Bingo Reaches Out
Posted by Adam Graham in : Idaho Conservative, TheI read this and it cracked me up. From the Boise Weekly Courtesy of 43rd State Blues we have Bingo Barnes trying to reach out:
We’ve gone back and forth on one issue in the editorial department this week, but I believe that something needs to be said. Every legislator sitting in the Idaho statehouse who voted “yes” for the marriage amendment is a BIGOT. Yes, a BIGOT. And come election time this fall, if you vote for it, you’re also a bigot. I’d venture to say some of them are also homophobes, but BIGOT is a clearer way of putting it. A BIGOT is someone who discriminates because of race, gender or some other trait. By asserting that a group of people has rights that a different group of people will not be allowed, our legislators act discriminately, and I find it rephrehensible. When I look at their pictures (we have them in this issue for you), I see people who are just as disgusting as racists, Nazis and fascists. I see people without compassion, who don’t believe humans were created equal or that everyone should have the same rights as others. They’re BIGOTS, plain and simple. And if you agree with them, you’re a BIGOT, too.
Wow, so persuasive. In a 183 words, he manages to compare his opponents to racists, fascists, and Nazis and call them bigots several times, never considering that these “BIGOTS” make up around 60-70% of the State. This is all why you liberals in Idaho are going to lose.
I mean what happens here is people on the most respect liberal blog in Idaho go, “Wow! This is so awesome.” because it reflects their own general contempt for the people who make Idaho home and you’re not going to win elections that way.
Comment by Liberal Girl [Visitor]
I doesn’t matter if 60-70% of the population wants to repress the right of the minority. That doesn’t change the fact that they ARE bigots and that what they want to do is discriminatory. When Suffargettes were marching they were in a minority, when MLK Jr. was marching Idaho was against the movement. I think we can all agree now that the actions of those trying to dent women the vote and blacks equal rights were bigots even when they were in the majority. Wake up and realize that just because you have a majority who wants to deny the rights of other it doesn’t make that denial either moral or right. It just means that your majority is BIGOTTED.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
I know you are but what am I–I guess that’s the level of debate we’re going for. After all, name calling is a vital part of our Democratic process.
Comment by Liberal Girl [Visitor]
I see. What would you like to call it them Adam. If calling oppression and discrimination bigotry is “name calling” then what should I call it. BTW, the definition if Bigot from the American Hertiage Dictionary is ‘one who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.’ Can you really pretend that the attitudes of a people, in the majority or not, that want to deny a number of citizens (tax paying citizens) rights because they are different is NOT bigotry. Tell me what I should call it then if it will help us have a more productive dialog about why you believe it’s okay for a state to repress a minority.
Comment by Liberal Girl [Visitor]
Let me make a few minor corrections the paragraph above.
‘then, Adam?’ instead of ‘them Adam.’
I mean the word ‘state’ to be used in the sense of government as well as the geographic divisons.
Comment by Andrea Graham [Member]
‘one who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.’
Sounds like a certain liberal girl I’ve seen posting on this thread to me. By your own definition, liberals are the most bigoted people I’ve ever met.
Comment by Liberal Girl [Visitor]
Not really sure I follow you there Andrea. Because I am tolerant of whatever choices you make that don’t usurp the liberties of others. Two people getting married does not infringe on your rights or your personal space. If you mean I’m intolerant of your desire to oppress and treat others as second class citizens than I suppose by your logic I am bigotted. However, I am not asking you to give up rights and benefits because I disagree with your choices and your political views. Our Constitution is designed to protect the rights of the minorities and to allow the presentation and distribution of opinions that others find unpalatable. It is designed to allow a mixture of peoples, ideas, and cultures to coexist. If you find a particular lifestyle, set of ideals, or cultural trend upalatable your are free to avoid it, even speak against. But you are not permitted to impose your ideals on others. These are the tenets of our nation as laid down by our founding fathers. And these are the tenets that I and other liberals hold very dear. Oh my goodness, that sounds like tolerance of others. Which, if you follow me, is the opposite of bigotry.
I came here to talk with you because I found you linked from another blog with very different opinions than yours. I wanted to try and have a reasonable discussion with someone about why this is a human rights, civil rights, and necessary step forward toward a more mature, mixed, and tolerant society. Apparently, you would only have those that agree that people who are different than you deserve less to speak with. Hostility is not debate. If you can tell me why your view is not bigotted than I would enjoy a real discussion. But if would rather redefine words so that we can never have a real discussion about why some people do not, in your view, deserve the rights of others then I’m not sure that anything productive could be gained by either of us.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
Well, no way to start at a reasonable discussion like going over and screaming, BIGOT!
Homosexuality is a behavior. By your standard, society is bigotted against a lot of people who do behaviors that are wrong or disfavorable. We don’t like thieves, liars, and cheats. We don’t like pedophiles or those who sexually harass women. We don’t like beastilaity. Indeed, what a bigoted world we live in.
As to marriage, simply put, I believe homosexuals have the same right to marry anyone of the opposite sex they want. They don’t have the right to marry the same sex, multiple spouses, and horses just like the rest of us. Marriage is a Union between one man and one woman meant for the good of society.
Second, nothing productive comes out of online debates or very rarely does that happen? Why should we rock the boat.
Comment by Andrea Graham [Member]
Yet most Liberals have no tolerance for opposing viewpoints and have absolutely no problem imposing their ideals on others. This is typically excused with arguments along the lines of, “Intolerance cannot be tolerated.”
If you cannot see the logical problem there, and honestly think Conservatives are the ones trying to win debates by redefining things like, say, marriage, then there really is no point of reference for meaningful discussion.
To put it more plainly, responding to opposing viewpoints by calling them bigots is itself, by the definition you gave, bigotry. Name calling will put a person on defense and produce a hostile reaction every time.