your false claim?
Craig... "The fact that you (finally) did your own research and (grudgingly)..." I don't routinely check each and every news groups coverage of the same item. Nothing to do with "grudgingly" or "finally," and everything to do with the reality that I'm a finite person.
I suspect you're misunderstanding what I have and haven't said. Feel free to ask questions, if you're not sure.
Case in point, Craig... "noting in your first comment, especially the part where you accused me of being "mocking" and "belittling" Pete. Is that the "looking like America" part?"
I asked you a question ("Or is your intent to mock or belittle the news of a gay person being in this position?") seeking to understand your position. That's not accusing you, it's asking, because it sounded like you were belittling this news.
Do you understand how important such events are for an historically oppressed minority group?
Craig... "unless Biden nominates some conservatives to his cabinet..."
Biden will likely nominate some Republicans to his cabinet. According to Politico...
"Biden, who pledged to unite the country during the campaign, will likely try to keep his coalition together by nominating a mix of progressives, moderates and even a few Republicans."
Did Trump nominate any Democrats to his administration? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm doubting it.
"And I was just speaking of the importance of this nomination and a cabinet looking like all of the United States."
There's nothing particularly important in nominating a homosexual, except for the fact it is evidence of our nation's moral decline that people like you lefties find it noteworthy.
"That I did not say anything about Buttigieg being the first to serve a cabinet position... and thus, there was no partisan hackery in anything that I said."
The first quote of yours in this comment is itself partisan hackery...to pretend nominating a homosexual means anything, aside from, as I said, evidence of moral decline of our culture in celebrating the nomination of someone based on his perversion.
"So much wrong in that comment, so much sick in this attitude. Marshal, these are extremely intelligent, extremely capable people."
What's wrong in that comment of mine is the fact that Biden chose this dude because he's a homosexual. He has no particular background in transportation, and his time as mayor was not particularly noteworthy. Indeed, blacks in his town were less than impressed.
https://nypost.com/2020/02/18/why-south-bend-residents-are-warning-america-about-pete-buttigieg/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/pete-buttigieg-is-a-bad-mayor-so-how-could-he-be-a-good-president
An "extremely intelligent", "extremely capable" person doesn't get the level of criticism from constituents like PB.
"It didn't matter to you that DeVos knew nothing about education when she was appointed to administer the education department."
She had been involved in education in her state for quite some time before Trump tapped her for the Dept of Ed, a department we don't even need. Likewise, Ben Carson isn't short on accomplishments (his work as a neurosurgeon proves his intelligence):
https://www.mychesco.com/a/news/national/hud-releases-2019-year-in-review-highlighting-accomplishments-under-secretary-carson/
We can compare cabinet and administration appointments all day long. But it wouldn't be fair. Dems start out with morons who support moronic policies, so...
"yet you want to nitpick extremely intelligent and qualified Harris and Buttigieg and make sexist, hateful accusations that they were nominated because of their categories?"
Again, neither has a stellar track record in anything. They were picked because of irrelevant and superficial reasons. There's nothing sexist or hateful about stating fact. It is sexist to pick a VP because she's a woman, and by virtue of that pick it's insulting to actual qualified people if not hateful to them.
Craig... " If "y'all' are going get pissy for not referring to Jill Biden as "Dr""
I follow the standard followed by most newspapers and refer to political actors by their last name when writing my stories and comments.
The complaint about Dr Jill Biden came only when someone specifically said to her she should forgo being introduced as Dr Biden. The complaint was NOT directed at media groups referring to her as Biden. For instance, in this CNN article...
"The school said in a statement on Saturday that it disagrees with the "misogynistic views" of Joseph Epstein, an author and former professor at the Illinois school who wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published Friday that Biden should drop the "Dr." because it "sounds and feels fraudulent, not to say a touch comic."
Having been schooled in journalism, I have taken to using that same rule, as a norm. Consistency would be the main thing. If I opted to refer to Biden as Dr Biden but in Carson's case refused to call him Dr Carson, then that would be inconsistent.
As it is, I'm consistently following that guideline that I was schooled with.
I will note that, with multiple people in the same family, I may opt for different practices. For instance, generally, I would refer to Hilary Clinton as Clinton. BUT, if I was writing comments about both Hilary and Bill Clinton, then I might use their first names for clarity's sake. Same for the Bidens, moving forward. Same for the Carsons. If I ever write commentary about Dr and Mrs Carson, I may refer to him as Dr Carson for clarity's sake. But generally, I will refer to people by their last names.
Hope that helps your understanding.
Craig... "Which is it? Was Pete nominated because he helps fill a box to make a "cabinet looking like all of the United States.", or because he's an expert in transportation? "
He was nominated because he's very intelligent and capable. No one suggested otherwise. Except for Marshal. Marshal made the damnable claim that he was nominated because he was gay. How awful of a suggestion.
This is one problem that many conservatives fall into: They want to pretend that, when we celebrate historic nominations and elections of people from historically oppressed groups, that we're celebrating their being in those positions BECAUSE they were black, female, transgender, gay. No, of course not. And the very suggestion is demeaning and part of an historic trend of oppressing these groups.
If you recognize that very real history of oppression, then it would be wise and decent of you to call out fellow conservatives (or liberals, for that matter) if and when they make such claims.
Craig... "Dan let his assumptions and prejudices lead him to multiple wrong conclusions..."
And...
"real point here was to watch Dan jump in with both feet, and then point out his partisan hackery."
Also Craig... "Are you so egomaniacal that you just assume everything is about you and what you said?"
Do you realize, now, that I was speaking of your words SPECIFICALLY about me? (Hint: See the DAN in your comments you made about me...)
Now, perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you were referring to some other Dan, just out of the blue. Is that the case? If not, then perhaps you should own it when you make false claims specifically about me and then try to suggest that you were not speaking to/about me later on. Gaslighting does not become you.
Craig... " I think you were right the first time, that you are looking for a cabinet that is "looking like all of the United States"."
Do you know how demeaning that suggestion is? Do you recognize that gay folk are a part of an historically oppressed group who have been attacked, oppressed and demeaned for millenia and that adding to it by suggesting this was his only qualification for the job just continues the attacks?
Do you know that Buttigieg is multilingual, familiar with up to eight languages? That he is a Rhodes scholar who graduated from Harvard AND Oxford universities? That he graduated from Harvard Magna Cum Laude? That he served in military intelligence as an officer? And that he has served in public office, as well as in the military? All by the age of 37?
The man clearly has a great intellect and drive and capabilities. To reduce it down to "he got it cuz he's gay" is demeaning and shame on you. You should know better.
How many languages could you speak at 37? How many towns had you been elected to office in? How many Magna Cum Laudes from Harvard did you have?
That's just petty. Be better than that, man.
Craig... "!. "Carson" has ample experience in public housing, he was raised in it."
I drive a car. Doesn't mean I'm qualified to work on it. Managing housing IS something my wife did for years and it's not easy stuff. Of course, oftentimes the people heading these agencies don't know much about what they're doing, they're just figureheads who rely upon their staff. But it helps if you believe in the cause you're overseeing.
That, more than a lack of field-specific knowledge, is what troubles me. Trump appointed an anti-public education rich woman to head Education, a man who has overseen dismantling of HUD efforts to head HUD, Coal apologists to head EPA, etc, etc, etc. That is what I find troubling. And this, from a man who promised to drain the swamp.
https://archive.curbed.com/2020/8/17/21372168/ben-carson-hud-housing-trump
https://newrepublic.com/article/152908/coal-barons-takeover-epa-nearly-complete
"He was nominated because he's very intelligent and capable"
As was/is Dr Carson. It takes a fair degree on intelligence and capability to move from abject poverty to being the preeminent person in a difficult medical specialty.
"No one suggested otherwise."
Except you. You are the one who said he was nominated to make sure the cabinet looked like the US.
"They want to pretend that, when we celebrate historic nominations and elections of people from historically oppressed groups,"
I guess if you consider being the second of something "historic" that's your call. I would have thought that you'd have been at least this excited the first time we had an openly gay cabinet secretary.
" that we're celebrating their being in those positions BECAUSE they were black, female, transgender, gay."
Really? Other than Pete being the second openly gay cabinet secretary, what is special or historic to celebrate?
"And the very suggestion is demeaning and part of an historic trend of oppressing these groups."
I completely agree that it's demeaning to construct a cabinet based on filling slots with minorities so that it looks like the US. It's always demeaning to select someone for anything based on the demographic box they check.
You see, folks like me begin with the notion that there are capable, qualified people in all groups... women, lgbtq folk, racial minorities, etc, AND we recognize that historically, people in these groups have factually been excluded and kept out of being represented. Because of that real world oppression, we want to make sure that they are included. Ignoring that reality and not actively looking for opportunities to include them will only serve to further the oppression. That is why it's a big deal.
Do you disagree?
Craig... "Other than Pete being the second openly gay cabinet secretary, what is special or historic to celebrate?"
1. If his nomination goes through, he will be the FIRST gay person nominated and approved to head up a cabinet-level position.
2. It will be a step towards normalizing LGBTQ folks having a place at the table where decisions are made.
This will be true for a while until LGBTQ folk are fairly represented.
Agreed?
"He was nominated because he's very intelligent and capable. No one suggested otherwise. Except for Marshal. Marshal made the damnable claim that he was nominated because he was gay. How awful of a suggestion."
LOTS of people are suggesting otherwise, as you'd know by reading the links I posted or, I dunno, actually doing some research before getting a tingle because Biden nominated a homosexual. He's referred to by those in South Bend as "Pothole Pete" for the condition of roads not leading to the university. This is the new transportation secretary (should he be confirmed)...a guy who couldn't get streets fixed in the sleepy hamlet of South Bend, Indiana...Population: about 100K. He was nominated because he's a homosexual. What's awful is that it's absolutely true.
The first difference is that we realize that people are first and foremost humans created in the image of God, and that our inherent worth comes from that. The second is that we understand that people’s qualifications don’t come from whatever minority you put them in, and that qualifications code despite ones skin color or sexual predilections.
Gotcha, he’ll be the second openly gay cabinet member. Why not just acknowledge that Trump was appointed the first and be gracious, instead of adding additional qualifiers to make a participation trophy seem like a gold medal?
Craig... "that our inherent worth comes from that. The second is that we understand that people’s qualifications don’t come from whatever minority you put them in, and that qualifications code despite ones skin color or sexual predilections."
So, are you suggesting it's wrong to note when someone's coming from an oppressed group? Do you think Jesus was wrong to say what you do for the least of these you do for me or that he came to preach good news to the poor, or saying blessed are you who are poor... was Jesus just stupid for saying that?
Of course, reasonable people can agree, I imagine you can too, that noting the reality of an historically oppressed group and celebrating when they move further away from oppression and further into the mainstream.
Can't you agree with this simple grace? Surely we can find some common ground in a formerly oppressed group moving away from oppression and having a voice? Do you seriously not think that's not something worthy of Celebration?
Come. Surely we agree on this?
"2. It will be a step towards normalizing LGBTQ folks having a place at the table where decisions are made."
Why would they need such a place if not to promote their deviant behavior as normal and equal to that which takes place between a man and woman in the bonds of matrimony? There's no legitimate reason to make sure we have some "representative number" of "LGBTQ folks".
Normal intelligent people, on the other hand, prefer those who are best suited to a job, most qualified and able to perform well on behalf of all Americans, hopefully bringing along a track record of success and accomplishments. If that person happens to be a homosexual, a black person, a woman, etc., so be it. The only promotion of a personal agenda must also be of benefit to all Americans. The LGBTQ agenda is not, especially given its basis in lies, falsehoods, distortions and corruption.
What we need represented in government is intelligence, integrity, high moral character, and other such virtues, selecting from those seeking office or appointment those people that are possessed of as many of these virtues as possible (beginning with intelligence). Checking off boxes related to the superficial, such as sex or skin color is only justifiable if all other boxes are checked off...kind of a tie-breaker thing. But even then, such traits have no other real significance or importance in running the nation, state or city.
An open homosexual immediately has demonstrated a failure in the area of moral character, and that trait...which is not immutable...thus is a justifiable disqualification.
Maybe if we take a step back...
You DO agree that gay folks have been traditionally oppressed, harassed, killed, beaten, maligned, demonized, hated... right? Even if you "hate the sin," you DO recognize the great oppression of gay folks throughout history, right? Or do you not?
For the record, I and many others noted at the time the good news of Grenell's being appointed an interim position in Trump's cabinet. It was an important first. I am glad took knowledge that oh, and did so with the time. At least in conversations with friends. And again, we learned that in the mainstream media. I was glad to celebrate that. Were you? Are you not willing to give some grace and joy to the gay community by honoring this first, as well?
Again I would ask, do you recognize the importance of such historic firsts for people coming from oppressed groups?
I would also ask, do you realize referring to this important historic first as a participation trophy is a demeaning attack upon gay folks? I'm not asking that you celebrate this if you don't feel like it, but why not just have the decency to let others enjoy the moment? You could have left this historic moment just pass and be quiet, but you're choosing to attack the media and demean gay Folks at the same time. Do you think that's Grace-full? Christian?
If you aren’t going to read what I actually wrote, I’m not sure how writing more will help,
The problem with making up the non existent first for Pete, is that him being gay is no secret, he’s an upper middle class white guy who’s sole distinguishing characteristic that is celebrated is the fact that he has sex with dudes. Not sure how his choice of sex partners makes him better or worse for a second-third tier cabinet post.
If you think that being second then s historic, then you blow whatever horns you want to, I don’t care.
I love how we’re just supposed to accept your word that you celebrated the real first quietly to your friends, but choose to celebrate the second so publicly. What a fraud. You can’t provide one instance where you celebrated Grennell publicly because the notion that you’d celebrate anything Trump did or would give Trump credit for anything is simply absurd
My referring to Pete being second as a participation trophy is targeted it idiots like you who are obsessed with turning this nonevent into big news.
No, you don’t get to just make these idiotic pronouncements and demand we agree with your attempt to be moose your fantasies on others.
"You DO agree that gay folks have been traditionally oppressed, harassed, killed, beaten, maligned, demonized, hated... right?"
As have so many others who willingly engage in any number of other sinful behaviors.
"Are you not willing to give some grace and joy to the gay community by honoring this first, as well?"
No. Why should anyone give special recognition to someone because of that someone's unique and immoral sexual proclivities?
"Again I would ask, do you recognize the importance of such historic firsts for people coming from oppressed groups?"
Depends on the "oppressed" group. There's no particular importance except to acknowledge that morally corrupt people are exploiting appointments of homosexuals to further normalize and legitimize their immorality, thereby speeding the moral decay of our culture.
"I would also ask, do you realize referring to this important historic first as a participation trophy is a demeaning attack upon gay folks?"
Given that's what it is, it isn't us doing the demeaning. Those who are would be those who have nominated this unqualified buffoon because he's a homosexual. Indeed, doing so is far more demeaning of the position for which he was nominated.
The media is well deserving of attack. Homosexual behavior is a well deserving of attack as any other firm of sexual immorality. It's perfectly Christian to discriminate against bad behaviors. In fact, it's recommended.
Based on Pete’s comments about electric cars, I can say that I doubt that he’s actually informed enough to be anything but a mouthpiece for certain agendas.
1. Y’all had the chance to get a real, big deal, exciting first with Pete. But you didn’t.
2. Biden could have nominated Pete for one of the more visible, bigger deal cabinet positions, but he didn’t.
3. SecTrans will effectively ruin any chance Pete has at higher elective office, because there’s just no history of lower tier cabinet secretaries getting elected POTUS.
4. All in all, it looks like Biden just marginalized someone who might run against him in 2024.
Too be fair. One of the parts of the position of POTUS is that of appointing people to various roles. This constitutional power is pretty broad (much like the pardon) power, and I generally tend not to complain much about these uses of constitutional power. It’s a given that I’ll likely agree more with a GOP president’s pick than a DFL president. But really once it gets to the designated survivor level of cabinet secretaries, it’s hard to get worked up about them. I’m sure Pete will be fine and likely not accomplish much more than any other SecTrans. Pete seems like a nice enough, competent enough, guy and I don’t wish him ill.
I’m just amused by all the folks celebrating this and pretending like it’s a first.
Maybe you missed this reasonable question, respectfully asked, seeking clarification:
You DO agree that gay folks have been traditionally oppressed, harassed, killed, beaten, maligned, demonized, hated... right? Even if you "hate the sin," you DO recognize the great oppression of gay folks throughout history, right? Or do you not?
Craig... "I love how we’re just supposed to accept your word that you celebrated the real first quietly to your friends, but choose to celebrate the second so publicly. What a fraud."
Um, YOU brought up this Buttigieg celebration, not me. I was just explaining why it's worth celebrating. No one (not in my circles, anyway) was disputing the step forward when Grennel was appointed (not nominated), even if it was by an administration with a negative record towards LGBTQ concerns. YOU opted to try to make fun of both the media for covering this first and for gay folk for counting this as important. I simply respectfully asked if you could just try to understand how important such a nomination is.
No fraud. Not on my part, anyway.
No, I’ve just decided that if you aren’t going to answer questions or acknowledge/respond to/twist my answers, that I was going to be selective about which questions I answered.
Actually, I brought up the bad reporting on the Pete situation, you brought up the celebration. Look if you want to celebrate the guy who was second, go ahead. Just admit that you weren’t nearly as excited about the actual first guy as you are about Pete being #2.
Please stop with the unctuous, faux sincerely, fake respect crap. Given your past behavior, it’s clear that respect isn’t something you regularly give others.
So, the media and others are stupid for reporting and celebrating this FIRST gay person to be nominated for a cabinet position (hell, you can't even admit that this IS the first person nominated to a cabinet position and correct your false claim you made earlier!), and yet you can't answer the simple questions acknowledging the reality of the pain and harm of our historic oppression of LGBTQ folk?
Do you recognize that turning a blind eye to that oppression IS part of the oppression?
If it's the case that you're not aware of this, I'm letting you know that now. It's a chance to find some common ground with gay folk and their allies. Will you step up and meet us half way? Just by acknowledging the reality of the oppression and marginalization of gay folk?
Craig... "I brought up the bad reporting on the Pete situation, you brought up the celebration."
You brought up the news story about Buttigieg without acknowledging the historic oppression of gay folk or WHY this nomination is important. I tried to help by clarifying your overlooking of LGBTQ folk and WHY it is important. As I said...
"When you are part of a group that has been harassed, oppressed and just killed for millennia, having representation and voice is pretty exciting. In an effort to find common ground, I'd ask that you try to imagine who liberating and empowering such news is, rather than mocking it."
It was an educational effort and an attempt to respectfully reach out to clarify a misunderstanding you are still having. Will you humble yourself and just TRY to find some common ground? Can you recognize how important this is for LGBTQ folk and their allies, to have a WELL-QUALIFIED man nominated for a cabinet position and for that person to be a gay man? MEANING that gay folk are not being kept out of having their voices represented in a way that is unprecedented in US history?
Trump's record regarding LGBT concerns, regrettably in my Christian opinion, is only "negative" when described by lefty LGBT people and their lefty enablers:
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/11/donald-trump-has-done-far-more-for-gay-people-than-the-stonewall-democrats/
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/fl-op-com-brett-trump-pro-gay-president-20200127-qz62atj34jcezj66elpfip7ige-story.html
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/liberal-activists-use-pride-month-to-lie-about-trumps-gay-rights-record
https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2019/06/03/making-sense-of-president-trumps-stance-on-lgbt-issues-and-people-n2547262
The first two links are solid support from two conservative homosexuals. Given they're conservative, their opinions are most assuredly more reflective of reality.
The second two links seek to explain seeming inconsistencies often exploited by lefties to make it appear that Trump is anti-LGBT. Even I, who acknowledges the immorality and disorder of the LGBT agenda favors treating people fairly. This is what the second two links show Trump doing, even though he has no personal problem with LGBT people (so see...he's clearly not perfect).
It seems if Trump haters...especially those claiming journalistic training...would actually spend less time hating and more time investigating, they'd not make fools of themselves.
As to oppression, they've got a ways to go before they catch up to blacks and Jews on that score. Unlike blacks and Jews, they're able to abstain from acting on urges and desires to engage in immoral behavior, which in turn brings about their troubles with those who rightly refuse to tolerate immoral behavior, even if their response to that immoral behavior has been immoral as well. To insist they cannot help indulging in behaviors compelled by lusts and urges suggests mental disorder. But blacks and Jews suffered simply because they're blacks or Jews...not for anything they do. The same is true for women. Thus, there's a good reason to celebrate when blacks, Jews, women and others who been attack due to immutable characteristics, are recognized.
No, the problem is reporting and celebrating the second gay cabinet member as if he was the first. The fact that you can come up with some qualifier to make it seem like a bigger deal than it is.
Yes, I brought up the foolishness of the media, social and otherwise, and people like you celebrating the second gay cabinet member as if it was the first. I didn’t bring up the extraneous crap you need to seem obsessed with, because it wasn’t relevant to the point I was making.
Art,
This notion that Trump is beholden to accommodate your Christian beliefs on one topic, while excusing him on others seems strange. The fact that people believe the a Trump is anti gay narrative is also strange.
One of the things conservatives talk about is putting qualified people in jobs because they’re qualified, not because of who or what they choose to sleep with. Either they’re qualified or they’re not, period.
NO, NOT, "either they're qualified or they're not, period." NOT in a world where LGBTQ folk have been oppressed and silenced for centuries. Our cabinets and representatives SHOULD look like the US. It's not enough to say, "Well, these people COULD LEGALLY now be part of the Senate, the House, the Presidency or the administration." If they CAN be there, but they're not - and that IN SPITE of some of them being qualified and exceptional leaders, is a liberty in name only.
It is important to get qualified people FROM ALL groups in our system and, given the very real oppression by wealthy white men over the centuries, it's important to notice when it happens. Now, one day, when black folk, women, LGBTQ folk and other historically oppressed people are routinely equally representative, THEN it will not be a big deal to note the first time one is nominated to a position (as with Buttigieg, in spite of your oppressive dismissal of the importance of this)... when it's the 100th time an oppressed minority is finding representation, then maybe we won't be so inclined to celebrate.
But unless you recognize and acknowledge and know about the oppression of these groups and WHY it's important that they and their allies celebrate such events, you're just siding with the oppressors and gaslighting the recognition of the importance of such milestones.
Won't you join us by just BEGINNING to recognize why it is important by acknowledging the real oppression such groups have faced over the years.
Or why don't you start by asking some LGBTQ folk why it's important to them and trying to understand their reasoning, rather than dismissing it as silly and unimportant?
Have you done that, yet?
Gotcha, more quotas and affirmative action where the deciding factor is which box they check
All my LG friends all work hard to achieve their success on their own merits and aren’t interested in being given things based on who they have sex with.
Maybe we should keep government out of peoples bedrooms, and people bedroom activities out of job qualifications.
Of course, I'm not inserting government in the bedroom. I'm recognizing the reality of Oppression that has happened by our white male ancestors. I'm saying we, as white males, need to be responsible for the benefits that we've gotten off the backs of others.
But I guess you're fine with just saying to hell with responsibility, to hell with the oppressed people. I'll just enjoy my benefits cuz I got mines.
Is that what you're saying? Because that's not a moral option. It's not a rational option.
Join us in recognizing the reality of Oppression and in the fight to make things right, won't you? It's your chance to find some common ground with historically oppressed people. Listen to them.
Since that’s not what I’m saying, I guess I’m safe from your moral superiority and claims of not being rational.
I know your memory isn’t a sharp as it used to be, but as someone who was intentionally hiring “hops”, spent 10 years building housing for “hops” and mentors at risk high school “hops”, I think I’m doing just fine. I’d rather not farm out things I can do to the feds.
This notion that white people are the only demographic group that’s ever oppressed anyone doesn’t line up with the reality of history, I suspect you know that but push the narrative anyway.
Craig,
Not sure I understand what you're referencing here:
"This notion that Trump is beholden to accommodate your Christian beliefs on one topic, while excusing him on others seems strange."
Are you using "your" to mean me or people in general? It came from your comment to me on December 23, 2020 at 8:44 AM
Of course, the reality is that I have never said that white men are the only people who have oppressed others. You recognize that reality, right?
Likewise, the reality is that white men HAVE historically oppressed women, racial minorities, religious minorities and lgbtq folks. Serious oppression. Slavery. Murder. Extreme marginalization. Endangering lives. Causing harm. That is just an observable reality of History.
I'm wondering if you can't just simply acknowledge that? And I'm wondering why you are so reluctant to do so. I'm relatively certain it's not because you don't recognize that reality. Is it because you have political allegiances to conservative causes and that causes you to refrain from acknowledgement of this reality? Or you tell me. It's a puzzle.
Further, while white men today may not have actively engaged in the oppression of others, we do tend to still benefit from those centuries of Oppression. Recognizing that privilege that racism and sexism and homophobia have brought to us, we are especially obliged to at the very least acknowledge the reality of oppression and how we have benefited from that oppression. Just as a starting place. Once we can recognize that, then maybe we can recognize why it is important to honor extremely talented and qualified gay folk when they get placed in positions of power like this and begin - begin! - to have an equal voice.
Okay, I just read through each and every comment from you in this thread Craig. There is literally nothing, no questions from you, that I did not answer. The closest to a question that didn't answer is when you asked, do you not read what I read? But my answers show that I do read what you read. I was responding to your words I need to know every case. So in this thread, I believe there are handfuls, if not dozens of questions that I asked that have not then answered by you. There are no questions in this thread that I did not answer. Just to clarify that point and be clear. If you think in your head that I have not answered some question in this thread, then by all means, post it. I'm telling you I went through and do not see a single question from you that did not get answered, although there are many from me that did not get answered by you. Do you recognize that reality?
I intended it to refer to you specifically, because you’re complaining that he’s not living up to your sense of Christian doctrine on this one topic, while being less concerned on other issues.
I will point out the obvious, that. POTUS is bound by US law and can’t discriminate based on protected classes. So it makes sense that any POTUS would appoint people from protected classes.
If you’re going to single out white men and hold them accountable for the “oppression ” of their ancestors, why not apply this standard to all demographic groups who’ve oppressed?
Again this “benefit” you talk about applies to any progeny of those who’ve “oppressed” others, why single out white men? Further, if one looks at the current data, white men are being passed by several demographic groups in multiple economic categories, and declining. The issue seems to be less about “correcting” past oppression, but in the timeline and the need to celebrate.
Of course, it would help to acknowledge that the “cure” for the sins of those in the past involves “oppression”, discrimination, and treating those who’ve “benefitted”, unfairly.
Big deal, that you’ve “answered” most of my questions in one thread out of the last several months. You should be proud of yourself.
Craig... "I intended it to refer to you specifically, because you’re complaining that he’s not living up to your sense of Christian doctrine on this one topic, while being less concerned on other issues."
I don't know what you're talking about here. Just fyi. No idea.
Craig... "If you’re going to single out white men and hold them accountable for the “oppression ” of their ancestors, why not apply this standard to all demographic groups who’ve oppressed?"
In our nation, it is white men (and in many cases, white women) who have most been responsible for the oppression of racial minorities, women and LGBTQ folk. They have also most benefited from that oppression.
That isn't to say that there weren't black slave owners or women who fought to deny women the right to vote and other liberties, nor that there haven't been gay people who were racist and oppressed others... of course, that all happened. BUT, it is primarily white men (and especially wealthy white men) who made it a matter of policy and who benefited from it.
Do you disagree with this thesis?
"Why single out white men?"
Because, as a group, white men have most instigated the oppression and most benefited from the oppression of these others. Asked and answered.
For ~150 out of our ~250 years, white women didn't have the right to vote. White men WERE making these policies that benefited white men and oppressed others.
For ~190 out of our ~250 years, black people didn't have the right to vote. White men WERE making these policies that benefited white men/people and oppressed others.
For ~230 out of our ~250 years, LGBTQ folk couldn't even marry the person of their choice. For most of that time in most places, they couldn't even acknowledge their gender orientation/identity! Good Lord, of course, they have been oppressed. While serving in the military, if they were discovered to be gay, they were often killed or jailed! And this, in our lifetime!
Are you not aware of all of this/do you disagree with this?
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/27/how-can-we-hold-those-who-benefit-from-racism-accountable/
https://surjpoliticaledsite.weebly.com/white-benefits.html
https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness
"I don't know what you're talking about here. Just fyi. No idea."
That's because you're a narcissist and assume that everything centers around you. It also could be because you don't read everything thoroughly.
Craig... "That's because you're a narcissist and assume that everything centers around you."
Really? A narcissist? I see now that Marshal wrote a thing that you were responding to, but I saw that after the fact. And no, when you and Marshal are having a conversation between you two, I don't read those closely. I guess that makes me a narcissist in your mind? Could it not be that, in the middle of a conversation that you and I were having, you wrote this comment with no hint as to whom it was directed and including information about a POTUS conversation that we were having, that it's not unusual for me making this mistake. But my apologies for not being omniscient. I don't think not being perfect makes me a narcissist, though.
I don't see it, but keep trying to find that common ground.
"In our nation, it is white men (and in many cases, white women) who have most been responsible for the oppression of racial minorities, women and LGBTQ folk. They have also most benefited from that oppression."
Ahhhhh, excellent point. Let's take the US out of the context of the entirety of the rest of world history and hold "white men" there to a higher standard that the entire rest of History. But, the irony of this situation is that because "white men" held the majority of the power, you can't place all of the blame on "white men", without giving the same "white men" a significant amount of credit for ending the oppression you complain about. This is an incredibly simplistic and selective look at the entirety of history. Let's take just one example, slavery in the southern US. White, Christian men and women were the primary drivers of the abolition movement, Lincoln was a white man, white men bled, and died in massive numbers fighting a war to end slavery in the US. It seems simplistic, absurd, and biased to ignore those undeniable facts.
"That isn't to say that there weren't black slave owners or women who fought to deny women the right to vote and other liberties, nor that there haven't been gay people who were racist and oppressed others... of course, that all happened. BUT, it is primarily white men (and especially wealthy white men) who made it a matter of policy and who benefited from it."
Again, you're ignoring the entirety of the rest of history, with this. This notion that you can pluck one country out of the context of the entirety of world history, judge the leaders by a 21st century liberal standard, and ignore the rest of the world. Hell, if judged only by length of time, "white men" haven't been in North America long enough to offset the oppression of the native tribes. If you didn't have double standards, it's likely you'd have no standards.
"Do you disagree with this thesis?"
If one looks at history by singling out one country/society from the entirety of history and retroactively applying the standards of 21st century liberals selectively, then there is a degree of truth in your thesis. It just ignores enough of the rest of North American/World history, to make the thesis worthless.
"Why single out white men?"
"Because, as a group, white men have most instigated the oppression and most benefited from the oppression of these others. Asked and answered."
As I've pointed out, this flatly isn't true of applied to the entirety of history and ignores the role of "white men" in changing the behaviors you bitch about.
"For ~150 out of our ~250 years, white women didn't have the right to vote. White men WERE making these policies that benefited white men and oppressed others."
Which ignores the reality that taking one small slice out of the entirety of history and selectively applying retroactive standards to it doesn't make sense if the point is to accurately asses things. It also ignores the role of "white men" in making the changes that ended the "oppression".
"For ~190 out of our ~250 years, black people didn't have the right to vote. White men WERE making these policies that benefited white men/people and oppressed others."
Hundreds of thousands of white men bled and died to move toward the ending of that situation, but screw them, right? Oh, and let's ignore the fact that it was "white men" that passed the legislation?amended the constitution also.
"For ~230 out of our ~250 years, LGBTQ folk couldn't even marry the person of their choice."
Sure they could. FYI, please let me know at which point in history anyone can "marry the person of their choice"? I'm unaware that there has ever been an expectation of unfettered choice in who one marries.
Of course, let's ignore the fact that as things stand today, a significant portion of the world not only bans gays from marriage, but still has the death penalty for them. Of course, that's not "white men". But it's convenient to leave that part out of the discussion.
to consideration.
"For most of that time in most places, they couldn't even acknowledge their gender orientation/identity! Good Lord, of course, they have been oppressed. While serving in the military, if they were discovered to be gay, they were often killed or jailed! And this, in our lifetime!"
Really, can you provide one example of anyone being executed under the UCMJ for being gay? Speaking of being killed of jailed for being gay, are the countries "in our lifetime!" that currently engage in these practices run by "white men"? Are the countries where these pro gay reforms are taking place countries that have historically been controlled by "white men"?
"Are you not aware of all of this/do you disagree with this?"
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/27/how-can-we-hold-those-who-benefit-from-racism-accountable/
https://surjpoliticaledsite.weebly.com/white-benefits.html
https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness
If you're asking if I'm aware that there are people who want to advocate harming one demographic group, to "benefit" other demographic groups, yes I am.
Do I find the notion of singling out one demographic group, applying a subjective retroactive standard to them, while exempting other demographic groups from the same standard as a compelling argument, no.
I've been following a group of black social scientists discuss a similar topic for a while, and the root problem with this position is that is takes current disparities of outcomes between demographic groups (with the breakdown of the groups designed to skew the results) and starts with the assumption that 100% of the present day disparity is cause 100% by past racism. I rarely see things in the real world that are that conveniently simplistic.
The problem isn't the fact that some "white men" have engaged in some "oppressive" behaviors over the course of history. No one questions the fact that what happened happened. What should be questioned is the wisdom of redrawing history in such a way that it discounts some actions, while overemphasizing others. Or of taking one time/place/society/country out of the context of the rest of history and retroactively applying a subjective, partisan, standard to one demographic group, while exempting others from the same scrutiny. The problem is to look at the entirety of things and to balance the "bad" with the "good", taking context in
NOTE
I'll point out that it took me three comments to go through one of yours and address each point paragraph by paragraph, or even sentence by sentence when necessary. I'll point out that of one looks at the last several months of conversations that this sort of ratio is the norm for me. The fact that it took my recovery from surgery which caused me to deviate from my norm (while still addressing the points I addressed in detail), to embolden you enough to try to make these absurd assertions is telling. The fact that your argument in both cases ("white men" and my responses to you) is predicated on selectively taking things out of a larger context, applying differing standards, and ignoring things that don't help your cause, is quite illuminating.
"Really? A narcissist? I guess that makes me a narcissist in your mind?"
What makes you appear to be a narcissist, is that you make the assumption that it was directed at you, and get snarky and bitchy instead of simply asking the question.
"I don't see it, but keep trying to find that common ground."
As long as you get to define what "common ground" is and continue to be too lazy to even bother to look for the two requests I made of you.
Craig,
"This notion that Trump is beholden to accommodate your Christian beliefs on one topic, while excusing him on others seems strange."
I would prefer every United States president accommodate my Christian beliefs on ALL topics. That I might not reject one for failing to perfectly do so on each and every topic is not akin to "excusing". It's allowing for the fact that finding perfect agreement on every topic is unlikely. My comments regarding Trump and LGBT issues was really rather clear and consistent with what I believe is our obligations to our fellow man. His policies on the matter seem to me to be no different than what one would expect toward any American, and not accommodating LGBT people in a manner specific to their agenda at the exclusion of others, in an "unequal application of the law" kind of way. I'm speaking in general terms here, not dismissing there may be a policy or two that doesn't perfectly adhere.
On which topics do you feel I'm excusing Trump?
"While serving in the military, if they were discovered to be gay, they were often killed or jailed! And this, in our lifetime!"
Craig addressed this, but I just wanted to reiterate that evidence to back this up is required by its absurdity. I'm pretty sure that in our lifetime, homosexuals were simply dishonorably (appropriate) discharged.
I also wanted to reiterate that absurdity of pretending that we must do more for those considered to be oppressed classes, beyond simply not oppressing them anymore, simply because they're a member of that group. Where a specific case of being unlawful discrimination is obvious, certainly redress is appropriate. But to suggest we must put those of the "oppressed groups" higher up for consideration of a position simply because they are part of that allegedly oppressed group, regardless of whether or not the individual was himself ever oppressed, is insane and just another conflict with the concept of equal protection.
Art,
I’d argue that a president who follows biblical teaching on the sanctity of marriage and honors their wedding vows is an area of conformity that I suggest is much more valuable to the nation, than one who appoints gay people to cabinet positions. The willingness to honor vines wedding vows and fidelity to ones spouse are character traits that directly relate to one’s performance in elective office, while appointing a qualified person who happens to be gay to a political post, hardly contravenes anything remotely resembling Christian teaching.
I’m just noting that it’s interesting that you get so worked up about appointing a gay dude, but less so about a history of infidelity.
To back up your point about gays being discharged, which is by far the most common response. I’d add that if you join the military, knowing that homosexual activity (not being gay) was forbidden. Then you weren’t being discharged for being gay, you were being discharged for failing to follow the UCMJ. Strangely enough, people were also discharged for adultery, and other heterosexual activities.
The military interest in these sexual activities was not as much a moral prohibition as it was about good order and discipline.
Example A- Private Bob, and Private Dave are engaged in a sexual relationship. All of a sudden Bob dumps Dave for Corporal Fred. If the three of them are in an ambush, the possibility that Dave shoots one or both of the others, or that Dave fails to support the others, is bad from the standpoint of failure of the unit’s mission and the potential harm to others in the unit.
Example B- If Major Tom finds out that his wife is having an affair with 2LT Jack, Major Tom has multiple ways to harm 2LT Jack ranging from a poor fit rep, to placing him in harm’s way with the intent that 2LT Jack will be killed or injured.
The problem with the assumption that the military ban on various sexual activities was an oppressive moral code, rather than something based on the perception of what was best for the organization, is that it misunderstands the nature of the military and ignores human nature.
What makes you think I'm more or less concerned about one than the other? I'm really interested in your response.
Reading your response. I can’t recall ever reading you expound on Trump’s infidelities with as much passion as you did on how he’s dealt with the “gay agenda”.
Excuse me, but my presentation is simply provided facts in response to Dan's suggestion that Trump was bad for his cherished sexual perverts. I can assure you the "passion" you perceived was in your imagination alone. I'll have to peruse my archives to see if I posted my opinions regarding Trump's personal life during the primaries leading up to the 2016 presidential election. I've certainly never ignored it. You're simply focusing on my justified insistence of keeping it in perspective regarding 2020...where it's wholly irrelevant and insignificant weighed against the alternative.
Marshal... "Craig addressed this, but I just wanted to reiterate that evidence to back this up is required by its absurdity. I'm pretty sure that in our lifetime, homosexuals were simply dishonorably (appropriate) discharged."
In our life time, you could be a arrested (or at least there was a fear of being arrested) for being gay, including those in the military. In our lifetime, gay folks have been killed by their fellow soldiers. I'm not saying it was legal or institutionalized. I'm noting the reality of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Barry_Winchell
https://aver.us/august-provost-1/august-provost-1.htm
There are stories you hear about "friendly fire" incidents in Viet Nam and WWII (and probably other wars) if you appeared to be gay. There was also the regular harassment and beatings and threat of arrest...
"Service members who admitted to being gay or who were convicted of homosexual behavior were dishonorably discharged and stripped of their pensions. By some estimates, discharges during the Cold War increased tenfold."
https://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/caseconsortium/casestudies/25/casestudy/www/layout/case_id_25_id_303.html
FYI.
You’re the one who thinks Trump should toe the line on homosexuality issues and line those up with Christianity, yet haven’t seemed to have those expectations in other areas.
To whom are you directing your 9:07 AM comment? I don't understand it.
Sorry, it was to you.
I’m pointing out that you haven’t been as specific in your wanting to hold Trump to your Christian standards on other topics as you have on homosexuality.
Craig,
If a subject other than homosexuality comes up that provides me the opportunity, I'll have no trouble demonstrating my desire that Trump, or any president, align with my Christian standards (which are, by the way, Christian standards...not simply mine). In fact, to that end, I found two blog posts of mine that provide some evidence for this either in the post itself or in the comments that follow them (one has 295 comments, but if you simply scroll through to those I posted, it will save a lot of time given mine are fewer given my job schedule inhibiting my ability to post).
As a bit of an aside, I think you'll find that some of my comments from back then have now been validated by Trump's work as president and as such has further justified my continued support for a second term. One might say my comments were somewhat prophetic, if I do say so myself.
Then I guess we'll have to see of anything comes up that causes that to happen.
"FYI"
Thanks for covering territory that's already been covered.
Dan,
"In our lifetime, gay folks have been killed by their fellow soldiers. I'm not saying it was legal or institutionalized."
Then be more specific. To say that "in our lifetime" homosexuals could be killed while serving implies the military establishment had something to do with it. To be killed by a fellow soldier who dislikes homosexuals has nothing to do with the military...at all!
But who's responsible for stories like these:
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/six-men-tell-their-stories-of-sexual-assault-in-the-military/
Another article wanted to insist it's about control. But there's something particularly "gay" about wanting to assert control in such a manner. I can't conceive of wanting to perpetrate such a crime against another man. How could a normal man get aroused enough to harm another man in that way without some homosexual desire at the heart of it?
The point here is that each "oppressed" group can have within them people who are equally capable of such evil, and to insist that being a member of such groups must be a factor in hiring or appointments is just another form of the very oppression being criticized.
Craig,
"In fact, to that end, I found two blog posts of mine that provide some evidence for this either in the post itself or in the comments that follow them..."
How embarrassing. I failed to include links to those posts. Here they are:
https://marshallart.blogspot.com/2016/06/toto-ive-feeling-were-not-in-kansas-any.html
https://marshallart.blogspot.com/2016/12/so-here-we-are.html
Again, the comments sections will provide the best examples of my position on Trump and his less than Christian characteristics. Repeated use of the word "scumbag" in reference to him should help get it across.
Post a Comment