Join 3,514 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Portraying lesbians and appropriate parents
March 16, 2010 5:59 PM   Subscribe

The Florida Family Policy Council, a conservative Christian organization, sent out an alert to its members about judge’s ruling to allow a lesbian couple to adopt a relative’s child that they had been fostering. It included an image that was purported to be of the couple. It wasn't.

The FFPC says it was a mistake, although they've apparently made similar mistakes in the past.

This highlights the characteristics stereotyped as making a couple unfit to parent.
posted by emilyd22222 (91 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite

 
A mistake. Yeah.

In any just society, neither of these photos would be considered a "mistake" by anyone.
posted by blucevalo at 6:01 PM on March 16, 2010 [7 favorites]


The Front Page is making me sad today.
posted by The Whelk at 6:02 PM on March 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


Is that even a lesbian couple? The genders are kind of ambiguous, but the one in the back could just be some 80's dude with a mullet.
posted by delmoi at 6:03 PM on March 16, 2010


Actually wouldn't this constitute fraud, legally speaking?

(the blonde in the fake picture looks vaguely familar, strangely)
posted by jonmc at 6:03 PM on March 16, 2010


Does the right have a clue that, at some point, they will push the otherwise peace loving liberals they hate so much to a violent reaction?

I only hope it will be an "Oh, Shit!" moment for them, and that I'm around to watch it happen!
posted by HuronBob at 6:05 PM on March 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


(or to participate in it!) :)
posted by HuronBob at 6:06 PM on March 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Saying "lesbian" isn't enough to put the fear of God into someone, so you have to include a stereotype-reinforcing photo to get the job done. In a twisted way, that's progress, I think.

Having said that: shouldn't we be getting upset that the Florida Family Policy Council has this need to send out "alerts" about this sort of thing? I mean, the photo makes it especially galling, but the underlying premise is just inherently flawed. If we need the issue of the picture to feel angry about this, then maybe we're not making as much progress as I thought.
posted by davejay at 6:06 PM on March 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


HOMOPHOBIA!!!

LOLXIANS!!!!

I have just exhausted the possibilities for conversation on this fpp.


I see you're lost. Metafilter is on the internet. Your toilet is in your bathroom.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:07 PM on March 16, 2010 [24 favorites]


Someone needs to go back and re-read Mt 7:16.

I would like to offer my sincerest apologies should have been followed by ...and immediate resignation.
posted by jquinby at 6:07 PM on March 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Having said that: shouldn't we be getting upset that the Florida Family Policy Council has this need to send out "alerts" about this sort of thing?

Understand that in the AFA's worldview, two lesbians being allowed to adopt a child is an act of war against the AFA's "side"; to them this is news much as the terror attacks of 9/11 were news, and for the same reasons.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:09 PM on March 16, 2010


Actually wouldn't this constitute fraud, legally speaking?

No, fraud involves deception for personal gain, normally in a business transaction. It could be a type of slander (i.e. lying about how ugly they are) but I doubt it would get very far in court.
posted by delmoi at 6:09 PM on March 16, 2010


(the blonde in the fake picture looks vaguely familar, strangely)

I immediately thought of Tim and Eric's Awesome Show Great Job! myself.

posted by davejay at 6:09 PM on March 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


From their blog:

The photo in the news piece we ran (red and blue shirts on left) was obtained from an online article about a different South Florida Judge who approved a different improper homosexual adoption.


I'd bet my last dollar that that's a fucking lie, too.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:11 PM on March 16, 2010 [14 favorites]


See (warning some graphic content on this site) http://bossip.com/58859/the-gays-win-a-round/ I would ...

If that site deems a warning from this guy, boy well, he's certainly still in the dancing hamsters stage of his internet life.
posted by geoff. at 6:11 PM on March 16, 2010



I only hope it will be an "Oh, Shit!" moment for them, and that I'm around to watch it happen!

I have recently gotten over my innate sense of politeness and manners and leading with kindness and example to just say fuck it when I encounter these arguments in the social real world wild. Fuck as in making as much loud shaming noise about the asshole, bully dipshit NONSENSE that gets canted like fact. I'm sick of being better and I'm fucking sick of being quiet and not standing up for my belives and going YOU SAID THE FUCK NOW cause I figured their oopinions don't matter cause they're dumb and one person. They do, because it's hurtful horrible neanderthal poison that is making me scream at them on their level. Fuck the higher road and fuckity fuck the other cheek, I have decided to be That Guy. Bullies don't get nicer when you ignore them.
posted by The Whelk at 6:11 PM on March 16, 2010 [31 favorites]


Gr grar argh. And so on.
posted by The Whelk at 6:11 PM on March 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Clearly the first couple shouldn't be allowed to adopt! They're stereotypical lesbians! Which makes them unfit adoptive parents. The second couple looks different, so they're fine.

Because...um, hold on. Why?
posted by Lemurrhea at 6:11 PM on March 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Actually wouldn't this constitute fraud, legally speaking?

How would all of the elements of a common law Fraud claim be satisfied? And who would have standing?
posted by The World Famous at 6:12 PM on March 16, 2010


I think it's a brilliant bit of satire by the FFPC. See, they're trying to help society come to grips with attitudes about beauty and recognize how those attitudes color our decisions about what we find acceptable in a pluralistic--

What, you mean they're serious?


Well, fuck them, then.
posted by darkstar at 6:14 PM on March 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


You should see the judge.

Should we (we = the cocktail party, I guess) pursue this kind of propaganda? Where is the sweet spot of believability here? I'm having a hard time thinking of something horrible that doesn't occur in the bible somewhere.
posted by poe at 6:14 PM on March 16, 2010


'K So what we're saying here is that's it's alright for a couple of lisbo's to adopt if they aren't too butch?? Or what? One femme and one masculine would be alright whatever genetically assigned gender then, true?

I don't get tthe right -- just don't.
posted by Some1 at 6:15 PM on March 16, 2010


If this story makes it to FOX News, they'll get the picture right, but after the lesbians' names there'll be a (D).
posted by zardoz at 6:16 PM on March 16, 2010 [17 favorites]


They're losing the war against gays, and they know it. Desperation.

That's not to say that everyone who tries crap like this shouldn't be fed to the wolves, though, they should.
posted by Huck500 at 6:18 PM on March 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


I don't think I like this approach of theirs.

No, sir.
posted by Joe Beese at 6:18 PM on March 16, 2010


I feel bad for the people in the pictures. Nobody deserves to have their pictures used like this, nor do they deserve having their appearance in those pictures subjected to the scrutiny and some of the remarks this story is sure to generate.

Although it's probably unlikely that any of the people in the pictures are reading this thread, it would be great if people commenting here would comment as if they were going to see the whole thing at some point, and consider how they'd feel about what you say.
posted by FishBike at 6:23 PM on March 16, 2010 [9 favorites]



They're losing the war against gays, and they know it.



Wars you can't win:
-The Drug War
-The Terror War
-The Gay War
posted by Liquidwolf at 6:24 PM on March 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


The Gay Drug Terror War, this summer on Showtime.
posted by The Whelk at 6:25 PM on March 16, 2010 [15 favorites]


Not that it should matter. Even if the weird-looking people were the lesbians that wanted to adopt, it would still be wrong to legally discriminate against them. But it is very funny to imagine the panicked response around FFPC when they looked up photos of the menacing dykes and discovered that they were two responsible-looking and approachable women. Implement emergency procedures!
posted by stammer at 6:30 PM on March 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


Man those No Men are clever!
posted by Horace Rumpole at 6:33 PM on March 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


I have this file photograph of FFPC President John Stemberger with 2 other members of his organization, apparently repairing a vehicle in front of their house.

If this photograph was incorrectly labeled, I would like to extend my sincerest apologies to Mr. Stemberger and he can rest assured that I will not sleep until a full review into how we organize our photographs has been completed.
posted by AlsoMike at 6:33 PM on March 16, 2010 [8 favorites]


If you care to notice, the first couple are wearing wedding rings - just the kind of stable relationship that children need, no?
posted by Sova at 6:33 PM on March 16, 2010


stammer: But you're assuming that they would look at any photograph of two women in an obvious coupled relationship and see anything but "Ewwww gross" -- whether that photograph was of two "approachable" women or "weird" women or neither of those two adjectives.
posted by blucevalo at 6:34 PM on March 16, 2010


LOLXIANHOMOPHOBIA!!!

I'm sure that when they quit acting like assholes people will quit calling them on it.
posted by The Hamms Bear at 6:35 PM on March 16, 2010 [6 favorites]


zardoz: If this story makes it to FOX News, they'll get the picture right, but after the lesbians' names there'll be a (D).

But they'd never stoop so low as to alter the picture.
posted by hangashore at 6:37 PM on March 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


I've said it many times before, I'll say it again: This is how I know that they know the battle is lost.

In MA, I remain convinced that what turned the tide for marriage equality is that the opposition fucked up. They didn't respond quickly enough, and the entire Commonwealth got an extended dose of what equality looked like. What did it look like? It looked just like them.

If the only way they can rally broad support is with shit like this, they're all done.
posted by rollbiz at 6:37 PM on March 16, 2010


> I'd bet my last dollar that that's a fucking lie, too.

The photo is the first result in a google image search for "ugly lesbians" (no quotes).

The photo itself appears on this page from January 29 2007, used in a mocking fashion for the "2008 Redneck Calendar."

Can't find anything earlier, used tineye, wasn't rigorous about looking at all the results.
posted by user92371 at 6:42 PM on March 16, 2010 [11 favorites]


Homophobic, christian assholes in Florida? Say it ain't so!
posted by ged at 6:43 PM on March 16, 2010


Should we (we = the cocktail party, I guess) pursue this kind of propaganda?

Why the hell not? I'm thinking run an article with that picture of the inbred yokel holding a sign saying "GET A BRAIN MORANS", and run underneath it "pictured: President of the Florida Family Policy Whatever". Oops, it was an honest mistake!
posted by DecemberBoy at 6:43 PM on March 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


From a comment in the article about the "other" couple:

"Gay people should not be allowed to adopt because of the emotional trauma that it will cause a child. That child will be teased constantly for having same sex parents. It is an abomination."

So, let me get this straight: you think they shouldn't adopt, because the kid will get emotionally traumatized...and you think the trauma will come from being teased constantly for having same sex parents...and you think same sex parents are an abomination.

In other words, people like you will tease the child because people like you think it is an abomination, therefore they shouldn't adopt.

They shouldn't adopt, to protect the child from...you.

Wow.
posted by davejay at 6:53 PM on March 16, 2010 [90 favorites]


user92371 .... nice work....
posted by HuronBob at 6:55 PM on March 16, 2010


LOLXIANHOMOPHOBIA!!!

XIANHOMOPHOBIA, Doo dah, Doo dah...
posted by davejay at 6:56 PM on March 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Gonna rant all night
Gonna fume all day
I'll save my bile for the les-bi-ans
Somebody hate on the gays
posted by hangashore at 7:01 PM on March 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


Wars you can't win:
-The Drug War
-The Terror War
-The Gay War
posted by Liquidwolf


The Gay War is the one with really big rockets.
posted by nola at 7:09 PM on March 16, 2010


I'm going to take a big picture approach and file this under a "desperate uphill charge in the social conservatives protracted Battle of the Bulge". And start drinking early.
posted by vapidave at 7:22 PM on March 16, 2010


Wow. Things in this arena still have the capacity to stun.
posted by agregoli at 7:23 PM on March 16, 2010


March 16, 2010... The Whelk is reborn as a militant political queer.

Welcome to the fold! You'll find we have lemonade, cookies, and pink triangle pins. Feel free to help yourself.
posted by hippybear at 7:24 PM on March 16, 2010


WHERE DO I PRACTICE SCREAMING?!
posted by The Whelk at 7:26 PM on March 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


It's a Fark meme. They caught the article a month ago.

Also: The picture that the Policy Council chose was a grotesque caricature. Dude, harsh. Weird people are still people.
posted by FuManchu at 7:28 PM on March 16, 2010


davejay that was awesome!
posted by agregoli at 7:30 PM on March 16, 2010


Hopefully, there aren't too many more gasps for air before this horrible beast dies.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.
posted by schyler523 at 7:32 PM on March 16, 2010


stammer: But you're assuming that they would look at any photograph of two women in an obvious coupled relationship and see anything but "Ewwww gross" -- whether that photograph was of two "approachable" women or "weird" women or neither of those two adjectives.

It's not the crime, it's the coverup. If they were emotionally indifferent to whether gays look "respectable" or "queer", they could quite easily have sent out their alert with no image at all, rationally judging that the real image was bad propaganda. Instead they had to desperately paper over the real picture, the normalcy of which obviously horrified them more than anything. This despite the fact that introducing a flagrantly false image put them at totally unnecessary risk of embarrassing exposure.

No matter how much they try to justify homophobia as a policy decision based on an empirical assessment of the behaviour of gay people, it is obvious that on some level people like the FFPC need to believe that gayness is a physical problem, a kind of deformity-generating disease. This may be why people like this think gay marriage will destroy straight marriage: to them, gay people are like social antimatter, made out of different building blocks, able to destroy normality just by coming in contact with it.

They tried to smother the reality of gay people and replace it with their fantasy version, but they got caught. This doesn't just bring the rancid logic of homophobia to light. For this coverup to have taken place, there must have been a moment when the author of the alert had to confront this sad truth - when the real photo was first discovered, and when the decision was made not just to edit the photo out, but to replace it with the FFPC's Dream Lesbians. Hilarious and an interesting commentary on why the struggle against queer freedom seems to be doomed.
posted by stammer at 7:32 PM on March 16, 2010 [8 favorites]


Count me in for the political queer militia...my soon-to-be-wife and I can infiltrate and destroy from within.
posted by schyler523 at 7:34 PM on March 16, 2010


Maybe somebody should remind these fine Christian folks about the 9th commandment.
posted by never used baby shoes at 7:38 PM on March 16, 2010


It's a Fark meme. They caught the article a month ago.

Assuming that within the past month it's been doing the rounds on the internet, wouldn't that account for the #1 google rank of the photo?
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:40 PM on March 16, 2010


I can't be arsed to look it up, because it's preaching to the converted here, but there are studies that show that children of gay adoptive parents do just perfectly fine. Also out there on these internets is an essay by the child of a gay couple, who is quite eloquent about how much better it is to be adopted than not, and how great life is with his two moms.

Death to dinosaurs.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:02 PM on March 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Actually wouldn't this constitute fraud, legally speaking?

I'm not so sure about fraud, but it certainly falls in the realm of 'bearing false witness'...
posted by Isosceles at 8:10 PM on March 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


NEWS RELEASE

As not a representative of the No Men, I would like to take responsibility for this fraudulent news item. The truth of the matter is that The Florida Family Policy Council doesn't actually exist; it is a fake organzation we made up as part of a hoax designed to depict religious conservatives as lying, unethical bastards, who would manipulate the truth in order to get a rise out of the ignorant and bigoted.

We apologize to anyone who took our joke seriously, because in truth we didn't think anyone would believe something named The Florida Family Policy Council would be concernerd with lesbians, or that they would publish obviously faked photos. Obviously we underestimated the public's capacity to believe.

Again, we apologize for this hoax.

The No Men.
posted by happyroach at 8:41 PM on March 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


I don't think anyone should be surprised. This is the same state that kept a dying mother from seeing her kids and her legal partner. Florida would probably set up death camps for gays and lesbians, if the Constitution would only allow it.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:23 PM on March 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Death to dinosaurs.

I think the horse has already bolted on that one.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:55 PM on March 16, 2010


Christians, Christians... wait, aren't they the ones who are supposed to be feeding the poor and loving their neighbour and so forth? I guess having pretend time and grotesquely misrepresenting those they disagree with is more fun.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 10:05 PM on March 16, 2010


Since jquinby decised to reference Matt. 7:16, that justifies me in referring to Romans 1: 25-27. It couldn't be clearer, whatever translation you want.
posted by Seekerofsplendor at 11:11 PM on March 16, 2010


Wasn't that from the earlier testament, which was completely superseded by the new and everlasting testament introduced by that guy, what was his name again...?
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:18 PM on March 16, 2010


Nah, Romans is from the New Testament. You know, the one where it says that women are not to teach or have authority over men? Yeah, that one.
posted by darkstar at 11:19 PM on March 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Stupid Catholic upbringing. We only ever studied Jebus to the nth degree, not all that weirdass marginalia that constitutes the rest of the Bible.

Well, Jebus & all kinds of esoteric mumbo-jumbo invented by wormwood-addled social lepers in the Dark Ages, like whether or not you ended up in Limbo or Purgatory if you happened to die after committing a non-mortal sin but before your next confession & penance, and whether or not a proper burial or relatives petitioning various Saints & Angels could somehow reverse the decision.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:28 PM on March 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Basically, the good folks at the FFPC play the age-old game of picking and choosing which parts of the Bible they want to apply to society today.

They can more or less arbitrarily decide to view some parts as literal and some as allegorical, just as they can choose which admonitions to view as applicable to culture today vs. simply an artifact of the culture of Biblical times.

Hence, in their view of Biblical prescriptions for modern culture, slaves are no longer expected to respect their masters and women are no longer expected to just keep their mouths shut and submit to the authority of menfolk. Yet gays are still considered to be sinful, even though all these admonitions were pretty clearly culturally tinged and given by the same dude (Paul) as guidelines for correct behavior.

Which pretty much tells you it has little to do with Christianity at all, and much more to do with cultural norms of this particular subculture of social conservatives. The Bible being a convenient authority to point to whenever it happens to support what they're dictating for the rest of us.
posted by darkstar at 11:41 PM on March 16, 2010


Who has the kind of time on their hands to devote to messing with the lives of two nice people like that?
What, on his way out Christ said "Oh, by the way, take time out of your day instead of trying to give starving people a sandwich maybe and really go out of your way to screw with people who are completely harmless, if not altruistic, because they make you uncomfortable in some way. That's way more important than the whole tending to the sick and widows and stuff. Just be a real bastard in a half ass meaningless way to people who have absolutely done you no harm. Make sure you're a real coward about it too."
posted by Smedleyman at 12:51 AM on March 17, 2010 [6 favorites]


So you're saying that those bracelets don't actually stand for "Who would Jesus defame?"
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:47 AM on March 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


They shouldn't adopt, to protect the child from...you.

+

Hey, at least they're being honest.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:55 AM on March 17, 2010


Yesterday: Legislation Introduced, Withdrawn on Gay Adoption in Florida; Subject Debated for First Time in 33 Years.
posted by ericb at 5:44 AM on March 17, 2010


In related news: Mexican Singer Paquita La Del Barrio: I'd Rather a Child Die Than Be Adopted By a Gay Couple.
posted by ericb at 5:46 AM on March 17, 2010


man, i just took another look at the first picture.

based on the hairstyles, that is probably at LEAST a decade old. or not.
but whatev.

they are defiantly showing off their bling of wedding rings.

in light of what fishbike said above, i would just like to say that those women were making a HUGE statement at a time when there was even less of a public debate of this.

no wonder they're not smiling, they're taking on the world and saying fuck you we love each other and want to have all the things that many people with deep love and commitment to one another want: the right to marry. (yes yes i know there are anti marriage people).

i think the FFFC should probably have found a different picture, like of two women beating a child or something.

but of course, i guess the people they are trying to scare won't see the women as strong, but rather as aberrations. and the others ones can be "helped" because they are "normal" looking or something.

it's sad all around.
posted by sio42 at 6:22 AM on March 17, 2010


Popular Mexican singer Paquita La Del Barrio, usually known for taking strong positions against sexist male culture, is making headlines in her country following an interview in which she said that she would rather see a child die of hunger in the street than be adopted by a gay couple.

Perhaps next time Paquita should think twice about stuffing a fourth helping of food down her fat, mascara-stained piehole, before another child dies of hunger for lack of a loving home.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:45 AM on March 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


Hey, don't give us fat, mascara-stained pieholes a bad rep!
posted by Theta States at 8:02 AM on March 17, 2010


>Fuck the higher road and fuckity fuck the other cheek, I have decided to be That Guy. Bullies don't get nicer when you ignore them.

I came around to this perspective a few years ago. I still try to remain polite and calm, but decided that when presented with hate, whether on the street or at the dinner table, to call it what it is. This made for some awkward conversations with my ex's conservative Mormon parents, but calling them out on hate-filled opinions at least made them stop airing them in front of me, and may have just made them think a little more.

I think it's so important to speak up, because if you don't, hate flourishes. This kind of bigotry only works when a group can get together and demonize "the other"--that's exactly why the FFPC ran a different photo! If the lesbians look all nice and respectable, they might have to confront the fact that, as was mentioned upthread, "them" is actually "us".

I'm not advocating going all righteous anger anytime someone says something hateful, but I will no longer remain even a little bit silent when confronted with hate toward fellow human beings, no matter where nor who says it. (Perhaps the only thing Ayn Rand wrote that I agree with was in a little essay called "Philosophy: Who Needs It?", and it was something along the lines of "I disagree" being the most powerful words in the language. Silence indicates assent with the ideas just aired.)
posted by LooseFilter at 8:16 AM on March 17, 2010 [5 favorites]


blucefalo But you're assuming that they would look at any photograph of two women in an obvious coupled relationship and see anything but "Ewwww gross" -- whether that photograph was of two "approachable" women or "weird" women or neither of those two adjectives.

Actually, if the two women happen to be rather attractive, a hefty percentage of males, never mind "Christian" males, will have a completely different reaction than "Ewww gross"...
posted by Skeptic at 8:22 AM on March 17, 2010


should think twice about stuffing a fourth helping of food down her fat, mascara-stained piehole

(along the lines of my previous comment:) Hey now, her weight problems have nothing to do with her hate toward fellow humans (gay or child). If you're going to call her out, use her words and the thoughts in her head they represent--ask her why she hates children and wants them to suffer and die, etc. Make her defend the ideas she's actually advocated.

I find that usually works, either a person is forced to defend themselves as not being hate-filled, or they double-down and admit that they do in fact hate gay people and want them to die. Either way, I find it's important to make the speaker either completely own or disown the hate and cruelty espoused in their speech.
posted by LooseFilter at 8:23 AM on March 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


Seekerofsplendor -- I've always read that passage as being about God punishing people by making them want icky sex.

Like, ok, a bunch of straight dudes aren't worshiping God like they should -- so now, ha ha, they all want to bone dudes! Gross, right? Should've worshiped God a little better, jerks. (And likewise, straight ladies are gettin' all Sapphic when they really don't want to.)

But the passage doesn't address people who are born gay, or who (if one wants to go with the "choice" argument, which I personally don't) "choose" to be gay. It's about God making people gay as a punishment when they originally were straight.

As a lesbian, that passage reads to me as: "Hey, Harper, better watch your back, or God's gonna line you up for a frisky boning by a straight dude." Ick.

Any biblical scholars who can provide more insight?
posted by harperpitt at 8:28 AM on March 17, 2010


I have this file photograph of FFPC President John Stemberger with 2 other members of his organization, apparently repairing a vehicle in front of their house.

I think you can find other pictures of Mr. Stemberger by Googling "goatse". I do sincerely apologise if I somehow mistyped or otherwise bungled that reference.
posted by Skeptic at 8:30 AM on March 17, 2010


Hey now, her weight problems have nothing to do with her hate toward fellow humans

I just find the juxtaposition of her being cool with letting children starve while she gets to keep stuffing her fat face kind of infuriating. Sorry.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:34 AM on March 17, 2010


in their view of Biblical prescriptions for modern culture, ... women are no longer expected to just keep their mouths shut and submit to the authority of menfolk.

Wrong. This is a prime tenet of the Christian right.
posted by Jimmy Havok at 9:24 AM on March 17, 2010


"It is an abomination."

When I meet people like this in the future, I want to say as loud as possible, "So, you're one of those useless fucking bigots."

And when they take offense, because no one likes the "B" word, I'll just follow up with "Oh, I thought we were drawing value judgments..."
posted by quin at 11:08 AM on March 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


And when they take offense, because no one likes the "B" word

And even if they did like the "B" word, you've thrown in the "U" and "F" words for good measure. You're sure to get a reaction and change their mind.
posted by The World Famous at 11:25 AM on March 17, 2010


Twice in two days, I've had missionaries ringing my doorbell. Having spent decades dealing with their haranguing, I just have one way to deal with them. Knowing full well the kind of doctrine likely preached by any church which is sending their members out door-to-door, I just politely but firmly interrupt them and say "Oh, you know... I'm pretty certain your church does not want me as a member. Have a good day." And shut the door.

I figure if they can't see the fag flag stickers on both cars sitting in the driveway and figure that out, then they deserve to spend the rest of the day confused.
posted by hippybear at 11:34 AM on March 17, 2010 [3 favorites]


You're sure to get a reaction and change their mind.

A fair point. But at this level, I can't really believe that someone who goes with "abomination" as a descriptive is going to be swayed one way or another, so at the very least, perhaps the resulting shouting match turned riot will be fun.

Hyperbole aside, I do think that getting the word "bigot" used more frequently to generally describe people like this would be a positive step.

posted by quin at 11:51 AM on March 17, 2010


I just find the juxtaposition of her being cool with letting children starve while she gets to keep stuffing her fat face kind of infuriating. Sorry.

Oh, no worries--I was being half-facetious. If that woman chooses to say that she'd rather have children actually starving than see her morality challenged a teensy bit, she pretty much deserves the verbal hate that comes her way in whatever form it may take.

(My larger point is that, if one is to respond with anything resembling righteous anger, it's really hard, because you can never let it get personal as that's a fatal blow to an argument of principle.)
posted by LooseFilter at 11:56 AM on March 17, 2010


A fair point. But at this level, I can't really believe that someone who goes with "abomination" as a descriptive is going to be swayed one way or another, so at the very least, perhaps the resulting shouting match turned riot will be fun.

In the religious context, I think the use of the term "abomination" is less an indication of how tenacious the belief is and more just a use of a religious word, if that makes sense. Also, dumb people seem to like to use big words, no matter what they mean. And I also think there's more than a hint of last-gasp desperation in the way the Religious Right is behaving of late. Maybe I'm too hopeful about positive social change, though.
posted by The World Famous at 12:00 PM on March 17, 2010


Hyperbole aside, I do think that getting the word "bigot" used more frequently to generally describe people like this would be a positive step.

I agree, and have used it myself to great effect. It's kind of fun to see the cognitive dissonance that happens when you casually slip that judgment in as a response: "Oh, I see. You're a bigot." There is usually a lot of spluttering and defensiveness, trying to distinguish hate for one class of people born a certain way from acceptance of all those other kinds of people.


posted by LooseFilter at 12:02 PM on March 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


(why are we whispering?)
posted by Theta States at 12:42 PM on March 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


(why are we whispering?)

(hey, keep it down, alright?)
posted by grubi at 12:49 PM on March 17, 2010


Hyperbole aside, I do think that getting the word "bigot" used more frequently to generally describe people like this would be a positive step

Wait, that isn't common usage of bigot?
posted by davejay at 2:30 PM on March 17, 2010


Just as a note in passing, I think there are times when one's response to error shouldn't be all about civilly trying to get the other guy to change his mind. Some people are so given over to their error - and invested in it emotionally - that nothing you say will get them to re-evaluate their position or change it.

Rather, sometimes, the best thing you can do is to hold them up to a kind of public ridicule, bringing a kind of social pressure to bear on the undecided or weakly convinced spectators, s that the error can't put down deep root in society.

As an extreme example, consider the counter-protests to the Westboro Phelps group. You're not going to get those nuts to change their minds. The best you can do is to ridicule them, so that onlookers realize that the Phelpsian hatred and intolerance has no place in civilized, modern society.
posted by darkstar at 8:35 PM on March 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


« Older A NYTimes columnist just comes out and says it: Am...  |  A Nazi zombie invasion!? Yep,... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments