You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #11: I thought that I had already addressed "conversation purposes" when i responded to [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-13 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I thought that I had already addressed "conversation purposes" when i responded to
Edited on Mon Jan-14-13 09:47 AM by No Elephants
first post in which you mentioned it?

As I said, "conversation" or "discussion" was too general a statement, not specific. As I also said, not everything is worth posting for purposes of conversation. So I asked what it was in Grenwald's piece that you found worth discussing.

For example, if you had seen a piece written by a Klansman about white supremacy, I doubt you would have posted it on a Democratic board for discussion in response to a post that said, "I don't want a white supremacist nominated in the President's cabinet?" . Some things, we would not even solicit serious discussion about, at least not on a board for Democrats.

So, I was trying to get at what it was specifically about this piece that you found credible, that inspired you to post it.

For instance, do you find credible Greenwalds' claim that the universe has dramatically changed for gay people since 1998? That there has been a sea change on gay marriage.

Do you believe that a decent person who was not homophobic in 1998 would have tried to keep an otherwise eminently qualified gay person from becoming ambassador on the grounds that he is gay? If so, do you believe that someone who would have done that in 1998 somehow is totally different now, or perhaps was never a homoph9bic bigot to begin with?

And so on.

Varying viewpoints doesn't tell me a lot about what I really need to address, eithere. Besides, I had already given my viewpoint in the OP. So, my sense was that you wanted something that Greenwald said addressed.

What consciousness was as to gays in 1998, versus, say 1958, or 2013, the evolution of gay marriage laws and the time of that, etc. all contribute to making addressing Greenwald's claims a big subject.

I really don't want to spend a lot of time addressing things and supporting my statements on on things that are self-evident to everyone. That is why I was trying to elicit specifics from you. Leo raised a specific point about gay marriage above and I addressed it specifically, albeit briefly and without a link, but it is a big subject..

I guess I am asking you please to think about what Greenwald said, about what life was like then for gay people (as best as one can imagine) and for people who were not bigots--and for people who were homophobic bigots, versus what it is like for those three groups today. And what it really takes to change someone who is so bigoted that he had no qualms whatever in 1998 from very publicly acting on that bigotry--as an elected official.

Please also thing about when Hagel made his apology --and to whom (not the guy whose ambaddorship he tried to torpedo, but to the media and only after his hame was floated for Defense and this issue surfaced again).

If after you do that, you find something Greenwald wrote credible, please let me know what and I will discuss that point or those points.

BTW, it is not that I keep handy a pile of links that cover everything Greenwald said. I would write something and then google and find links to support what I claim. First, though, I would like you to narrow my task by being more specific about what it was in Greenwald's piece that you found credible, in light of what you know in your gut and/or the top of your head about the history of consciousness raising about gays, bigots, 1998, marriage laws relating to gays, about human nature, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC