I have a strategic proposal. Having read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" earlier, I think now is the opportunity to unleash a deadly weapon, simply by dropping the "s" off the end of a single word.Refer to the "gay rights" as the "gay right." Since intolerance is associated with the "right" in most people's minds, this subtle change in words will dramatically reinforce the growing perception of intolerance being inherent to certain gay communities, namely those demanding equal par with traditional marriage.Argue how like the "right," they are using hatred to push their beliefs on others, and should be opposed by more moderate souls.Thus, you can use Orwellian language as an ambush to trap the very people who created it. After all, it was they who made "right" wrong, no? And who can help the fact that "rights" is so similar to that other, dreaded word? And who can help that the advocates of these "rights" are becoming more like the advocates of the "right?"Hmmm?
So, organizing boycotts of companies whose policies you oppose is an act of intolerance? Does that work for both sides of the political isle?
Don't be whining about gay 'intolerance' when intolerance is exactly what you've practiced for decades. You get what you give - if it makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you should look at yourself a little closer.
OneBrow,Have you missed the whole discussion? I defended the use of boycotts and asked Prop. 8 opponents why they were defending blacklisting.
Anonymous,I've always said that, for gays, mere disagreement with their position constitutes intolerance. That's their whole problem. Thanks for proving it once again.
I defended the use of boycotts and asked Prop. 8 opponents why they were defending blacklisting.Since in this case the blacklist is a list of companies to boycott, why should anyone else defend what you already defend?
OneBrow,You clearly have not read the previous discussion on this blog about the difference between boycotts and blacklists nor did you read the website that has the blacklist--and which uses the term 'blacklist' and not 'boycott'. I don't mind terribly much having to draw clear and well-understood distinctions between words, but I'd rather not have to keep doing it over and over again.A boycott does not target individuals in order to ruin their lives: it targets companies in order to affect their business. What are you not getting about this?
Since the purpose of the list is a boycott, by any other name, it's still a boycott. Again, why would anyone else want to defend what you already do?http://www.bartleby.com/61/15/B0301500.htmlblacklist: A list of persons or organizations that have incurred disapproval or suspicion or are to be boycotted or otherwise penalized.
One Brow,So you have no problem with blacklisting?
Martin,I think that since we agree on the boycotts are an appropriate means of applying plitical pressure, that we agree private citizens gathering a list of companies to boycott is a necessary part of this, and that such a list of companies is called a blacklist (even if it contains only one company), means that we obviously both approve of blacklisting in that context. A blacklist is a tool, and any tool can be used correctly or incorrectly. Like guns, I approve of the correct use of blacklists.
Post a Comment