Last night Malloy went bonkers on a caller , who was against PNACers

[still_one]

but was intolerant with gay rights.

It was an interesting call. The guy was turning against the bush administration big time for the PNAC agenda, but considered himself a conservative "Christian" When Malloy questioned him further, and found out about his prejudice he threw him off the show.

Here is my question, should we try to educate others on tolerance and why it doesn't make sense, or alienate them?

[atreides1]

1. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

It's hard to teach tolerance, IMO you either get it or you don't.

[sakabatou]

25. Unless you drug the horse and beat it with a large stick

:evilgrin: ;)

[Pathwalker]

39. Or get George to milk it.

:evilgrin:

[Dhalgren]

2. How do you go about "educating" racists? People who hate

gays and think they qualify for no rights are just a different brand of "racist". I have lived in the heart of racist country most of my life, and I cannot see how you can educate racists - at least not during a phone call to a radio show...

[MadHound]

7. It IS tough to do, but yes, it can be done with time and patience

First example, George Wallace, the man who went from standing at the school house door with an ax handle to embracing civil rights and the African American cause.

Is it rare? Yes. Can it be done? Yes. Is it worth the effort to try and try again? By all means.

[Dhalgren]

22. Wallace didn't use ax-handles - Maddox in Georgia did.

And I agree, somewhat with your thesis. Re-education is a viable option and wisdom with age is also a factor (I know this from my experience with my father). But Wallace was always more of a politician than an actual "racist". He used whatever means he could to gain and hold power - if that meant he bashed blacks, then he bashed them, if that meant he supported blacks, then he supported them. But you cannot cajole a racist or an gay-hater. Re-education must begin with stout confrontation, in my opinion...

[MadHound]

35. Oh, I agree about the confrontation part,

That is indeed where such things must start. But I think that people can be re-educated and reformed on such negative attitudes, I've seen entirely too many such things happen in my life to think otherwise.

And you're also correct about Wallace not having ax handles, brain fart sorry.

[fudge stripe cookays]

38. I agree.

I took my mother (a Republican racist and gay-hater from way back) and through serious patience and questioning, got her to begin understanding why it was wrong.

This is a woman who used the N word consistently instead of the proper term. I began with that. I conditioned her like Pavlov's dog to stop using the N word or I'd walk out of the room.

Once I'd changed the terminology, the rest became a little easier. She began to see them as human beings. When she mentioned something about "them", grouping them altogether as something negative, I'd mention the delightful black lady we worked with, or our neighbor down the block. "Well, they're different," she'd reply.

"How are they different, mom?"

So she began examining her behavior more and more.

She also wished all the gays "would just all go back in the closet where they belong."

This is a woman who is also seriously pro-choice. When I finally became TRULY politically aware, I began hitting over the head (figuratively) with what was going on with the religious right and choice.

She began seeing the hypocrisy everywhere she looked. She began educating herself too.

This woman actually took a huge step and volunteered for Howard Dean in Austin, and helped out at HQ, right along Glen Maxey, who ranks right up there with the "outest of the out."

It CAN be done.
FSC

[alkaline9]

40. I applaud your efforts...

...in educating those who are not tolerant. It just seems like SUCH an uphill battle, and SOOO much work ahead of us to show so many people that hate and discrimination is not the way.

I honestly don't know if I could be so patient if one of my parents were so narrow minded about these issues, but I certainly give you props, and thank you for your efforts.

If only ALL of us could try to convince just one other person that racism and hatred of people who are different than us is wrong, America would be a much better place to live... Next step the world! (but at this point I'd be happy just to have America be discrimination free)

[fudge stripe cookays]

41. That would be the way to do it.

Each person just work on one other person.

You gotta start somewhere, right?
FSC

[still_one]

8. i agree, but believe or not the guy was reaching out

we can't accept racism, but we must educate. Maybe that's what Malloy was doing in a rather harsh way...

[dogday]

3. Tolerance of everything?

or tolerance of certain things?

[still_one]

11. They were only discussing gay marriage

so it didn't get into other areas of intollerance, but when dealing with human rights I don't think we cannot accept nothing less than complete tolerance.

It wasn't that long ago when people of different races were NOT allowed to marry in the U.S.

[Fovea]

4. Individual call

I didn't hear the show last night, so I cannot say specifically.
OTOH, I am so very tired when I hear folks who supported ** because he matched their hateful agenda say that the agenda was good, but the salesman for it was not.

People who are hateful surrender their greatest gift, the ability to think, for a double adrenaline shot of emotion. Such voters are temporary allies at best, and back stabbing quislings when you cross into their red mist territory.

But as to wether you reason with them or dismiss them, I think it is a personal choice based on what you are hearing, and what you can tolerate.

[jobycom]

14. Great post. nt.

[still_one]

24. I was just bring this up to highlight

the difference between liberals and the neocons

for them the end justifies the means, for us I think the way we get there is everything

I was wondering if we should try to educate those who can't be educated?

[jobycom]

34. We should always try, and everyone can be educated

Malloy going off on the guy may have been the first step in that education-- letting him know that his beliefs were abhorent. Or it could have been an over-reaction by Malloy--I didn't hear it.

Reminds me of my favorite Emo Phillips joke. Emo saw a woman about to jump from a bridge, and yelled "Stop! you have so much to live for." "Like what?" "Well, do you believe in God?" Emo asked. "Yes." "Me, too. Are you a protestant or Catholic." "Protestant." "Me, too," Emo says, getting excited. "Baptist or Methodist?" "Baptist." "Me, too," Emo says. "Southern or northern?" By now the woman is getting excited, too. "Southern." "Me, too," Emo says, "Council of 1847 or of 1898?" The woman smiles and says "1898." Emo screams "Die, Heretic!" and pushes her off the bridge.

At some point we become the fundamentalists. But Malloy wasn't anywhere near that point, from your story.

[still_one]

36. good point

[KnaveRupe]

5. Malloy ain't the guy

to educate people about tolerance.

Malloy's great, but only at firing up the base. He's as fitto be an ambassador as Bolton.

[still_one]

15. LOL, you have a point

Randii Rhodes did the same thing to a caller complaining about the new Al Gore network, and this caller was a liberal. She tore him apart to sidewise, calling him all kinds of names.

I enjoy these talk show hosts, but the big problem many of them have is they don't listen

[pointblank]

6. IMO

You have to look at the bigger picture...an enemy of PNAC is a friend of ours.

Alienating someone who is AGAINST the neo-cons but is gay right intolerant does more harm than good IMO...While I support gay rights across the board, I see alienating any potential dem voter who will help us defeat these facists, even if they dont hold all of our views, as counterproductive.

In other words, we should worry about getting these a-holes out of power and then worry about the intolerant religious hicks.

edited for clarification

[Touchdown]

9. Yeah, let's sacrifice gays at the altar of "electability".

How very inclusive of you.:eyes:

[pointblank]

13. Thats not what Im saying..

I am downplaying the significance of the biased opinions of a few intolerant buttheads...for the greater good of defeating the PNAC crowd.

In case you haven't noticed, we seem to be in the minority in this country, albeit a small one.

I am saying meet halfway with these people, dont condone their idiotic behavior, but tolerate them for their views that will help us defeat the neocons...

Having the all or nothing attitude is NOT going to help us, Im sorry.

[Touchdown]

29. I'm sorry. I can't tolerate someone who wants me dead.

PNACers want to enslave me to consumerism and nationalism, these rednecks want me DEAD! I'd go with Lieberman anyday.

I have had plenty of run-ins with these people, and most may not say it, but they truly believe the world would be a paradise without gays.

Perhaps if you were gay, you might see the real danger in what your advocating, and who your willing to sacrifice.

[pointblank]

37. Perhaps I would.

I may be totally off here. I dont walk in your shoes, I am a straight white male, and although I am not ashamed of it, I realize that I am naive in a lot of ways.

How else would you suggest that we boost our voter base?

To me, this very important...We are the minority, like it or not, that I am starting to think the only way out is to sacrifice a little. IF sacrificing doesnt mean tolerating some bigotry for the cause, then we need to come up with some alternatives.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. I agree, but we are not the minority -

they just have an alliance of minorities.

PNAC imperialists
Anti-choice activists
Religious zealots
Anti-gay activists
RW Libertarians
Corporatists

When they all speak in one voice, they look like the majority, but they have big issues with each other and we can encourage them to turn on each other. We need to support their disagreements with the administration and ignore the points where they agree. It isn't throwing gays to the wolves, in this case, to not get sucked into a fight over gays and focus on PNAC any more than it would be to support gay issues when talking to a Log Cabin republican, and de-emphasize their agreeing with the corporatist agenda. Gotta go for the chinks in their armor, exploit their weak points. Basic salesmanship is to keep the customer saying 'yes'; get them in that habit by finding points of agreement, then work on the fallacies in their logic and chip away at their core arguments. If you keep sounding reasonable, and keep them saying 'yes' they will reach the point where they will see you as reasonable and be less able to stridently declare that two guys getting married in Massachusetts is a threat to their marriage a thousand miles away.

[iconoclastNYC]

45. You made my point better than I did. Thanks.

I'd say an alliance of radical minorities.

[iconoclastNYC]

44. We are not a minority

The problem is our party has been selling out of values for short term political gain. They are eating our seed corn.

If you look on the issue 70% of people agree with the DNC point of view. We are not in the minority.

Party ID is not very relevant.

[dogday]

10. Here is a good example of intolerance

Intolerant Religious Hicks

Does that not imply intolerance to those who are religious and live in the South, or just plain stupid? In order to achieve it, you must practice it....

[pointblank]

18. How would you suggest I phrase it?

Intolerant religious peoples?

Sorry if I offended you.

[dogday]

21. No I am not offended, this is not about me and not about you

It is about tolerance and how it needs to be applied to all. Gays, Blacks, Muslims, Christians, Smart People, Dumb People, People from the North, People from the South...

You cannot achieve unless you practice it.

[pointblank]

30. Thanks for pointing that out.

I can admit when I am wrong and I was wrong to use such a broad brush.

I guess I have my own prejudices towards those who claim sucha high moral standard, but are in my mind hypocrites.

[still_one]

17. I hear, and that was the point of why I started this tread

It is actually a moral issue. Does the end justify the means?

That is why I believe we can't accept it, but at the same time we shouldn't just close the door on them either. That's the rub, how do we educate intollerance?

[pointblank]

20. The way I see it

The people who hold these views are ignorant.. Whether it is because they have never met an actual gay person and realized that they are people just like them, or because daddy was a racist bigot so it was a learned experience...It is ignorance, plain and simple.

Does the end justify the means?

Tough one, I am arguing that it does, but only if they are willing to be open minded...and shit, a vote for us is a vote for the right side either way..right? You aren't going to be able to change them all.

[jobycom]

23. I half agree with you. Maybe a third

I agree we have to hold our noses and vote alongside allies we might not otherwise want to.

I don't agree that we alter our message to get these allies, especially to the point of betraying our core values. I don't know about your politics, but the entire reason I vote Democrat is because of a deep-seated belief in equality, and it is behind every decision I make, from gay marriage and Affirmative Action, to bombing foreign nations and conrolling their politics. To me, it's the same ideal.

So I'd be happy to have the vote of a racist or bigot during election time, but only with the understanding that my candidate and party wasn't betraying my ideals to win that vote. I can take a bit of flexibility, but at the point where my core belief is violated, I'm no longer flexible.

That all being said, Malloy wasn't recruiting a vote in this case. The caller wasn't saying he would vote against the Republicans, only that he didn't like the PNACers. The next Republican could claim to be kinder and gentler, and then Malloy would have compromised his values and not won a vote. And since Malloy is a preacher of the message, and not a politician, his job is to stay pure, not win individual votes.

Just my belief. Welcome to DU, I'm not jumping on you here, just explaining where we disagree.

[pointblank]

28. Fair enough.

Listen, I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this, and thats fine.

Do I think we should violate our core beliefs within ourselves, NO.

But, as an earlier poster pointed out, the neo-cons do the same thing and I am just suggesting that we start playing on their level or be prepared to have a repat of 04 in 08.

It is fine to stand for what you believe in, but when it becomes detrimental to the bigger cause, then what is the point? They can NEVER take away how we feel inside.

BTW, I didnt even hear Malloy on this, AAR went to XM and I have Sirius, it sucks!

I am just going on what I got from the original post.

[jobycom]

12. So Malloy was intolerant in preaching tolerance?

I think when people reveal this inner hatred, you can't support it, or even let them think you accept their hatred, no matter what you're trying to get from them. I didn't hear Malloy--I know he goes off the deep end at times. If the caller was trying to promote his belief or ask for acceptance for it from Malloy, Malloy did the right thing, probably. If the guy was apologizing for that attitude, then Malloy could have been more patient.

Being southern, I have a few friends with varying degrees of racist attitudes. One neighbor has a rebel flag in his garage, and he keeps the garage door open. I hang out with him and his wife a lot, because I just like the guy. His wife says the flag is just about southern pride to her, and as far as I can tell, isn't racist at all. He's more of a white separatist than a supremacist, if you understand the difference. But he does start flinging the N word around. I've made it clear to him that I like him, but I won't hang around him if he uses it and talks like that. So when he gets drunk and uses it, I tell him about it and walk away. Usually he apologizes and stops using it. Once he started lecturing me on why the races should be separate, using a lot of History X stuff. I argued back with him, and by the end of the conversation, he was listening to me. I don't know if I changed his mind, but I got him to start seeing that a lot of his nonsense doesn't line up with reality, and that I wouldn't give an inch on his beliefs.

My point is there are ways to stay engaged in such conversations without legitimizing any part of their beliefs. I doubt Malloy was in that situation, though, since he wasn't friends with the guy, so if Malloy had given him a pass on the bigotry just to win part of an argument on PNAC, he would have been compromising his character and his message, and that's where you start losing your integrity. Malloy lives in the south, so he's quite familiar with conversations like that, and neighbors like mine.

Those are my thoughts, that's all.

[pointblank]

16. This is pretty much what I am saying...

you can engage these people and point them out on their faults, ut still agree with them on some issues, being rude an shutting them down right away because they hold an ignorant view only pushes them back to Bush's side.

[still_one]

19. actually the guy just called saying he was scared to death

what the administration was doing, and that he was a "Christian conservative". That is when Mike wanted to know what he meant by "Christian-conservative". It was Mike who brought it up, I guess to understand where the guy was coming from.

The callers intention was against the administration, and what they were doing to the country following the PNAC agenda

[tk2kewl]

26. This is why we need an economic populist agenda to be central

to the democratic platform. We cant jettison or downplay positions that are right, but we must emphasize the issues that will recapture folks like this guy.

[tridim]

27. The caller was completely full of shit and Mike knew it.

Do you really think that homophobic bastard gave a crap about the neocons? It's kind of like the people that call RW hate radio and say, "I used to be a Liberal Democrat but.."

[still_one]

32. I have no idea, the caller brought up his concern with the neocon agenda

[still_one]

31. just the responses in this thread highlight a major difference between

liberals/progressives and the right wing and neocons. We seem to hold certain principles as NON-NEGOTIABLE, especially when it deals with basic human rights. The rovians on the other hand have no principle, winning is at all costs.

It makes me proud to be a liberal

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. I don't believe in coddling bigots, but I believe that there are hard-core

bigots (the Fred Phelpses of the world) and soft-core bigots (the ones who are just repeating what they heard other people say).

The soft-core bigots fall into two categories: the pig-ignorant who have never been outside their own little social circle and have no interest in expanding their horizons, and the angry, who are disappointed with their lot in life but don't know where to direct their rage until Rush or somebody provides a place to focus it: mostly on gays these days, but also on people of color, the poor, and women.

It's called scapegoating, and rulers and elites have used it since time immemorial. Are the peasants grumbling about being forced to build the lord a new castle while their crops are being neglected? Get them worked up about how the witches (not poor-quality food and dirty drinking water) are causing their children to die. Tell them that they're poor because the Jews keep all the money for themselves. Any dumb thing to distract them from the fact that they're in virtual slavery.

The wilfully ignorant are a lost cause, but I've noticed over the years that happy people don't hate.

Alleviating the economic insecurity and sometimes outright misery of the working class and lower-middle class would, I believe, deprive the hate-provokers of a significant portion of their audience.

Also remember that people don't wake up equally in all areas of belief at once. Catching on to the evil machinations of the PNACers can be a first step in unraveling the whole matrix of false beliefs that support Republican hegemony.

To an anti- PNACer who expressed bigotry against gays or people of color or anyone else, I'd say, "What good does it do you to have this hatred? Who benefits when Americans hate one another? By what mechanism would equal rights for gays and lesbians harm you? Has it occurred to you that the cynical people who dreamed up PNAC are capable of encouraging bigotry to divide and conquer?"

If the person went into incoherent raging attack mode, I'd know that I had a hard-core bigot. The soft-core bigots tend to start stammering and searching their memories to see if a canned talking point fits what the other person has said. It may take a few years of evolution in their thinking, but many of them are reachable.

[still_one]

43. reasonable approach

In fairness to Mike he just didn't have the patience to do it