Tuesday, November 18, 2008
2008 / Media Racist Columnist! Racist Columnist!
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:46 AM
Surely the folks who've accused me of being a card-carrying member of the KKK for even noticing the disproportionate support for Prop 8 in the African American community will be appalled to read Mary Mitchell's column in today's Chicago Sun-Times. Check out Mitchell's blatantly racist and wildly bigoted analysis of the passage of Prop 8:
...it is difficult to understand how African Americans emerged among the primary opponents of gay marriage. In California, at least, the impact of the record turnout of African Americans in the general election is being blamed for the passage of Proposition 8, an amendment to that state's constitution that outlaws marriage by gay and lesbian couples."Needless to say [Barack] Obama didn't need black voters to win California," said David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.... "He won the majority of the white, Hispanic and Asian-American vote. There was a big increase in black turnout," Bositis noted.
"African Americans represented 6 percent of all California voters in 2004. That number jumped to 10 percent in 2008. If black voters had voted in the share they voted in 2004, Prop. 8 would have probably failed," he said.
Mitchell fans the flames of bigotry by noting that while blacks voted in large numbers to "protect" marriage...
...black people are the least likely of all the racial groups to get married.
And then Mitchell has the nerve to lecture African Americans who voted against gay marriage for religious reasons...
African Americans would do well to remember that it wasn't so long ago that some whites used the Bible to justify their bigotry.
African Americans "would do well to remember"? How condescending is that?
And finally, after she gently admonishes the gay community to get to work, Mitchell quickly returns to upbraiding African Americans for their bigotry—she even goes so far as to echo my comments about how African American gays and lesbians are the chief victims of African American homophobia:
As for the gay community, the passage of Prop. 8 exposes how much work has to be done to gain the support of black voters on this issue. And too many blacks are acting as if the battles the gay community are fighting have nothing to do with us.They do.
Black gays and lesbians probably have it far worse than other groups....
You can read Mitchell's entire column here—oh, and Mitchell will be hosting an online chat today at 1 PM www.suntimes.com. Doubtless some Sloggers will want to head over to Mitchell's chat to explain to her that she's a racist, a card-carrying member of the KKK, that she's part of the problem, not part of the solution, etc.
Share via
1
Dan, I put this in the last post. You saw Roeper today, right?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/1284…
http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/1284…
2
I've stayed out of this whole "Dan is a racist" discussion, because I really don't understand how it's racist to point out the fact that African Americans voted disproportionately for Prop 8 and if they had voted in the same way as other voters in the state, Prop 8 might have failed.
I mean, I understand the comments discrediting the exit poll ("the facts presented are inaccurate"). But, I've just been trying to listen to the "Dan is a racist" folks to try to see their point, and so far, I have not been convinced.
I mean, I understand the comments discrediting the exit poll ("the facts presented are inaccurate"). But, I've just been trying to listen to the "Dan is a racist" folks to try to see their point, and so far, I have not been convinced.
3
Dan, everything you have said re black homophobia may be correct, but being correct by itself isn't worth shit.
You need to be *persuasive*, and a white guy generalizing about black voters isn't going to win a single black vote. Now, a black woman making generalizations about black people? That might actually work. I know, it's not fair.
You struck just the right tone of deference on the DL Hughely show last week, so I guess you already understand this. The fact that you didn't reach across the table and strangle him shows you have super-human powers. You should make more guest appearances on black TV shows - that kind of visibility may actually help the cause.
You need to be *persuasive*, and a white guy generalizing about black voters isn't going to win a single black vote. Now, a black woman making generalizations about black people? That might actually work. I know, it's not fair.
You struck just the right tone of deference on the DL Hughely show last week, so I guess you already understand this. The fact that you didn't reach across the table and strangle him shows you have super-human powers. You should make more guest appearances on black TV shows - that kind of visibility may actually help the cause.
4
Do you see why she's in a better position to level these criticisms without coming off as an asshole than, say, Bill O'Reilly, who also has been crediting black voter turnout for Prop 8's victory?
6
I think only white people should talk about white people, black about black, gay about gay, men about men, women about women, movie stars about movie stars, presidents about presidents etc.
This whole "communicating to other people who aren't their demographic twin" is offensive. If some group votes against your interests and you aren't a member of that group, put a sock in it.
This whole "communicating to other people who aren't their demographic twin" is offensive. If some group votes against your interests and you aren't a member of that group, put a sock in it.
9
You posted her picture so everybody can see that she is black, too. So she's extra-allowed to say things about black people.
Have you ever posted a picture of the columnist/writer you are referring to? No.
Have you ever posted a picture of the columnist/writer you are referring to? No.
10
It's condescending to point out someone's problems without offering a solution, ideas or assistance. It's like pointing out the fat kid in class and making up an easily remembered chant because you can't justify your irrational emotions. It's only self-serving. In this, case, it helps you build a flimsy case that you, personally, are being put upon by black people and naysayers. If you have a problem with something, you do better by offering a solution, which is something you clearly have not done.
In this article, she points at gay people and says "enough talk, there should be action" -- the irony is that you choose to forgo what should have been as clear as the nose on your face and instead choose to try to wallpaper your own behind by saying "LOOK, EVEN THE BLACK PEOPLE HATE THEMSELVES!"
The next time you make a post like this, offer a solution instead of some token "duh, really?" notion like "we should reach out to the churches". Maybe you could suggest a round table with Pastor Hutch? You make fun of him, but as you can see, your disregard for the power of people like him has left you sore and whiny.
Of course at this point, I doubt you'd even deign to be in the same room as him unless he was bringing you your car keys or clearing your table.
In this article, she points at gay people and says "enough talk, there should be action" -- the irony is that you choose to forgo what should have been as clear as the nose on your face and instead choose to try to wallpaper your own behind by saying "LOOK, EVEN THE BLACK PEOPLE HATE THEMSELVES!"
The next time you make a post like this, offer a solution instead of some token "duh, really?" notion like "we should reach out to the churches". Maybe you could suggest a round table with Pastor Hutch? You make fun of him, but as you can see, your disregard for the power of people like him has left you sore and whiny.
Of course at this point, I doubt you'd even deign to be in the same room as him unless he was bringing you your car keys or clearing your table.
11
@non
He does when it would cause you to look at the article differently. The fact that she herself is black shows this as more than just a white person "being all racist and shit".
And no, I do not think that people who are of a different ethnicity or gender should be forced to keep quiet or else be labeled racist- that is simply stupid.
He does when it would cause you to look at the article differently. The fact that she herself is black shows this as more than just a white person "being all racist and shit".
And no, I do not think that people who are of a different ethnicity or gender should be forced to keep quiet or else be labeled racist- that is simply stupid.
12
Enough with this "REACH OUT" or "OUT REACH" crap. STOP BLAMING THE VICTIM. Saying there was not or is not enough out reach to any community is like saying to the rape victim that s/he did not scream loud enough, did not fight hard enough, did not dress modestly enough. The rights of Gay Californians were taken away. That is a violation. Stop blaming the victim and start looking the attacker in the face and calling them what they are.
14
@7: White people are land-thieves and murderers. They live on land that was stolen and perpetuate the slow death of the previous culture of this land. They've broken almost every treaty, and as an institution within government, owe natives billions of dollars that they cling to like the money-hoarding thieves they are.
That's the truth, but what good does it do? It browbeats, it belittles, it condescends, but it offers no solution. It's merely to give leverage of one group over another and in this case, it's focused on one trait: race. It disregards the social leanings or history of most every member of the race and it gives absolutely no clue as to what is wanted or needed to move forward in a way that doesn't force total and unexplained capitulation.
The assumptions given by these posts make no concessions to the >30% of black people who did not vote "yes" on Prop 8, they are the same thread from the same cloth that the initial outrage came from. It's a glaring condemnation of all black people, regardless of who they are or how they voted. And when they are separated out, it's always into two camps: good blacks and bad blacks, which, again, is a glaring condemnation of all black people -- the "good blacks" should tell the "bad blacks" why gay people are okay.
As a single solid issue, it should be dropped. This needs to be gathered up into a larger social statement that focuses on all "yes" voters, especially considering how small the black population is in comparison to the rest of the nation.
That's the truth, but what good does it do? It browbeats, it belittles, it condescends, but it offers no solution. It's merely to give leverage of one group over another and in this case, it's focused on one trait: race. It disregards the social leanings or history of most every member of the race and it gives absolutely no clue as to what is wanted or needed to move forward in a way that doesn't force total and unexplained capitulation.
The assumptions given by these posts make no concessions to the >30% of black people who did not vote "yes" on Prop 8, they are the same thread from the same cloth that the initial outrage came from. It's a glaring condemnation of all black people, regardless of who they are or how they voted. And when they are separated out, it's always into two camps: good blacks and bad blacks, which, again, is a glaring condemnation of all black people -- the "good blacks" should tell the "bad blacks" why gay people are okay.
As a single solid issue, it should be dropped. This needs to be gathered up into a larger social statement that focuses on all "yes" voters, especially considering how small the black population is in comparison to the rest of the nation.
15
Christ, Dan, give it up. Your role in the gay communities is different from hers. And her role in black communities is different from yours.
Can you tell me what kind of constructive purpose a post like this serves? We have a movement to rebuild and you are wasting your energy and considerable credibility in the community on this stupid sandbox fight with strawmen. And I thought you said last week that you were done posting on the subject? Yeah?
While I disagree with both you and Mitchell about the information we can extract from the exit poll, I surely don't think either of you was out of bounds in writing about it. The problem is that you, Dan Savage, came at it from the wrong angle -- not "What can we do about this for our black brothers and sisters?" or "How can we better reach these people?" but "Why did I vote for Obama if those black jerks aren't supporting me and mine?" And then you had to hold up one marginal Detroit rapper as a sign of how homophobic black people are? Not helpful. Illogical. And yes, a touch racist.
16
oh great so now you're not just writing your own racist articles, you're linking to other racist columnist too!?
17
I believe Dan's intentions are good, but I cannot believe how credulous journalists are being about this exit poll.
In 2000, this exit poll was the reason news outlets called Florida for Gore before the polls even closed, which was inaccurate and may have even caused Bush to win due to depressed voter turnout once the election was "called."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat…
In 2004, this exit poll said Kerry won the presidential election, when it is clear he did not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United…
This exit poll is completely unscientific, for a myriad of reasons, including a small sample size (~224 black people in California were polled), non-random sampling (only a few polling places are chosen), and self-selected responders (most people asked don't answer the exit poll).
The exit poll about Proposition 8 doesn't even make sense and people are drawing conclusions from the polls that even the polling company doesn't claim. For example, the polling data says 10% of the people polled in California were black, not that 10% of all California voters were black. It also says 75% of black women and 64% of black men voted for Prop 8, even though all past data says that black women are less homophobic and more in favor of gay civil rights than black men. The polling is also inconsistent -- a larger percentage of white people voted for the Arkansas gay adoption ban than black people. Then, journalists are claiming that if black people turned out at the same rates as white people then Prop 8 would have failed, when even if you take the exit polls as fact, simple math shows this is not true.
The credulity of journalists and bloggers about these exit polls is ridiculous and disheartening. It's more intellectually dishonest than just parroting White House statements about the drug war and claiming they are fact.
In the future, please do not give this exit poll any attention. In every single one of our past 3 presidential elections, it has proven to be a tremendous failure.
More...
In 2000, this exit poll was the reason news outlets called Florida for Gore before the polls even closed, which was inaccurate and may have even caused Bush to win due to depressed voter turnout once the election was "called."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat…
In 2004, this exit poll said Kerry won the presidential election, when it is clear he did not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United…
This exit poll is completely unscientific, for a myriad of reasons, including a small sample size (~224 black people in California were polled), non-random sampling (only a few polling places are chosen), and self-selected responders (most people asked don't answer the exit poll).
The exit poll about Proposition 8 doesn't even make sense and people are drawing conclusions from the polls that even the polling company doesn't claim. For example, the polling data says 10% of the people polled in California were black, not that 10% of all California voters were black. It also says 75% of black women and 64% of black men voted for Prop 8, even though all past data says that black women are less homophobic and more in favor of gay civil rights than black men. The polling is also inconsistent -- a larger percentage of white people voted for the Arkansas gay adoption ban than black people. Then, journalists are claiming that if black people turned out at the same rates as white people then Prop 8 would have failed, when even if you take the exit polls as fact, simple math shows this is not true.
The credulity of journalists and bloggers about these exit polls is ridiculous and disheartening. It's more intellectually dishonest than just parroting White House statements about the drug war and claiming they are fact.
In the future, please do not give this exit poll any attention. In every single one of our past 3 presidential elections, it has proven to be a tremendous failure.
19
Okay, yes, an unusually large number of black people made a poor choice on Prop 8, fueled in part by misinformation and cultural prejudices.
Now, what are we going to do about it?
Now, what are we going to do about it?
20
Good job Dan! This Mexican-American is proud of you. Don't give into the one-upsmanship "my oppression" is worse than yours bullshit and therefore you should keep your mouth shut. They aren't worth the time or effort. There will always be those that are unreachable. Leave em that way.
21
@20, Mark in Colorado
Who is telling Dan that his or her oppression is "worse than" Dan's? Who is telling him to keep his mouth shut? Let's try to stay on the page, eh?
Who is telling Dan that his or her oppression is "worse than" Dan's? Who is telling him to keep his mouth shut? Let's try to stay on the page, eh?
22
You sure waste a lot of space defending yourself.
And why not call for a CALIFORNIA boycott? They seem to be a bigger problem than Utah. Lotsa Mormons there too....
And why not call for a CALIFORNIA boycott? They seem to be a bigger problem than Utah. Lotsa Mormons there too....
24
I really hope you’re not serious about this. Is it a case of “Nah na na na naa, see I’m right a black a woman said it”? Are you really saying that because a black woman said something, then black people should agree?
Her arguments were just as silly as yours: “Mitchell fans the flames of bigotry by noting that while blacks voted in large numbers to "protect" marriage... ‘ ...black people are the least likely of all the racial groups to get married.’”
Your sarcasm aside, are you friggin serious? Because as a group African Americans marry in the lowest numbers, no black person can want to “protect” marriage? Seriously? So, because gay people as an aggregate proportionally shove the most rodents in their anuses then no gay person can support animal rights?
As has been echoed countless times on this board, religious people represent the largest group that voted that voted to eliminate the rights of gay people and blacks number high among the religious. Yours, and Mitchell’s, rant that blacks are “probably” (talk about a hedge big enough to hide behind) responsible for the passing of prop 8 is just is irresponsible bullshit. Why are you not speaking about the increase in the gay vote for republicans?
http://www.towleroad.com/2008/11/cnn-exi…
http://www.oasisjournals.com/2008/11...i…
Seriously, Dan, let it go. People are allowed to vote as they please. I’m sick and tired of these rants that we voted for your man so you should have voted against prop 8. If that was the case then you should have voted for McCain.
Her arguments were just as silly as yours: “Mitchell fans the flames of bigotry by noting that while blacks voted in large numbers to "protect" marriage... ‘ ...black people are the least likely of all the racial groups to get married.’”
Your sarcasm aside, are you friggin serious? Because as a group African Americans marry in the lowest numbers, no black person can want to “protect” marriage? Seriously? So, because gay people as an aggregate proportionally shove the most rodents in their anuses then no gay person can support animal rights?
As has been echoed countless times on this board, religious people represent the largest group that voted that voted to eliminate the rights of gay people and blacks number high among the religious. Yours, and Mitchell’s, rant that blacks are “probably” (talk about a hedge big enough to hide behind) responsible for the passing of prop 8 is just is irresponsible bullshit. Why are you not speaking about the increase in the gay vote for republicans?
http://www.towleroad.com/2008/11/cnn-exi…
http://www.oasisjournals.com/2008/11...i…
Seriously, Dan, let it go. People are allowed to vote as they please. I’m sick and tired of these rants that we voted for your man so you should have voted against prop 8. If that was the case then you should have voted for McCain.
25
@14 is correct about truth and how it is spun. I read Mary Mitchell often and she is usually a dingbat but she was dead-on correct about this. And as an African American I am always shocked when gay white people think African Americans are so open minded about equality and acceptance of gay people. For goodness sakes Luther VanDross died of a stroke because he couldn't come out of the closet, Tavis Smiley cannot come out of the closet, Queen Latifa cannot come out of the closet, and Tyler Perry pretends he is not out of the closet.
26
#11. And no, I do not think that people who are of a different ethnicity or gender should be forced to keep quiet or else be labeled racist- that is simply stupid.
I completely agree. And no race or gender has sole claim to civil rights issues.
Dan's distinguishing between The Civil Rights Movement that black people fought in the 60s and the civil rights movement that we're fighting now is a perfect and correct distinction.
African Americans do not have copyright of oppression, bigotry, or civil rights.
I completely agree. And no race or gender has sole claim to civil rights issues.
Dan's distinguishing between The Civil Rights Movement that black people fought in the 60s and the civil rights movement that we're fighting now is a perfect and correct distinction.
African Americans do not have copyright of oppression, bigotry, or civil rights.
28
@21. Many, many have told Dan to "shut the fuck up" and "let it go" and "please stop." Hell, calling him a racist is a way of trying to get him to stop talking about this.
And there have been many posts in previous threads by black people who say that gays and lesbians have not had to "go through the struggles" that they have. They have compared their oppression to ours. Others have pointed out that sodomy held a death sentence for centuries, gays and lesbians were killed by the thousands during the Holocaust, etc. It's a damn shame that we have to remind African Americans of this. I doubt the roles would ever be reversed.
I do not solely blame black people for Prop 8 passing, but every one of them who voted for it shares the blame and is a bigot. Pointing this out doesn't make me a racist anymore than pointing it out makes Dan or Mary Mitchell one.
@24. You seem to not be able to recognize irony when it's biting you in the butt.
And there have been many posts in previous threads by black people who say that gays and lesbians have not had to "go through the struggles" that they have. They have compared their oppression to ours. Others have pointed out that sodomy held a death sentence for centuries, gays and lesbians were killed by the thousands during the Holocaust, etc. It's a damn shame that we have to remind African Americans of this. I doubt the roles would ever be reversed.
I do not solely blame black people for Prop 8 passing, but every one of them who voted for it shares the blame and is a bigot. Pointing this out doesn't make me a racist anymore than pointing it out makes Dan or Mary Mitchell one.
@24. You seem to not be able to recognize irony when it's biting you in the butt.
29
@18
Yeah, Dan doesn't "let things go". Pitbulls, anybody? We're gonna be hearing about how Dan's not a racist (which seems obviously true to me) for, like, 6 months. At least.
Yeah, Dan doesn't "let things go". Pitbulls, anybody? We're gonna be hearing about how Dan's not a racist (which seems obviously true to me) for, like, 6 months. At least.
30
Yes, the state that has anti-discrimination laws and civil unions is a bigger problem that a state that does not.
Oh, and Dan? Grow up.
And why not call for a CALIFORNIA boycott? They seem to be a bigger problem than Utah.
Yes, the state that has anti-discrimination laws and civil unions is a bigger problem that a state that does not.
Oh, and Dan? Grow up.
32
Yeah, #29, but if I was repeatedly and unfairly called a racist--right after my civil rights had been stripped away in four more states in my own country--I'd have a hard time letting it go too.
33
@32: And that's why I'm not letting this go. Like I said in this post...
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
An accusation of racism can itself be hate speech. I haven't been harping away at this -- unlimited ability to post here, posted not even a dozen items on this subject. Between "you can't say that!" and "now that we've called you a racist motherfucker, *let it go,* Dan!", I don't see why I should give it a rest.
But I didn't go looking for Mitchell's column. No Google alerts have been created. Someone sent it to me and said, "Isn't she saying what you were basically saying?" And she is, so I posted it.
But, yeah: I am a bad, bad man. Please don't read my blog, etc.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
An accusation of racism can itself be hate speech. I haven't been harping away at this -- unlimited ability to post here, posted not even a dozen items on this subject. Between "you can't say that!" and "now that we've called you a racist motherfucker, *let it go,* Dan!", I don't see why I should give it a rest.
But I didn't go looking for Mitchell's column. No Google alerts have been created. Someone sent it to me and said, "Isn't she saying what you were basically saying?" And she is, so I posted it.
But, yeah: I am a bad, bad man. Please don't read my blog, etc.
34
@33: Because you don't offer a single solution. Where's your call for a roundtable with the self-styled opposition on the subject to find out where they're coming from? Where's your call to have a coalition of bloggers and reporters come together from all races to discuss the topic? Where's the solutions, Dan? All we have is shrill accusations with little substance behind the facade.
You're a less-mannish Ann Coulter.
You're a less-mannish Ann Coulter.
35
re: "It's condescending to point out someone's problems without offering a solution, ideas or assistance."
Here's a solution STOP BEING A BIGOT.
Here's a solution STOP BEING A BIGOT.
36
Well, Dan, if you are going to keep harping on this can you at least limit it to reports of how effectively this tactic is changing the minds of homophobic blacks?
38
Nate Silver explained what happened quite well. Mary Mitchell is wrong. The increased black turnout did NOT cause Prop 8 to pass, because the early voters who made up the big increase in turnout overwhelming opposed Prop 8 -- even among blacks. The increased black turnout, like the increased turnout in every group, made the margin much SMALLER, not bigger.
Your culprit, among blacks as well as whites, is OLD PEOPLE.
Your culprit, among blacks as well as whites, is OLD PEOPLE.
41
I for one enjoy watching Dan push a little dogshit back in the faces of everyone who's been calling him the "R" word lately. There is a role for simply condemning and accusing , and Dan does it well. Constructive suggestions can only come once there is some actual admission of a problem.
As far as all this "outreach" and "roundtable" shit goes, you can't have it both ways. If the AA community didn't play a significant role in passing prop 8, then they won't play a significant role in repealing it. What's the point of doing outreach to a community when there's nothing to be gained from it? I don't think we owe it to anyone to 'redeem' them from ignorant, hateful opinions as an end in itself. We don't owe ourselves anything but victory.
But keep in mind that victory should not be at any price, especially the price of groveling before the unworthy and pleading for their blessing. It is far better to win 5 years later than to kiss the collective ass of a few bigots now. You didn't see Malcolm X or MLK debase themselves by trying to reach out to the people who hated them. They confronted society, and they made it clear the wanted nothing to do with entrenched racists. Malcolm X basically scorned white people, while MLK made it clear those who changed their mind were welcome - but he didn't cravenly beg anyone to reconsider. Different styles, to be sure. But as I've said before, the sympathetic came to them - not the other way around. The hateful ones simply lost, and watched their culture die, and were never redeemed. They weren't worth it.
As far as all this "outreach" and "roundtable" shit goes, you can't have it both ways. If the AA community didn't play a significant role in passing prop 8, then they won't play a significant role in repealing it. What's the point of doing outreach to a community when there's nothing to be gained from it? I don't think we owe it to anyone to 'redeem' them from ignorant, hateful opinions as an end in itself. We don't owe ourselves anything but victory.
But keep in mind that victory should not be at any price, especially the price of groveling before the unworthy and pleading for their blessing. It is far better to win 5 years later than to kiss the collective ass of a few bigots now. You didn't see Malcolm X or MLK debase themselves by trying to reach out to the people who hated them. They confronted society, and they made it clear the wanted nothing to do with entrenched racists. Malcolm X basically scorned white people, while MLK made it clear those who changed their mind were welcome - but he didn't cravenly beg anyone to reconsider. Different styles, to be sure. But as I've said before, the sympathetic came to them - not the other way around. The hateful ones simply lost, and watched their culture die, and were never redeemed. They weren't worth it.
42
I don't think you were being called a "racist" or a "bigot" because you pointed out the bigotry within the black community. I think you were called those things because you made race an issue when more predictive and dominant criteria were at play and because you (and your surrogates) continue to use data to support you views well past the time the data and its use have been discredited.
So Mary Mitchell is using the same data and twisting it to fit her conclusion the way you did. And because she's black, that's suppose to justify your views. Seriously? Does that mean if I find a Log Cabin Republican who was for Proposition 8, I can declare that everyone who voted for Proposition 8 was justified for doing so? I hope not.
Just as I hope that the homophobia in the black community doesn't overshadow the homophobia in the other racial populations. Had the homophobia among them been less, there's an even greater chance that Proposition 8 would have failed. After all, they voted in record numbers in this election, too, and as groups, they had more impact on the outcome. Why they are getting a free pass on your outrage is one of the reasons you bias is being called into question.
But more so, it's because race isn't the best determinant of how someone voted on Proposition 8. Looking at what information is available, it appears age, faith, and residence (rural versus urban) were stronger predictors of the vote. You, however, continue to make it about race.
Further, you continue to make it about one race's homophobia in particular.
That doesn't make you a racist, but it does suggest a bigotry that none of the context you've provided so far can dispel.
So Mary Mitchell is using the same data and twisting it to fit her conclusion the way you did. And because she's black, that's suppose to justify your views. Seriously? Does that mean if I find a Log Cabin Republican who was for Proposition 8, I can declare that everyone who voted for Proposition 8 was justified for doing so? I hope not.
Just as I hope that the homophobia in the black community doesn't overshadow the homophobia in the other racial populations. Had the homophobia among them been less, there's an even greater chance that Proposition 8 would have failed. After all, they voted in record numbers in this election, too, and as groups, they had more impact on the outcome. Why they are getting a free pass on your outrage is one of the reasons you bias is being called into question.
But more so, it's because race isn't the best determinant of how someone voted on Proposition 8. Looking at what information is available, it appears age, faith, and residence (rural versus urban) were stronger predictors of the vote. You, however, continue to make it about race.
Further, you continue to make it about one race's homophobia in particular.
That doesn't make you a racist, but it does suggest a bigotry that none of the context you've provided so far can dispel.
43
But I know better.
Again, we're still waiting for a posting from you about exactly what SOLUTIONS you would suggest, Dan, or any indication that you've had any sort of conversation with or input from local Queers of Color or religious leaders to see what they might think about the situation.
Instead of continuing to repeat the accusations and counter-accusations of the Prop 8 Mess, how about helping get us a path out of the mess so we can work on fixing the situation? Suggestions? Constructive ones please?
When HIV prevention was languishing and the NWAF was a toothless mess, you stepped up and created Gay City. How about another constructive action on this front--racism in the Queer community/homophobia in communities of color?
Again, we're still waiting for a posting from you about exactly what SOLUTIONS you would suggest, Dan, or any indication that you've had any sort of conversation with or input from local Queers of Color or religious leaders to see what they might think about the situation.
Instead of continuing to repeat the accusations and counter-accusations of the Prop 8 Mess, how about helping get us a path out of the mess so we can work on fixing the situation? Suggestions? Constructive ones please?
When HIV prevention was languishing and the NWAF was a toothless mess, you stepped up and created Gay City. How about another constructive action on this front--racism in the Queer community/homophobia in communities of color?
44
@41. There is a role for simply condemning and accusing , and Dan does it well. Constructive suggestions can only come once there is some actual admission of a problem.
Exactly. I hate to sound like an AA counselor, but we'll get nowhere until there is an admission of the problem without reactionary counter accusations about racism among gay men.
And #42, he's not saying that Mitchell "justifies" his views because she's black. He's pointing out the hypocrisy of black people being able to point to problems within their community with no recriminations, while he was labeled a racist for saying almost the exact same thing.
I'm certainly no genius, but I'm beginning to think that much of this debate stems from people not being able to read critically or understand irony or nuance.
Exactly. I hate to sound like an AA counselor, but we'll get nowhere until there is an admission of the problem without reactionary counter accusations about racism among gay men.
And #42, he's not saying that Mitchell "justifies" his views because she's black. He's pointing out the hypocrisy of black people being able to point to problems within their community with no recriminations, while he was labeled a racist for saying almost the exact same thing.
I'm certainly no genius, but I'm beginning to think that much of this debate stems from people not being able to read critically or understand irony or nuance.
45
Glen, Bernard, John, Neil, these were a few of my black friends when I lived in SF. And Lupe, Mario, Bobby and Caesar were some of my Hispanic buddies. They mostly hung out together but never had a problem with me, the white guy. Most of them are dead now, from AIDS, which really didn't care what color you are. Too bad we can't approach homophobia the same way.
46
"Most of them are dead now, from AIDS, which really didn't care what color you are. Too bad we can't approach homophobia the same way."
Well, the problem is that a virus can't be held accountable for its actions. We may fear it, but all the rage in the world can't sway its progression. We're just food to it, and it's a mindless thing that can't be reprimanded or punished.
Bigoted communities are a different story. They can be shamed, intimidated, and challenged to the point where their excuses start to buckle. I wish friendship with good people was enough. But it just isn't.
Well, the problem is that a virus can't be held accountable for its actions. We may fear it, but all the rage in the world can't sway its progression. We're just food to it, and it's a mindless thing that can't be reprimanded or punished.
Bigoted communities are a different story. They can be shamed, intimidated, and challenged to the point where their excuses start to buckle. I wish friendship with good people was enough. But it just isn't.
47
@44 He's pointing out the hypocrisy of black people being able to point to problems within their community with no recriminations, while he was labeled a racist for saying almost the exact same thing.
Pointing out the hypocrisy in a black person getting a pass on charges of racism when that person says the same thing as a white person is only part of what he's doing. He's also using the race of the messenger to strengthen the message. Pointing out the hypocrisy of the messenger getting a pass would hardly be worth the pixels space.
Members of the Gay community can offer criticism about the Gay community that would get straight persons labeled a homophobe. Black people can say things about their community and each other that would be considered racist coming from the mouth of someone outside of the community. That's neither new nor revelatory.
I don't think that was the primary reason of his post. But I'll be happy to be wrong on this.
Pointing out the hypocrisy in a black person getting a pass on charges of racism when that person says the same thing as a white person is only part of what he's doing. He's also using the race of the messenger to strengthen the message. Pointing out the hypocrisy of the messenger getting a pass would hardly be worth the pixels space.
Members of the Gay community can offer criticism about the Gay community that would get straight persons labeled a homophobe. Black people can say things about their community and each other that would be considered racist coming from the mouth of someone outside of the community. That's neither new nor revelatory.
I don't think that was the primary reason of his post. But I'll be happy to be wrong on this.
48
Well, #47, he's explained the primary reason for his post (see #33). You'll either think he's lying or you won't, not much he can do about that.
And the message is already pretty clear; we don't need black people to "strengthen" it. We need black people to help us change it. So, yes, in that sense, posting Mitchell's article is constructive (though not many here seem to understand that).
And the message is already pretty clear; we don't need black people to "strengthen" it. We need black people to help us change it. So, yes, in that sense, posting Mitchell's article is constructive (though not many here seem to understand that).
49
fnarf @ 38 -- Nate got the math wrong, never mind the interpretation.
The exit poll less than conclusive on the larger question, but points a swollen, gangrenous index of suspicion at AA voters.
If the universe of AA's broke evenly Yes/No, the odds on 157 or more Yes responses in a sample of 224 (70% or more) are on the order of 1 in 10^9.
Adjustment for cluster sampling would pare these odds, but any live human who's on candid speaking terms with a diverse sample of black folk will know there's a problem here, that statistical agnosticism won't remedy.
Nate earnestly and eagerly flubbed the maths for both seniors vs AA's, and AA new voter effects.
Another angle: Postgrad was the only educ segment that voted No on Prop 8 overall.
The exit poll less than conclusive on the larger question, but points a swollen, gangrenous index of suspicion at AA voters.
If the universe of AA's broke evenly Yes/No, the odds on 157 or more Yes responses in a sample of 224 (70% or more) are on the order of 1 in 10^9.
Adjustment for cluster sampling would pare these odds, but any live human who's on candid speaking terms with a diverse sample of black folk will know there's a problem here, that statistical agnosticism won't remedy.
Nate earnestly and eagerly flubbed the maths for both seniors vs AA's, and AA new voter effects.
Another angle: Postgrad was the only educ segment that voted No on Prop 8 overall.
51
Man there are a lot of idiots on the Internet.
Keep speaking truth to (the dumb masses') power, Dan.
Keep speaking truth to (the dumb masses') power, Dan.
54
Now if blacks can just stop killing other blacks at epidemic levels. Of the approximately 8,000 blacks killed in the USA in the year 2005, at least 93% of them were killed by other blacks. Also, blacks make up only about 12% of the USA but black males (far less than 6% of USA) commit over 52% of all murders and over 34% of all rapes in our country. All stats from the USDOJ.
55
@53
I'm not being predictable. I'm being real, yo. If you need me to break down the fallible exit poll data, I certainly can. However, I'd prefer to base the hypothesis on the disproportionate amount of "homophobia" in the black community on credible, validated resources. You know, just like I would've been expected to do in a freshman college paper.
Up next, citing wikipedia as a primary resource.
I'm not being predictable. I'm being real, yo. If you need me to break down the fallible exit poll data, I certainly can. However, I'd prefer to base the hypothesis on the disproportionate amount of "homophobia" in the black community on credible, validated resources. You know, just like I would've been expected to do in a freshman college paper.
Up next, citing wikipedia as a primary resource.
56
If you're gonna call him a racist, you better expect a sharp response. That's one hell of a serious charge, and not one to be thrown around lightly.
"You're a racist, now let's move on!" Excuuuuse me? If someone called me a racist you best believe I wouldn't shup up about it. (lol)
"You're a racist, now let's move on!" Excuuuuse me? If someone called me a racist you best believe I wouldn't shup up about it. (lol)
57
What's problematic is not the pointing out, but the way it's done, and the context that the pointing-out is done in. It's an imperfect parallel, but I think it's worth looking back at some of the McCain/Palin campaigning, in cases where Palin sent out carefully calibrated dog-whistles to receptive crowds (calling Obama a socialist, saying he "pals around with terrorists," suggesting that he's "not like us" and "sees the country differently than us"); these statements were hugely problematic because they fed not just people's Internet-slander-stoked fears, but also a preexisting bigoted narrative of black inferiority and an African-American/immigrant threat to whites that must be stopped at all costs.
Somewhat relatedly, I think that what has a lot of people up in arms isn't necessarily the data Dan points out, but rather the way it's being discussed--the prolonged and imprecise anger that's getting leveled against "the African American community" on the basis of poll data--and, more important, the context: blame is being leveled at a falsely monolithic "African American community" in a country where a huge amount of latent antiblack racism has already been stoked by anti-Obama campaigning (see reports of hundreds of racist death threats occurring across the U.S.), and also in the context of a country where homophobia is a huge and statistically significant problem not just among black Americans, but among all racial groups. And the tit-for-tat formulation initially presented (paraphrased by some as "We [white gays] vote for your [black Americans'] guy and you vote to strip us of our rights?") came across as an unhelpfully imprecise, offensive attack, nevermind unreflective of the logic behind any Obama vote (given that Obama was simply the best viable candidate for a huge swath of America because his policies and rhetoric were aimed toward creating an inclusive American political dialogue that included people of all races, genders, sexual orientations, and socioeconomic classes).
All of us, regardless of race, need to be engaging in constructive strategizing aimed at (a) building empathy for GLBTQ people among homophobic communities and individuals, and (b) aggressively countering arguments and rhetoric that support bigotry (whether that bigotry is embodied in homophobia or racism). And one effective way to begin that persuasive work is generally not to start off by calling folks bigots or racists--which tends to stall out a conversation by putting those people on the defensive and making them feel, rightly or wrongly, demonized--but by engaging in the kind of smart, tactful debate Dan's been doing so awesomely on the rounds of TV shows: presenting information and arguments that don't focus on making problematic sweeping generalizations (associating harmful beliefs with racial groups and blaming people of those races for being bigots or inadequately concerned with homophobia in their "community"), but that instead focus on all the strong political and moral arguments about why people of color, straight women, immigrants, etc., should see gay rights as a common struggle relevant to their own struggles; and that focus on all the compelling reasons why nobody in America should be espousing or encouraging homophobia (just as nobody in America should be espousing or encouraging racism).
More...
Somewhat relatedly, I think that what has a lot of people up in arms isn't necessarily the data Dan points out, but rather the way it's being discussed--the prolonged and imprecise anger that's getting leveled against "the African American community" on the basis of poll data--and, more important, the context: blame is being leveled at a falsely monolithic "African American community" in a country where a huge amount of latent antiblack racism has already been stoked by anti-Obama campaigning (see reports of hundreds of racist death threats occurring across the U.S.), and also in the context of a country where homophobia is a huge and statistically significant problem not just among black Americans, but among all racial groups. And the tit-for-tat formulation initially presented (paraphrased by some as "We [white gays] vote for your [black Americans'] guy and you vote to strip us of our rights?") came across as an unhelpfully imprecise, offensive attack, nevermind unreflective of the logic behind any Obama vote (given that Obama was simply the best viable candidate for a huge swath of America because his policies and rhetoric were aimed toward creating an inclusive American political dialogue that included people of all races, genders, sexual orientations, and socioeconomic classes).
All of us, regardless of race, need to be engaging in constructive strategizing aimed at (a) building empathy for GLBTQ people among homophobic communities and individuals, and (b) aggressively countering arguments and rhetoric that support bigotry (whether that bigotry is embodied in homophobia or racism). And one effective way to begin that persuasive work is generally not to start off by calling folks bigots or racists--which tends to stall out a conversation by putting those people on the defensive and making them feel, rightly or wrongly, demonized--but by engaging in the kind of smart, tactful debate Dan's been doing so awesomely on the rounds of TV shows: presenting information and arguments that don't focus on making problematic sweeping generalizations (associating harmful beliefs with racial groups and blaming people of those races for being bigots or inadequately concerned with homophobia in their "community"), but that instead focus on all the strong political and moral arguments about why people of color, straight women, immigrants, etc., should see gay rights as a common struggle relevant to their own struggles; and that focus on all the compelling reasons why nobody in America should be espousing or encouraging homophobia (just as nobody in America should be espousing or encouraging racism).
58
@33, Dan: You say, "I haven't been harping away at this . . . posted not even a dozen items on this subject. Between 'you can't say that!' and 'now that we've called you a racist motherfucker, *let it go,* Dan!', I don't see why I should give it a rest."
First, I haven't seen a single post that says, "You can't say that," and I think I can count the ones that called you racist on a single hand. I have been one of your most consistent critics in the last two weeks, and I didn't even think about calling you racist until your Trick Trick post -- which is either completely illogical or racist because the only reason Trick Trick was relevant to the Prop 8 discussion is that he is black. He's not Californian. He didn't say anything about Prop 8. No Californians cited his lyrics in connection with Prop 8. No one listens to him. I could go on . . .
Second, you said you were going to stop posting about this unless some important news came out, didn't you?
Sure, you have the right to defend yourself. But you could probably do a lot more good if you spent the time posting about issues of greater public concern than your hurt feelings. And if you are committed to posting about your hurt feelings, you'd probably get a better response if you seemed at least a little willing to engage your critics instead of painting them as proponents of "hate speech" or a bunch of screechy pc hyenas. Why not respond to our questions and concerns instead of just shouting that we are wrong? Don't you feel any responsibility to your readership?
59
Dan - in the context of a racist society (for example, the United States), an accusation of racism doesn't reveal some horrendous lurking evil. Racism is the norm in a racist society. White people (even well-meaning liberals) are raised to ignore racism and cling to their privilege, so we don't tend to be as sensitive to racist remarks. When someone accuses you of saying something racist, it doesn't mean that they're accusing you of being Hitler's great grandchild or even of a forever-branded Racist4Lyfe - it means that you need to sit back for a minute and consider the implications of your argument, in your case, as a representative of alternative media and self-styled spokesgay.
As a white man, whether you like it or not, you benefit from racist and sexist power structures. You might be disadvantaged in other arenas of power - by your sexuality, for example - but that doesn't negate your white male privilege, nor does it neutralize your responsibility as a representative of the media. This is not to say that anyone expects you to be perfectly P.C. and loveydovey. This is not to say that you're not allowed to talk about race because you're a white person. This is to say that when you place the blame for heterosexism squarely on the shoulders of non-white people (without calling out the same heterosexism of white people) while co-opting anti-racist civil rights rhetoric, you not only alienate queer non-white people and make the cause of gay liberation way less sympathetic to straight non-white people.
I know your feelings are hurt, and that sucks, but you know that Prop 8 never would have passed without the sheer numbers of white folks that showed up to the polls. By concentrating your arguments on the disproportionate number of non-whites who supported it, you're lining right up with the bigots who bankrolled Prop 8 in the first place.
See also: how not to be insane when accused of racism (a guide for white people) -> http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/20…
More...
As a white man, whether you like it or not, you benefit from racist and sexist power structures. You might be disadvantaged in other arenas of power - by your sexuality, for example - but that doesn't negate your white male privilege, nor does it neutralize your responsibility as a representative of the media. This is not to say that anyone expects you to be perfectly P.C. and loveydovey. This is not to say that you're not allowed to talk about race because you're a white person. This is to say that when you place the blame for heterosexism squarely on the shoulders of non-white people (without calling out the same heterosexism of white people) while co-opting anti-racist civil rights rhetoric, you not only alienate queer non-white people and make the cause of gay liberation way less sympathetic to straight non-white people.
I know your feelings are hurt, and that sucks, but you know that Prop 8 never would have passed without the sheer numbers of white folks that showed up to the polls. By concentrating your arguments on the disproportionate number of non-whites who supported it, you're lining right up with the bigots who bankrolled Prop 8 in the first place.
See also: how not to be insane when accused of racism (a guide for white people) -> http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/20…
60
@59. This is to say that when you place the blame for heterosexism squarely on the shoulders of non-white people (without calling out the same heterosexism of white people) . . .
Except that he never did this, which makes everything else you've written a waste of time.
but you know that Prop 8 never would have passed without the sheer numbers of white folks that showed up to the polls.
And he's said this repeatedly.
By concentrating your arguments on the disproportionate number of non-whites who supported it, ...
He hasn't done this!
Except that he never did this, which makes everything else you've written a waste of time.
but you know that Prop 8 never would have passed without the sheer numbers of white folks that showed up to the polls.
And he's said this repeatedly.
By concentrating your arguments on the disproportionate number of non-whites who supported it, ...
He hasn't done this!
61
"Well, Dan, if you are going to keep harping on this can you at least limit it to reports of how effectively this tactic is changing the minds of homophobic blacks?"
Or how exactly this makes for an inclusive enviornment for black gays? You see, unlike you Dan, they don't have the luxury of just being gay. Not only do you disparge them for having black skin, but you disparge their mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, grandparents and so on. You tell them that they should fear and turn against other blacks in favor of those who clearly despise their blackness. Yeah, the very same gays who called them n***gers in the streets of Weho. Sounds comforting.
It's not so much that you simply discuss the "disproportionate" black vote in favor of Prop 8. It's the fact that you and others like you accepted the exit poll results without question. I find it very revealing. It fit your black homo-hating narrative, so you accepted it with glee. The Field Poll 10/31/2008 and Surveryusa Poll 11/01/08 show black support for Prop 8 below 50 percent just days before the election. Yet you and those like you, choose to believe an exit poll which claims to have surveyed somewhere around 230 black people. You believe it because you want it to be true. In your mind it gives you a legitimate reason to hate blacks openly, so you all will continue to cling to that 70 percent for dear life so you can hurl racial slurs without guilt. You and those like you hated black people on Novemember 3rd and made it clear on November 5th. You guys sure have a knack for winning people over. Maybe it will be 70 percent (if not 90) for real the next time.
Face it, you're racist and it's ok. Own it. No amount of blogging is going to change that perception at this point, it's all over the web. And you know firsthand how easily people believe everything they read and hear. So again, own it. You clearly have an audience. Market yourself as The Gay White Racist Blogger, they'll eat it up. When they're done shouting the n-word at black gays at the protest, they'll be looking toward you for guidance. You can create something like a gay version of Stormfront. Black gays nor black straight allies have a place in your movement, and you've all made that clear. Gay movement=white supremist movement. Don't get mad at me for saying it, many already have. That's the perception these days, I'm just relaying the message.
More...
Or how exactly this makes for an inclusive enviornment for black gays? You see, unlike you Dan, they don't have the luxury of just being gay. Not only do you disparge them for having black skin, but you disparge their mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, grandparents and so on. You tell them that they should fear and turn against other blacks in favor of those who clearly despise their blackness. Yeah, the very same gays who called them n***gers in the streets of Weho. Sounds comforting.
It's not so much that you simply discuss the "disproportionate" black vote in favor of Prop 8. It's the fact that you and others like you accepted the exit poll results without question. I find it very revealing. It fit your black homo-hating narrative, so you accepted it with glee. The Field Poll 10/31/2008 and Surveryusa Poll 11/01/08 show black support for Prop 8 below 50 percent just days before the election. Yet you and those like you, choose to believe an exit poll which claims to have surveyed somewhere around 230 black people. You believe it because you want it to be true. In your mind it gives you a legitimate reason to hate blacks openly, so you all will continue to cling to that 70 percent for dear life so you can hurl racial slurs without guilt. You and those like you hated black people on Novemember 3rd and made it clear on November 5th. You guys sure have a knack for winning people over. Maybe it will be 70 percent (if not 90) for real the next time.
Face it, you're racist and it's ok. Own it. No amount of blogging is going to change that perception at this point, it's all over the web. And you know firsthand how easily people believe everything they read and hear. So again, own it. You clearly have an audience. Market yourself as The Gay White Racist Blogger, they'll eat it up. When they're done shouting the n-word at black gays at the protest, they'll be looking toward you for guidance. You can create something like a gay version of Stormfront. Black gays nor black straight allies have a place in your movement, and you've all made that clear. Gay movement=white supremist movement. Don't get mad at me for saying it, many already have. That's the perception these days, I'm just relaying the message.
63
Another thing. It's interesting how racist always seek out black shields and/or mouthpieces in an effort to deflect their own racist views. White straight racist have Bill Cosby and Rev. Manning. Apparently gay racist like Dan and others have adopted Mary Mitchell. "I'm not racist, Mary Mitchell says blacks are trash too, and she's black so it must be true." Yes Dan, keep hiding. Too bad that it's too late. You've been exposed. And the fact that you've been crowned the official spokesman for the gay movement speaks volumes. NO BLACKS ALLOWED! Where's my sign?
65
Jade, I don't know why you think a post like yours is helpful. Make your critique and the conclusion will come out by itself. As it stands, I'd say Jaimie Lynn up there has a pretty good point: white people often seek black shields as cover for things they say that could be racially insensitive or racist. Regardless, even, of whether Dan has been racist himself, the fact that Mary Mitchell is black and made some of the same arguments surely doesn't mean that he is not.
66
Stephanie, there's really not much else I can say that's going to be "helpful," is there? It's pretty much all been said in the 500+ posts in the past 10 days, hasn't it? And, still, we're getting the types of posts like ones by this hysterical Spears chick.
Hell, in this very thread you even claimed that Dan hadn't been told been told to shut his mouth. When I corrected you, you ignored me and said you could count the accusations of racism on "a single hand."
I honestly don't know how one should respond to someone else who is so blatantly clueless, but still speaks with such authority.
I mean, in the face of that, is there anything I can say that would be "helpful"? I don't think so.
So yeah, I'm at the point where I'm ready to label someone who refers to herself as a Spears sibling as "ignorant." Personally, after reading her last two diatribes, I think she can take it.
Hell, in this very thread you even claimed that Dan hadn't been told been told to shut his mouth. When I corrected you, you ignored me and said you could count the accusations of racism on "a single hand."
I honestly don't know how one should respond to someone else who is so blatantly clueless, but still speaks with such authority.
I mean, in the face of that, is there anything I can say that would be "helpful"? I don't think so.
So yeah, I'm at the point where I'm ready to label someone who refers to herself as a Spears sibling as "ignorant." Personally, after reading her last two diatribes, I think she can take it.
67
Jade,
Since you're so utterly stunned, take a trip to any black gay blog, any one would do. And see what they think of your beloved Dan Savage, and the gay movement as a whole. Prepare to be utterly stunned once again my dear.
Since you're so utterly stunned, take a trip to any black gay blog, any one would do. And see what they think of your beloved Dan Savage, and the gay movement as a whole. Prepare to be utterly stunned once again my dear.
68
No need to, Spears. I heard what Marc Loveless had to say about black and Latino gay rights at last Saturday's protest.
And as I was spontaneously hugging and kissing a lovely African American lesbian while all around me people were chanting, "black/white, gay/straight, we will not give in to hate," I kind of got an idea what ethnic sexual minorities feel toward white sexual minorities. And vice-versa.
Epithet-spewing Blog posts--including yours--don't mean much after what I witnessed firsthand.
And as I was spontaneously hugging and kissing a lovely African American lesbian while all around me people were chanting, "black/white, gay/straight, we will not give in to hate," I kind of got an idea what ethnic sexual minorities feel toward white sexual minorities. And vice-versa.
Epithet-spewing Blog posts--including yours--don't mean much after what I witnessed firsthand.
69
Jade,
I'm happy you had the opportunity to have such an experience, truly inspiring. However, I've heard several accounts by AA gays, including 3 of my AA lesbian friends who weren't so lucky. There was plenty of "Epithet-spewing" right there at the protest, directed toward these invdividuals for no other reason than the fact that they have black skin. My 3 friends were spat at, called the N-word ofcourse, and physically threatened to the point that they had no other choice but to leave. Too bad they missed out on their "we are the world" experience. If we continue to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that racism doesn't exist within the gay community,and continue to ignore black gays who address it, well...we're going to continue to lose time and time again.
The "black gay blogs" that I referred to, have no "Epithet Spewing" as you suggest(very interesting). Instead, you'll find people who feel igorned, shunned and dismissed by the larger gay movement BECAUSE race IS such an issue. You ever stop to think that the reason you may not view what Dan Savage said as racist is because you aren't black? So why dismiss the charge, instead of trying to understand why someone may feel that way? Black gays have been dismissed for so long and you all continue to do so, while pretending that "we're all united." Continue that habit, see how far it gets you.
I'm happy you had the opportunity to have such an experience, truly inspiring. However, I've heard several accounts by AA gays, including 3 of my AA lesbian friends who weren't so lucky. There was plenty of "Epithet-spewing" right there at the protest, directed toward these invdividuals for no other reason than the fact that they have black skin. My 3 friends were spat at, called the N-word ofcourse, and physically threatened to the point that they had no other choice but to leave. Too bad they missed out on their "we are the world" experience. If we continue to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that racism doesn't exist within the gay community,and continue to ignore black gays who address it, well...we're going to continue to lose time and time again.
The "black gay blogs" that I referred to, have no "Epithet Spewing" as you suggest(very interesting). Instead, you'll find people who feel igorned, shunned and dismissed by the larger gay movement BECAUSE race IS such an issue. You ever stop to think that the reason you may not view what Dan Savage said as racist is because you aren't black? So why dismiss the charge, instead of trying to understand why someone may feel that way? Black gays have been dismissed for so long and you all continue to do so, while pretending that "we're all united." Continue that habit, see how far it gets you.
70
fuck yall faggots. im sick of yall trying to compare yourself to the struggles we faced, u can just stop bein gay we can't stop being black! the election was our day and now yall little girls trying to steal it from us. the arther of this article is obviously rasist against niggaz.
71
Jamie, firstly: your "we are the world" comment is funny. Good one. :-)
Secondly: I'm so sorry what happened to your friends, and anyone who's been verbally, racially assaulted by angry gays and lesbians since the election. I really am.
I grew up in the south, in a city that was majority African American. I can assure you that I'm under no delusions of "unity" between the races, gay or straight.
I don't think we should bury our heads in the sand about any racism in any community. I have not "dismissed" what black people are saying about this. Not at all. In fact, quite the opposite. It's practically all I have been thinking about since the election. I consider this is the most important human rights issue in this country at the moment, and this national conversation we're having--even though it's hard and hurtful--is of enormous value, including what you and I and Stephanie have said to each other in the last few days.
One of the most valuable voices about this on SLOG, in my opinion, has been someone called "annoying interest troll." I hope you've been reading him. I've learned a great deal from him.
At the same time, I've seen many people accuse Dan Savage of saying things he didn't say, believing things he doesn't believe, and trying to stir shit, when all he's done is shine a light on an obvious problem. I've read Dan's writings since the 90s; I will never understand the accusations of sexism, transphobia, and racism against him. It's just not true, and watching him tirelessly address in such a positive way the aftermath of this election, and all the while get shit on by people because he didn't sugar coat his words is enormously frustrating.
What happened to your friends at the protest is not his fault. Coming here and yelling about "Whites Only" signs was--in my opinion--out of line. But I do appreciate your last post and I thank you for this conversation. Believe it or not, I do want solutions and conversations. But--just as much--I want these accusations of racism against Dan (and myself) to stop.
More...
Secondly: I'm so sorry what happened to your friends, and anyone who's been verbally, racially assaulted by angry gays and lesbians since the election. I really am.
I grew up in the south, in a city that was majority African American. I can assure you that I'm under no delusions of "unity" between the races, gay or straight.
I don't think we should bury our heads in the sand about any racism in any community. I have not "dismissed" what black people are saying about this. Not at all. In fact, quite the opposite. It's practically all I have been thinking about since the election. I consider this is the most important human rights issue in this country at the moment, and this national conversation we're having--even though it's hard and hurtful--is of enormous value, including what you and I and Stephanie have said to each other in the last few days.
One of the most valuable voices about this on SLOG, in my opinion, has been someone called "annoying interest troll." I hope you've been reading him. I've learned a great deal from him.
At the same time, I've seen many people accuse Dan Savage of saying things he didn't say, believing things he doesn't believe, and trying to stir shit, when all he's done is shine a light on an obvious problem. I've read Dan's writings since the 90s; I will never understand the accusations of sexism, transphobia, and racism against him. It's just not true, and watching him tirelessly address in such a positive way the aftermath of this election, and all the while get shit on by people because he didn't sugar coat his words is enormously frustrating.
What happened to your friends at the protest is not his fault. Coming here and yelling about "Whites Only" signs was--in my opinion--out of line. But I do appreciate your last post and I thank you for this conversation. Believe it or not, I do want solutions and conversations. But--just as much--I want these accusations of racism against Dan (and myself) to stop.
72
Jade,
I'm glad we can both agree that racism and homophobia are both issues that need to be addressed simultaneously before any healing can take place. Neither is any less hurtful than the other. Not only do we need to address both issues, we need to actively work against them.
We need to understand how these beliefs form in order to combat them. Oppression is oppression, discrimination is discrimination, it shouldn't only become your cause when it affects you personally or people like you. Most importantly, we need to examine our own prejudices. I believe the blame-the-blacks meme is wrongheaded, not only due to the fact that I and many others feel that the exit poll data is faulty, but it's also racially tinged. Another thing it does, is prevent us from addressing homophobia on a broader scale by pretending that only black people are homophobic.
If the exit poll is to be believed, then half the white population, slightly more than half of the latino population and half the asian population in "liberal" California of all places(and remember the majority of No on 8 votes came from younger voters in each category, yes including AA's) does not believe that gays should marry, that's pretty significant.
And when we consider that the US is a majority white country in which gay marriage is valid in only a few states, says that homophobia is not isolated to the AA population. If we keep framing it as if it is, we will continue to lose. If we keep framing this as which race hates us the most, we are fighting a losing battle. Let's remember that a majority black country like South Africa is one of the few countries that recognizes gay marriage, so homophobia is not a product of black skin.
As far as Dan Savage. Yes I believe what he said was racially insensitive. And yes I do believe that someone engrossed in such controversy is not the right person to take the reigns as spokesman for the gay movement. That's my opinion and the opinion of many others. That isn't going to change because he says it wasn't a racially insensitive comment, all it does is tell me, that he's completely oblivious to his own prejudice.
Tyreek= is an obvious troll, I wonder if some of these people are right wingers.
More...
I'm glad we can both agree that racism and homophobia are both issues that need to be addressed simultaneously before any healing can take place. Neither is any less hurtful than the other. Not only do we need to address both issues, we need to actively work against them.
We need to understand how these beliefs form in order to combat them. Oppression is oppression, discrimination is discrimination, it shouldn't only become your cause when it affects you personally or people like you. Most importantly, we need to examine our own prejudices. I believe the blame-the-blacks meme is wrongheaded, not only due to the fact that I and many others feel that the exit poll data is faulty, but it's also racially tinged. Another thing it does, is prevent us from addressing homophobia on a broader scale by pretending that only black people are homophobic.
If the exit poll is to be believed, then half the white population, slightly more than half of the latino population and half the asian population in "liberal" California of all places(and remember the majority of No on 8 votes came from younger voters in each category, yes including AA's) does not believe that gays should marry, that's pretty significant.
And when we consider that the US is a majority white country in which gay marriage is valid in only a few states, says that homophobia is not isolated to the AA population. If we keep framing it as if it is, we will continue to lose. If we keep framing this as which race hates us the most, we are fighting a losing battle. Let's remember that a majority black country like South Africa is one of the few countries that recognizes gay marriage, so homophobia is not a product of black skin.
As far as Dan Savage. Yes I believe what he said was racially insensitive. And yes I do believe that someone engrossed in such controversy is not the right person to take the reigns as spokesman for the gay movement. That's my opinion and the opinion of many others. That isn't going to change because he says it wasn't a racially insensitive comment, all it does is tell me, that he's completely oblivious to his own prejudice.
Tyreek= is an obvious troll, I wonder if some of these people are right wingers.
73
Somehow this part was left out, not that it's significant, it's just my OCD :)
Also when you consider the fact presidential candidates on either side of the isle cannot openly affirm gay marriage without the fear of losing, again tells you that homophobia isn't solely a black problem, or Mormon problem for that matter.
Also when you consider the fact presidential candidates on either side of the isle cannot openly affirm gay marriage without the fear of losing, again tells you that homophobia isn't solely a black problem, or Mormon problem for that matter.
74
Jade, you described yourself as watching Dan "tirelessly address in such a positive way the aftermath of this election, and all the while get shit on by people because he didn't sugar coat his words."
That's simply not what I saw. I saw Dan lash out with sarcasm, several times over, because people criticized his message -- not the lack of sugar coating, but the message itself. Of his dozen or so posts on the topic, at least three have been dedicated to the kind of tone deaf sarcasm as in this one. How is this positive? What is it doing to heal the racial divisions in our communities? How is it helping us win next time? His feelings are hurt. I get it. But he's supposed to be a leader, here, no?
Neither Dan nor any of his supporters has been able to explain away his post about the rapper Trick Trick (and his comment in that thread). That's when I stopped thinking Dan had any intention of grappling with the serious issues that you and Jaimie and I seem interested in engaging. And yes, maybe I have read his further posts on this subject with that in mind. Nonetheless, I remain unconvinced -- and probably will continue to be unless and until he does better.
75
FWIW, I agree with you that That Annoying Interest Troll has been great. I agree with every one of his posts that I've read, and I don't think anything I've written contradicts him.
76
@64 You say" We saw Dan lash out with sarcasm, several times over, because people criticized his message ...... But he's supposed to be a leader, here, no?"
He didn't lash out- HE POINTED OUT THINIGS YOU DIDN"T WANT TO HEAR AND STOOD HIS GROUND. Get over it- he's not your house negro, okay?? As far as being a leader, a leader means having to ruffle some feathers some time. I can't think of any black civil rights leader, except MLK who didn't say things that were far more devisive than Dan. He said something that badly needed to be said and he refuses to cower before those who scream "racism" at the drop of a pin.
"Neither Dan nor any of his supporters has been able to explain away his post about the rapper Trick Trick"
Right, because THERE IS NO NEED TO. Again, what is with your belief that people have to explain things to you that do not need explaining? The reality is this is a power issue. Your attitude is that someone is racist until they sufficiently appease you. You perceive a racist intent behind every statement (including this one no doubt) than demand that people sufficiently "explain" themselves or else you conclude they are racist.
This is boring and trite and comes from a need to censor and control, not a aversion to racism. If you were against bigotry you would leave Dan alone and go after Jesse Jackson, who <> recently called Obama the N-word.
He didn't lash out- HE POINTED OUT THINIGS YOU DIDN"T WANT TO HEAR AND STOOD HIS GROUND. Get over it- he's not your house negro, okay?? As far as being a leader, a leader means having to ruffle some feathers some time. I can't think of any black civil rights leader, except MLK who didn't say things that were far more devisive than Dan. He said something that badly needed to be said and he refuses to cower before those who scream "racism" at the drop of a pin.
"Neither Dan nor any of his supporters has been able to explain away his post about the rapper Trick Trick"
Right, because THERE IS NO NEED TO. Again, what is with your belief that people have to explain things to you that do not need explaining? The reality is this is a power issue. Your attitude is that someone is racist until they sufficiently appease you. You perceive a racist intent behind every statement (including this one no doubt) than demand that people sufficiently "explain" themselves or else you conclude they are racist.
This is boring and trite and comes from a need to censor and control, not a aversion to racism. If you were against bigotry you would leave Dan alone and go after Jesse Jackson, who <> recently called Obama the N-word.
77
"Neither Dan nor any of his supporters has been able to explain away his post about the rapper Trick Trick"
Neither Stephanie, nor Jaime Lynn Spears, nor DLS, nor any of their supporters have been able to explain away why they don't harp on black civil and religious leaders homophobic, myogyny, antisemitism, and anti-asian racism hate speech the same way they obsess and fume over a gay white male writer quoting from a lyric from a black rapper Trick Trick.
Yes, VERY telling indeed!!
Apparently Dan is held to much higher standards then Jesse Jackson, Al Shaprton, Andrew Young, Jerimiah Wright, Jesse Jackson Jr, Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan, etc, etc. Gee, I wonder if it's because he's a gay white man and they are hetro black men? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Neither Stephanie, nor Jaime Lynn Spears, nor DLS, nor any of their supporters have been able to explain away why they don't harp on black civil and religious leaders homophobic, myogyny, antisemitism, and anti-asian racism hate speech the same way they obsess and fume over a gay white male writer quoting from a lyric from a black rapper Trick Trick.
Yes, VERY telling indeed!!
Apparently Dan is held to much higher standards then Jesse Jackson, Al Shaprton, Andrew Young, Jerimiah Wright, Jesse Jackson Jr, Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan, etc, etc. Gee, I wonder if it's because he's a gay white man and they are hetro black men? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
78
kelly, I'm commenting on Dan's blog, not Trick Trick's. That's why you see my criticism of Dan, not Trick Trick, here.
As for the rest, I don't see how it pertains to my post. I probably know a lot more about homophobia in black communities from my personal experience and from my work than you ever will. I am not at all opposed to having a thoroughgoing and constructive conversation about it. But the first time Dan ever showed concern about it was when it affected him and his friends. And he didn't attempt to be constructive, but rather used it as cause to minimize the significance of racism in gay communities.
Frankly, when you make lazy assumptions based on one small exit poll; compare voting for Obama to voting against Prop 8 as if there were some kind of race-sexuality quid pro quo involved; let lie vicious racist comments in the comment threads while responding to the ones that criticize you with snark; create straw men of those who have asked you questions by claiming that they describe you as a "card-carrying member of the KKK"; post repeatedly about your own hurt feelings without reflecting on the damage that your sarcasm might do to the energy of a burgeoning movement; seek cover from other voices, particularly black ones, as if others' failings mean you're off the hook; post the lyrics of a marginal Detroit rapper as evidence of the hopelessness of outreach in California black communities when the only common thread between them is their race --- when you do all of these things, it doesn't make me think you are prepared for a serious and self-reflective conversation.
By the way, the point where I "perceive[d] a racist intent" in your comment wasn't at the end, but at the beginning, where you said that Dan wasn't my "house negro." ;)
More...
As for the rest, I don't see how it pertains to my post. I probably know a lot more about homophobia in black communities from my personal experience and from my work than you ever will. I am not at all opposed to having a thoroughgoing and constructive conversation about it. But the first time Dan ever showed concern about it was when it affected him and his friends. And he didn't attempt to be constructive, but rather used it as cause to minimize the significance of racism in gay communities.
Frankly, when you make lazy assumptions based on one small exit poll; compare voting for Obama to voting against Prop 8 as if there were some kind of race-sexuality quid pro quo involved; let lie vicious racist comments in the comment threads while responding to the ones that criticize you with snark; create straw men of those who have asked you questions by claiming that they describe you as a "card-carrying member of the KKK"; post repeatedly about your own hurt feelings without reflecting on the damage that your sarcasm might do to the energy of a burgeoning movement; seek cover from other voices, particularly black ones, as if others' failings mean you're off the hook; post the lyrics of a marginal Detroit rapper as evidence of the hopelessness of outreach in California black communities when the only common thread between them is their race --- when you do all of these things, it doesn't make me think you are prepared for a serious and self-reflective conversation.
By the way, the point where I "perceive[d] a racist intent" in your comment wasn't at the end, but at the beginning, where you said that Dan wasn't my "house negro." ;)
79
kelly, I'm commenting on Dan's blog, not Trick Trick's. That's why you see my criticism of Dan, not Trick Trick, here.
As for the rest, I don't see how it pertains to my post. I probably know a lot more about homophobia in black communities from my personal experience and from my work than you ever will. I am not at all opposed to having a thoroughgoing and constructive conversation about it. But the first time Dan ever showed concern about it was when it affected him and his friends. And he didn't attempt to be constructive, but rather used it as cause to minimize the significance of racism in gay communities.
Frankly, when you make lazy assumptions based on one small exit poll; compare voting for Obama to voting against Prop 8 as if there were some kind of race-sexuality quid pro quo involved; let lie vicious racist comments in the comment threads while responding to the ones that criticize you with snark; create straw men of those who have asked you questions by claiming that they describe you as a "card-carrying member of the KKK"; post repeatedly about your own hurt feelings without reflecting on the damage that your sarcasm might do to the energy of a burgeoning movement; seek cover from other voices, particularly black ones, as if others' failings mean you're off the hook; post the lyrics of a marginal Detroit rapper as evidence of the hopelessness of outreach in California black communities when the only common thread between them is their race --- when you do all of these things, it doesn't make me think you are prepared for a serious and self-reflective conversation.
By the way, the point where I "perceive[d] a racist intent" in your comment wasn't at the end, but at the beginning, where you said that Dan wasn't my "house negro." ;)
More...
As for the rest, I don't see how it pertains to my post. I probably know a lot more about homophobia in black communities from my personal experience and from my work than you ever will. I am not at all opposed to having a thoroughgoing and constructive conversation about it. But the first time Dan ever showed concern about it was when it affected him and his friends. And he didn't attempt to be constructive, but rather used it as cause to minimize the significance of racism in gay communities.
Frankly, when you make lazy assumptions based on one small exit poll; compare voting for Obama to voting against Prop 8 as if there were some kind of race-sexuality quid pro quo involved; let lie vicious racist comments in the comment threads while responding to the ones that criticize you with snark; create straw men of those who have asked you questions by claiming that they describe you as a "card-carrying member of the KKK"; post repeatedly about your own hurt feelings without reflecting on the damage that your sarcasm might do to the energy of a burgeoning movement; seek cover from other voices, particularly black ones, as if others' failings mean you're off the hook; post the lyrics of a marginal Detroit rapper as evidence of the hopelessness of outreach in California black communities when the only common thread between them is their race --- when you do all of these things, it doesn't make me think you are prepared for a serious and self-reflective conversation.
By the way, the point where I "perceive[d] a racist intent" in your comment wasn't at the end, but at the beginning, where you said that Dan wasn't my "house negro." ;)
80
kelly, I'm commenting on Dan's blog, not Trick Trick's. That's why you see my criticism of Dan, not Trick Trick, here.
As for the rest, I don't see how it pertains to my post. I probably know a lot more about homophobia in black communities from my personal experience and from my work than you ever will. I am not at all opposed to having a thoroughgoing and constructive conversation about it. But the first time Dan ever showed concern about it was when it affected him and his friends. And he didn't attempt to be constructive, but rather used it as cause to minimize the significance of racism in gay communities.
Frankly, when you make lazy assumptions based on one small exit poll; compare voting for Obama to voting against Prop 8 as if there were some kind of race-sexuality quid pro quo involved; let lie vicious racist comments in the comment threads while responding to the ones that criticize you with snark; create straw men of those who have asked you questions by claiming that they describe you as a "card-carrying member of the KKK"; post repeatedly about your own hurt feelings without reflecting on the damage that your sarcasm might do to the energy of a burgeoning movement; seek cover from other voices, particularly black ones, as if others' failings mean you're off the hook; post the lyrics of a marginal Detroit rapper as evidence of the hopelessness of outreach in California black communities when the only common thread between them is their race --- when you do all of these things, it doesn't make me think you are prepared for a serious and self-reflective conversation.
By the way, the point where I "perceive[d] a racist intent" in your comment wasn't at the end, but at the beginning, where you said that Dan wasn't my "house negro." ;)
More...
As for the rest, I don't see how it pertains to my post. I probably know a lot more about homophobia in black communities from my personal experience and from my work than you ever will. I am not at all opposed to having a thoroughgoing and constructive conversation about it. But the first time Dan ever showed concern about it was when it affected him and his friends. And he didn't attempt to be constructive, but rather used it as cause to minimize the significance of racism in gay communities.
Frankly, when you make lazy assumptions based on one small exit poll; compare voting for Obama to voting against Prop 8 as if there were some kind of race-sexuality quid pro quo involved; let lie vicious racist comments in the comment threads while responding to the ones that criticize you with snark; create straw men of those who have asked you questions by claiming that they describe you as a "card-carrying member of the KKK"; post repeatedly about your own hurt feelings without reflecting on the damage that your sarcasm might do to the energy of a burgeoning movement; seek cover from other voices, particularly black ones, as if others' failings mean you're off the hook; post the lyrics of a marginal Detroit rapper as evidence of the hopelessness of outreach in California black communities when the only common thread between them is their race --- when you do all of these things, it doesn't make me think you are prepared for a serious and self-reflective conversation.
By the way, the point where I "perceive[d] a racist intent" in your comment wasn't at the end, but at the beginning, where you said that Dan wasn't my "house negro." ;)
81
kelly, I'm commenting on Dan's blog, not Trick Trick's. That's why you see my criticism of Dan, not Trick Trick, here.
As for the rest, I don't see how it pertains to my post. I probably know a lot more about homophobia in black communities from my personal experience and from my work than you ever will. I am not at all opposed to having a thoroughgoing and constructive conversation about it. But the first time Dan ever showed concern about it was when it affected him and his friends. And he didn't attempt to be constructive, but rather used it as cause to minimize the significance of racism in gay communities.
Frankly, when you make lazy assumptions based on one small exit poll; compare voting for Obama to voting against Prop 8 as if there were some kind of race-sexuality quid pro quo involved; let lie vicious racist comments in the comment threads while responding to the ones that criticize you with snark; create straw men of those who have asked you questions by claiming that they describe you as a "card-carrying member of the KKK"; post repeatedly about your own hurt feelings without reflecting on the damage that your sarcasm might do to the energy of a burgeoning movement; seek cover from other voices, particularly black ones, as if others' failings mean you're off the hook; post the lyrics of a marginal Detroit rapper as evidence of the hopelessness of outreach in California black communities when the only common thread between them is their race --- when you do all of these things, it doesn't make me think you are prepared for a serious and self-reflective conversation.
By the way, the point where I "perceive[d] a racist intent" in your comment wasn't at the end, but at the beginning, where you said that Dan wasn't my "house negro." ;)
More...
As for the rest, I don't see how it pertains to my post. I probably know a lot more about homophobia in black communities from my personal experience and from my work than you ever will. I am not at all opposed to having a thoroughgoing and constructive conversation about it. But the first time Dan ever showed concern about it was when it affected him and his friends. And he didn't attempt to be constructive, but rather used it as cause to minimize the significance of racism in gay communities.
Frankly, when you make lazy assumptions based on one small exit poll; compare voting for Obama to voting against Prop 8 as if there were some kind of race-sexuality quid pro quo involved; let lie vicious racist comments in the comment threads while responding to the ones that criticize you with snark; create straw men of those who have asked you questions by claiming that they describe you as a "card-carrying member of the KKK"; post repeatedly about your own hurt feelings without reflecting on the damage that your sarcasm might do to the energy of a burgeoning movement; seek cover from other voices, particularly black ones, as if others' failings mean you're off the hook; post the lyrics of a marginal Detroit rapper as evidence of the hopelessness of outreach in California black communities when the only common thread between them is their race --- when you do all of these things, it doesn't make me think you are prepared for a serious and self-reflective conversation.
By the way, the point where I "perceive[d] a racist intent" in your comment wasn't at the end, but at the beginning, where you said that Dan wasn't my "house negro." ;)
82
My goodness Kelly,
First of all, you don't know me from a can of paint. You don't know who or what I've discussed on various other blogs or in various other arenas.
Why is Dan Savage pertinent to the conversation? Well for one, this is his blog. 2) He has been at the center of this race-baiting controversy since Nov. 5th. 3) He keeps bringing it up.
I apologize, if I don't find it necessary to stray off-topic and go into some unbridled, disconnected monologue, about "angry" black civil rights leaders in a topic that has nothing at all to with the matter.
If I had stated in my very first post under this topic, that Jesse Jackson sucks, and Al Sharpton is meanie, would that had been more to your liking?
Do try to stay on topic my dear, it helps the conversation flow a bit better.
Darn, just when I was beginning to enjoy the direction the conversation seemed to be headed. People who actually felt that the discussion should be about healing the wounds within our community. Shame.
Yes! Yes! Dan has stood his ground! Too bad he's too busy trying to explain it away, I guess it isn't much of ground, now is it?
If this is what a possibly enlightening conversation has now become, well.... good day to you my dear.
First of all, you don't know me from a can of paint. You don't know who or what I've discussed on various other blogs or in various other arenas.
Why is Dan Savage pertinent to the conversation? Well for one, this is his blog. 2) He has been at the center of this race-baiting controversy since Nov. 5th. 3) He keeps bringing it up.
I apologize, if I don't find it necessary to stray off-topic and go into some unbridled, disconnected monologue, about "angry" black civil rights leaders in a topic that has nothing at all to with the matter.
If I had stated in my very first post under this topic, that Jesse Jackson sucks, and Al Sharpton is meanie, would that had been more to your liking?
Do try to stay on topic my dear, it helps the conversation flow a bit better.
Darn, just when I was beginning to enjoy the direction the conversation seemed to be headed. People who actually felt that the discussion should be about healing the wounds within our community. Shame.
Yes! Yes! Dan has stood his ground! Too bad he's too busy trying to explain it away, I guess it isn't much of ground, now is it?
If this is what a possibly enlightening conversation has now become, well.... good day to you my dear.
83
>>>>>Off-topic<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I am extremely sorry about my repeated posts up there. I kept getting an error message and therefore tried to re-post, but I guess my message actually went through each time. Mea culpa!
I am extremely sorry about my repeated posts up there. I kept getting an error message and therefore tried to re-post, but I guess my message actually went through each time. Mea culpa!
84
In 2005, black men raped at least 37,460 white women. The same year, white men raped less than ten black women. Blacks are at least seven times more likely to violently attack whites than whites are likely to attack blacks. All stats from the US Department of Justice. Who are the real racists these days?
85
@82
I apologize, if I don't find it necessary to stray off-topic and go into some unbridled, disconnected monologue, about "angry" black civil rights leaders
My list wasn't of "angry" black civil rights leaders, but of blacks who do everything and then more of what you accuse Dan of, but get a free pass. Apparently you consider their behavior to be angry. When white people talk about blacks this way it is called "racism". Funny how you refer to some of the most abhorent race baiters and racists in this contry as "angry" as though, like usual, the black man, when angry, can't be judged.
If I had stated in my very first post under this topic, that Jesse Jackson sucks, and Al Sharpton is meanie, would that had been more to your liking?
"Sucks" and "meanie" are funny words to use to describe these two. Sharpton helped bring about the Crown Heights lynching and the racially motivated hate crime at Freddy's Fashion Mart which killed 7. Wow, a black man helps bring about 8 racist murders and has partipated in the two biggest rape hoaxs of this century (Duke Lacrosse scandal and Tawanna Brawley) and for all this the worst you call him is a "meanie"???
Jackson on the other hand, has gotten 3 white people fired this year alone for talking about black people the same way he does. He called Obama a n----.
You say that sucks? I bet if Dan Savage went on tv and said that Obama was a n---- and he wanted to cut off all his balls you would be using a bit more harsh language.
Leave Dan alone, like I said earlier, he is not your house negro, he is not here to serve you. And your constant crying wolf about racism makes people less likely to listen when there actually is some truth to it. Which in this case there isn't. Get a life already.
More...
I apologize, if I don't find it necessary to stray off-topic and go into some unbridled, disconnected monologue, about "angry" black civil rights leaders
My list wasn't of "angry" black civil rights leaders, but of blacks who do everything and then more of what you accuse Dan of, but get a free pass. Apparently you consider their behavior to be angry. When white people talk about blacks this way it is called "racism". Funny how you refer to some of the most abhorent race baiters and racists in this contry as "angry" as though, like usual, the black man, when angry, can't be judged.
If I had stated in my very first post under this topic, that Jesse Jackson sucks, and Al Sharpton is meanie, would that had been more to your liking?
"Sucks" and "meanie" are funny words to use to describe these two. Sharpton helped bring about the Crown Heights lynching and the racially motivated hate crime at Freddy's Fashion Mart which killed 7. Wow, a black man helps bring about 8 racist murders and has partipated in the two biggest rape hoaxs of this century (Duke Lacrosse scandal and Tawanna Brawley) and for all this the worst you call him is a "meanie"???
Jackson on the other hand, has gotten 3 white people fired this year alone for talking about black people the same way he does. He called Obama a n----.
You say that sucks? I bet if Dan Savage went on tv and said that Obama was a n---- and he wanted to cut off all his balls you would be using a bit more harsh language.
Leave Dan alone, like I said earlier, he is not your house negro, he is not here to serve you. And your constant crying wolf about racism makes people less likely to listen when there actually is some truth to it. Which in this case there isn't. Get a life already.
86
@82
I apologize, if I don't find it necessary to stray off-topic and go into some unbridled, disconnected monologue, about "angry" black civil rights leaders
My list wasn't of "angry" black civil rights leaders, but of blacks who do everything and then more of what you accuse Dan of, but get a free pass. Apparently you consider their behavior to be angry. When white people talk about blacks this way it is called "racism". Funny how you refer to some of the most abhorent race baiters and racists in this contry as "angry" as though, like usual, the black man, when angry, can't be judged.
If I had stated in my very first post under this topic, that Jesse Jackson sucks, and Al Sharpton is meanie, would that had been more to your liking?
"Sucks" and "meanie" are funny words to use to describe these two. Sharpton helped bring about the Crown Heights lynching and the racially motivated hate crime at Freddy's Fashion Mart which killed 7. Wow, a black man helps bring about 8 racist murders and has partipated in the two biggest rape hoaxs of this century (Duke Lacrosse scandal and Tawanna Brawley) and for all this the worst you call him is a "meanie"???
Jackson on the other hand, has gotten 3 white people fired this year alone for talking about black people the same way he does. He called Obama a n----.
You say that sucks? I bet if Dan Savage went on tv and said that Obama was a n---- and he wanted to cut off all his balls you would be using a bit more harsh language.
Leave Dan alone, like I said earlier, he is not your house negro, he is not here to serve you. And your constant crying wolf about racism makes people less likely to listen when there actually is some truth to it. Which in this case there isn't. Get a life already.
More...
I apologize, if I don't find it necessary to stray off-topic and go into some unbridled, disconnected monologue, about "angry" black civil rights leaders
My list wasn't of "angry" black civil rights leaders, but of blacks who do everything and then more of what you accuse Dan of, but get a free pass. Apparently you consider their behavior to be angry. When white people talk about blacks this way it is called "racism". Funny how you refer to some of the most abhorent race baiters and racists in this contry as "angry" as though, like usual, the black man, when angry, can't be judged.
If I had stated in my very first post under this topic, that Jesse Jackson sucks, and Al Sharpton is meanie, would that had been more to your liking?
"Sucks" and "meanie" are funny words to use to describe these two. Sharpton helped bring about the Crown Heights lynching and the racially motivated hate crime at Freddy's Fashion Mart which killed 7. Wow, a black man helps bring about 8 racist murders and has partipated in the two biggest rape hoaxs of this century (Duke Lacrosse scandal and Tawanna Brawley) and for all this the worst you call him is a "meanie"???
Jackson on the other hand, has gotten 3 white people fired this year alone for talking about black people the same way he does. He called Obama a n----.
You say that sucks? I bet if Dan Savage went on tv and said that Obama was a n---- and he wanted to cut off all his balls you would be using a bit more harsh language.
Leave Dan alone, like I said earlier, he is not your house negro, he is not here to serve you. And your constant crying wolf about racism makes people less likely to listen when there actually is some truth to it. Which in this case there isn't. Get a life already.
87
Oh honey,
You tried so hard, I feel compelled to let you believe that you made a coherent argument. I'll leave you, before I start to feel guilty for being well... a "meanie".
The Dan-Savage-is-a-racist meme is quite widespread. So it looks like you've got your work cut out for you.
Goodluck sweetie.
"LEAVE BRI...ugh..uh..DAN ALONE!"
You tried so hard, I feel compelled to let you believe that you made a coherent argument. I'll leave you, before I start to feel guilty for being well... a "meanie".
The Dan-Savage-is-a-racist meme is quite widespread. So it looks like you've got your work cut out for you.
Goodluck sweetie.
"LEAVE BRI...ugh..uh..DAN ALONE!"
88
Nothing speaks clearer of the bigotry of Stephanie and JLS that they obsess over comments made by Jade and Kelly yet they have not a word of criticism for @70. It speaks volumes to their bigotry of what they get pissed off about, and what they are willing to overlook. Very telling.
89
Jenny, I don't know what you think it says about me that I abide by the general bbs/netiquette rule "Don't feed the trolls." If that post were written in a way that engaged with the substance of the thread -- that is, it seemed to be a part of the conversation -- or had the legitimacy conferred by a real name or something, I obviously would respond. But I think it's better not to give people who spout hatred the attention they seek, especially here where their message isn't taking hold.
I similarly did not respond to the David Duke fan in comment 83, you'll notice. What does that say about me? Or what does it say about you that you were looking for hate speech and glossed over that one?
I similarly did not respond to the David Duke fan in comment 83, you'll notice. What does that say about me? Or what does it say about you that you were looking for hate speech and glossed over that one?
90
OTOH, this is Dan's blog. If I were the blog author, I would moderate the comment section, either by pre-approving all comments, deleting extremely offensive ones, or commenting on them -- either generally in my post or in a comment following theirs. I understand that Dan has more going on in his life as the editor of the paper and a nationally syndicated columnist than I would if I were blogging, though, and I am not prepared to say where his responsibility to the community starts and ends. Also, for all I know, the Stranger has an explicit "anything goes" policy.
91
I honestly don't know where you are coming from, Dan. I was disappointed in your November 5th post, but your appearances on Colbert, Larry King, Anderson Cooper, etc seemed to make up for knee-jerk reaction.
It's unfortunate that I had to read this post. I've read what Ms. Mitchell had to say on the subject of black voters, and her column does not serve as an example of race-baiting. She never resorts to perpetuating the myth of "huge numbers: of african-american homophobes:
"Proposition 8 asked voters to affirm that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. It passed with 52 percent of the vote. African Americans are now being cast as bigots."
"But I'm not certain that most blacks care one way or the other."
"After all, black people are the least likely of all the racial groups to get married. On Sunday morning, only a couple of the dozens of people who called "Chicago Speaks," a radio talk show I co-host on WVAZ-FM (102.7), said they were adamantly opposed to gays and lesbians getting married."
"Most callers said they could relate to the plight of gays being banned from marrying. After all, it wasn't that long ago that interracial marriages were illegal in some states."
Dan, why would you choose to take her comments out of context? How does what she said above compare to what you posted?
"I do know this, though: I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there—and they’re out there, and I think they’re scum—are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.
This will get my name scratched of the invite list of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which is famous for its anti-racist-training seminars, but whatever.
Finally, I’m searching for some exit poll data from California. I’ll eat my shorts if gay and lesbian voters went for McCain at anything approaching the rate that black voters went for Prop 8."
Please explain how you two are making the same point?
More...
It's unfortunate that I had to read this post. I've read what Ms. Mitchell had to say on the subject of black voters, and her column does not serve as an example of race-baiting. She never resorts to perpetuating the myth of "huge numbers: of african-american homophobes:
"Proposition 8 asked voters to affirm that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. It passed with 52 percent of the vote. African Americans are now being cast as bigots."
"But I'm not certain that most blacks care one way or the other."
"After all, black people are the least likely of all the racial groups to get married. On Sunday morning, only a couple of the dozens of people who called "Chicago Speaks," a radio talk show I co-host on WVAZ-FM (102.7), said they were adamantly opposed to gays and lesbians getting married."
"Most callers said they could relate to the plight of gays being banned from marrying. After all, it wasn't that long ago that interracial marriages were illegal in some states."
Dan, why would you choose to take her comments out of context? How does what she said above compare to what you posted?
"I do know this, though: I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there—and they’re out there, and I think they’re scum—are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.
This will get my name scratched of the invite list of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which is famous for its anti-racist-training seminars, but whatever.
Finally, I’m searching for some exit poll data from California. I’ll eat my shorts if gay and lesbian voters went for McCain at anything approaching the rate that black voters went for Prop 8."
Please explain how you two are making the same point?
Most Commented on Slog
-
Health Care Passes the House by Paul Constant
-
Your Daily Douchebag by Dominic Holden
-
The Procession for Officer Brenton by Dominic Holden
-
What She Said by Dan Savage
-
Titties and Beer by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: She Needs Oral by Dan Savage
-
Rules for Waitstaff by Bethany Jean Clement
-
That's It: R-71 Wins! by Dominic Holden
-
What He Said by Dan Savage
-
This "Pledge of Allegiance" Drives Me Crazy, Teabaggers! by Paul Constant
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (92) RSS