Opinion vs. bigotry -- and heartbreak

[scarlettina]

Earlier today, I posted about Referendum 74 here in Washington state, which is an attempt to repeal same-sex marriage. I said, "Most of my local friends live in Western Washington, and we have a habit of poo-pooing the conservative, Eastern side of the state. But these people are serious about their bigotry, even--especially--because they don't see it as bigotry, and they'll come out in throngs to vote against same-sex marriage. So will conservatives here in Western Washington."

Elsewhere, in response, an acquaintance of mine said, "You know what the worst kind of bigotry is? The kind where certain people call other people 'bigots' because they dare to have a different viewpoint than their own."

I answered in the following way: A clear distinction needs to be made between opinion and bigotry. On the one hand, you and I may differ about whether we like onions. I can respect that you don't like onions and you can respect that I like onions. That's a difference of opinion. Where it stops being opinion and starts being bigotry is when you decide that I can't have onions because you don't like onions and you pass laws to stop me from eating them. It starts being bigotry when you decide that, because I'm an onion-lover, it should be illegal for me to marry another onion lover and you work to pass a law to that effect. Or maybe I should wear an onion patch on my coat so everyone knows I'm an onion lover. Or maybe I should have to ride in the back of the bus so you can't smell the onions on my breath.

He posted in response saying that I had it backwards, that by trying to shove my onion-love down his throat, and by not respecting his right to fight back against my onion love, I was a bigot.

This is an intelligent man. I've seen him speak intelligently about science fiction, about writing, about the business he's in. So to see this kind of thinking just stymies me. He believes that this is a difference of opinion. He doesn't see how trying legislate away someone else's rights is bigotry. And he thinks I'm a bigot because I think he's wrong. And he thinks I'm a bigot because of my onion patch remark.

I don't understand this. If you can legislate away someone else's right to marry, then you can legislate who gets to live in one place but not another, who gets to do business in one place but not another, who gets to work in one place but not another. Don't they see where this leads? Don't they see what it means? If they'll do it to gay people, they'll do it to brown people and Jewish people and yellow people and people who don't believe in God, and on and on. What's worse is that I like this person but I can't be friends with someone who thinks any of this is OK.

I'm heartbroken to learn that this is how he thinks, because I can't--I can't--associate with someone who thinks this way. Why? Because there was a time when they came for the Jews and said, "You can't live here, you can't work here. We say so." That's what's happening here, now.

At Passover we're taught that each of us must behave as if we ourselves were taken out of Egypt personally. The metaphor extends to all of life: put yourself in someone else's shoes and live mindful of that awareness. If I put myself in his shoes, what I see is things changing that I can't control and acting out of fear to control and stop that change. At the same time, the things that are changing don't affect how I live and they give others rights and freedoms that they don't have right now. Doesn't that make the world a generally safer place? Doesn't it make it a better, less hurtful place?

I don't understand this. And I don't understand how he can't see what's happening here.

Comments

[fjm.livejournal.com]

I have come across this far too often.

[kateelliott.livejournal.com]

I have no answers. But I <3 this post.

[oldmangrumpus.livejournal.com]

because they dare to have a different viewpoint than their own.

Yeah, see, that "dare" is just self-aggrandizment in my book. This opinion isn't all that daring IMHO.

I wouldn't even have taken the argument that far. I'd just say "OK, here's your shot. Exactly WHO and HOW is gay marriage going to hurt?"

I have yet to hear a compelling or even marginally convincing argument to that one.

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

Yeah, see, that "dare" is just self-aggrandizment in my book.

Yep, it's about privelege.

This may come as a shock to you...

[coffeedaiv.livejournal.com]

but i agree with you.
okay, probably not much of a shock.
I fail to understand the harm that this would do. And, more to the point, I fail to understand how trying to ban marriage among same sex couples is a good thing. I mean, literally, what good can come of that?
I think... the biggest, most unspoken argument against it is, in a nutshell, that people would have to admit that they were, they are, wrong. That, when all is said and done, they made a mistake.
I have seen many people go to extraordinary lengths to make sure they never have to admit to a mistake. Voting against same sex marriage is pretty small potatoes, compared to what some people will do.

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

My entire family is like this. After 20 years of trying, I've learned there's no reasoning with them. They're convinced that if they're not allowed to use the law or other force to subjugate others, that that's an unfair restriction on their rights. Classic privilege/entitlement behavior, in other words. They genuinely believe themselves to be superior over others, and that their whims should take precedence over the basic rights of lesser people.

People who are used to disproportionate power will always balk at attempts to balance things out. They recognize it--rightly as an attempt to take something away from them. What they do not recognize is that it was never theirs to begin with, because it wasn't honestly earned. (Though they'll often whine about Manifest Destiny and the right of conquest if you bring that up.) All they see, therefore, is that they're losing something they've come to cherish, and thus will, like a child with a snitched toy, complain quite loudly and irrationally about that.

Truly, the only way to fight against this is by working around them--gathering all our diverse groups together to speak with one voice against oppression so our sheer numbers win for us where smaller attempts at reason will always fail. Progressives spend way, way toomich time trying to direct the Swine Chorale. Just like i had to learn to give up that windmill tilting with my family, the rest of the movement needs to give up futile negotiations. If we focus instead on the low-hanging fruit--the merely misinformed, rather than the stubbornly ignorant--we'll have the numbers we need to never have to fear the hell wrought by those who are married to their bigoted matryrdom.

[skidspoppe.livejournal.com]

There's a logical flaw in his argument. You are NOT trying to shove your onion-love down his throat. It's the Onion haters who are making an issue out of it, while onion lovers would most likely prefer to just get on with their lives.

And every time I try to get further in my analysis I get stymied because I cannot see any logic in his statement whatsoever, which makes it impossible to argue. I have this same issue with my own family. You cannot argue to change someone's belief system. Sure, you can destroy it logically, but that won;t change their mind and will in all probability make them dig their heels in harder that you think you're better than them and you are trying to limit their rights (no matter this is exactly what they are doing - people are blind to their own hypocrisy).

I'm sorry you're going to lose a friend over this, though... that's the worst feeling.

[lagilman]

This argument ^ exactly. Sometimes, no matter how much you care about a person, you have to walk away when that mindset appears, and accept that they will always think of you as wrong, mean, or simply foolishly misguided.

Often they can't help it - they're trapped within a set of Thinks and Justifications, and leaving would be more painful than staying.

[seankreynolds.livejournal.com]

"Shoving your onion-loving beliefs down his throat" would be "forcing him to eat onions," not "forcing him to acknowledge that some people love onions and should be allowed to eat onions, even though he hates onions and hates eating them.

Is anyone forcing this guy to marry another guy? No. Then nobody is forcing gay marriage down his throat, any more than Christians, Jews, or Muslims are forcing me to go to church, or that restaurants are forcing me to eat meat, or dog aficionados are forcing me to have dogs as pets.

In other words, this acquaintance of yours is an idiot.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

I think Leviticus had a point about polyester. I just wish it would be possible to channel all the "gays are an abomination" anger into "Polyester is an abomination".

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

You, madame, are simply brilliant. :-) (Also? I agree.)

[allanh.livejournal.com]

It's been done...and still the fundies don't entirely understand that it's a parody website.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

[marthawells.livejournal.com]

I think you're absolutely right, and it's incredibly frustrating, and I don't understand it either. It's like trying to argue with someone who insists that the sky is made of cream cheese, and all you can do is point up, but they won't look.

[joycemocha.livejournal.com]

This is one of those really problematic situations. I've always been amazed when I run into this sort of situation with a friend because, frankly, my reasoning is like yours. I may not like something in particular but hey, when opinions get rationalized into legislation (both liberal and conservative), then the opportunities for discrimination really explode.

You'd think conservatives would support same sex marriage because, hey, contributes to community stability and that's the kind of thing that ideologically a conservative SHOULD support. No-brainer. But because of a certain degree of uncertainty about their sexuality exists amongst US conservatives of a certain ilk, it's an issue.

(I am reading American Gomorrah right now, and kicking myself majorly for not continuing to document and follow the rise of right-wing evangelical Dominionism. I had a front row seat for the development of one particular strain of it here in Oregon and I could have written a heckava book about it...if I'd kept better records. Well, maybe I still could....)

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

The specific thing that marks bigotry is an attempt to limit the options of other people according to one's own opinions. For the most part onion lovers want to make it possible for all people to eat onions IF THEY SO CHOOSE, where onion haters want to prevent anyone from being able to eat onions, WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO OR NOT.

Unfortunately, I keep seeing intelligent people unable to comprehend this simple distinction, and arguing that their bigotry is in fact a reaction to the bigotry of others. (There's an entire political party, represented by an elephant, for whom this is a large part of their campaign strategy.)

What's so difficult about the difference between "may" (not MUST) and "may not"?

[keikaimalu.livejournal.com]

Actually, I do get it. (Up front: I am a total onion lover. Very supportive of onions.)

The missing piece is that this person believes onions are poisonous and toxic, worse than crack. He believes that the consumption of onions is a fad that will contribute to the downfall of society. Things were so much better 50 years ago, everything was more stable, America was a shining beacon, everyone knew and understood their roles (and if some didn't fit in them, well, into each life comes some suffering, and do you think I like everything I have to do?).

Moreover, everyone used to *understand* that onions are poisonous. That's the default, base state. And here come all these newfangled hippie crazies claiming loudly that onions are not only safe but beautiful, and we should all eat them, even though EVERYONE WITH A LICK OF SENSE KNOWS ONIONS WILL KILL YOU. And the more the onion-eaters espouse their philosophy, the farther the country diverges from that grand and glorious past where everything was okay.

And because society has been disintegrating in other ways -- drug addiction, porn everywhere, too many atheists, terrorist bombings, jobs leaching to other countries, cussing on TV, kids disrespecting their parents (who can no longer spank them to keep them in line) -- at the same time that onion-eating has been on the rise, clearly there's a correlation. Fight back against onion eaters, start setting the country back on the road to recovery. (Save the cheerleader, save the world.) We all have to man up, stop being so indulgent, stop trying to change things, and settle down to be hard-working and law-abiding citizens if we don't want to see the country crumble to pieces around us.

(Plus -- no one is born actually liking onions. The only way you can like onions is if an onion-eater furtively infects you with his disease. And why can't the stupid liberals see that?)

Basically, if you believe there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, gay marriage makes sense. But if you believe it's wrong (and lots of conservatives link homosexuality with pedophilia) -- if you believe that it's not natural, and that it can only happen through a recruitment process that moves a child away from the right path -- then it makes sense to fight against it.

And the conservative leadership has instilled a distrust of science in its constituencies, so no matter how many studies demonstrate that gays are born that way, no more likely to be jerks than anyone else, and good parents who can raise healthy children, they believe it's part of a liberal agenda machine, and not to be trusted.

Disclaimer again: big fan of onions here. But I believe in the importance of understanding the other side. I think that's the main way change happens -- if you can drill down to the seed of the central argument from which all else flows, you know where to fight.

[herself_nyc]

What you said.
I suspect our hope lies in the fact that the demographic that feels this way is aging, and younger people seem to take onions more for granted, so in a couple of decades perhaps this will become as much a non-issue as interracial marriage.

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

I completely agree. From your mouth, as they say, to God's ears.

[xjenavivex.livejournal.com]

This is what I run into with one particular member of my family.

[mrdorbin.livejournal.com]

A dear and wise minister friend of mine's mantra on this is: "You can't reason people out of something they didn't reason themselves into." You can talk at folks until they're blue in the face, but the opposition is coming from somewhere else entirely (fear and insecurity about social status leading to the need to shore it up by finding people to be better than, mostly). I hate it because it feels manipulative, but I find myself resorting to emotional arguments and blunt accusations like 'you are saying your family deserves to be treated better than mine'...I wish I could find that magic key that associates this stance with something that they think is bad, but I don't think I have yet.

[singingnettle.livejournal.com]

I empathize.

[janetl.livejournal.com]

While this sort of ballot initiative battle has been going on for some time (the Oregon Citizen's Alliance one was in '92), when I heard on the news that there were enough signatures for this one, I had a very specific vision. My friends Shannon & Michelle, and their kids, hearing TV and radio ads, passing cars on the road with bumperstickers, and lawn signs on houses, for months on end. I wonder if they'll see bumperstickers in the parking lot when they go to church? It just makes me want to cry.

[twilight2000.livejournal.com]

First - I'm sorry for your loss - I, like you, don't begin to understand how someone can truly live like that - tho keikaimalu post is spot on to the thinking I've encountered, I can't wrap my brain around living like that.

Second - you have some very insightful friends :>

As usual, I find myself agreeing with skidspoppe There's a logical flaw in his argument. You are NOT trying to shove your onion-love down his throat. - but that assumes that they don't believe gay marriage is worse than pedophelia - which harkens back to keikaimalu's post.

If they really believe that, they're encumbered to *do* something - the real problem is getting them to understand it's NOT - and that what they're perpetrating is unreasoned hatred fed by fear.

Talk about your Not Easy Jobs...

[prettyshrub.livejournal.com]

*HUGS* All the above is wise. When people stop reasoning, there is no way to come to an understanding, much less a compromise.

You're point about the Jews is extremely valid and most people don't think it can happen again. You and I know better.

*HUGS*

[allanh.livejournal.com]

I get what you're saying, and empathize. I also don't understand the mindset of your friend...or the entire anti-same-sex-marriage folks.

The only hypothesis I have is that same-sex marriage is the only thing left for right-wing churches to scare up donations for a holy fight...of which said donations go to fatten up church coffers and minister bank accounts.

Right-wing churches seem to ALWAYS have a cause they can use for fundraising to "fight the good fight". People have largely forgotten that in the past, these fights included civil rights for Chinese, Irish, blacks, voting rights for women, and interracial marriage. Also the right of blacks to serve in the military, for which some of the arguments eerily paralleled those of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" repeal battle.

You may need to resign yourself to finding a new friend.

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

Honestly, finding a new friend isn't the issue. Accepting this one's prejudices and moving on is. I'm doing it, but not happily.

[roadnotes.livejournal.com]

*hug* if that helps. And a lot of sympathetic nodding and incomprehension.

[djonn]

Three things first: I am fully in favor of legally recognizing same-sex marriages. I like onions (and not just because I went to college in Walla Walla). And I have not seen the original exchange of posts/comments being reported here, so what follows is speculation on my part. This last is important, because context in online discourse can often be extremely tricky to read. That said: I think I can construct a context in which the anti-onion acquaintance in that exchange has a legitimate point -- and that being the case, I think it's worth looking at that possible context.

My first assumption is that the "elsewhere" referred to is a Webspace -- blog, LJ, what have you -- belonging to or hosted by the acquaintance. To borrow a metaphor from way, way back in 'Net time (specifically, from GEnie's Science Fiction RoundTable), one can consider such a space as its author's "virtual living room". Both back on GEnie and on the modern Web, cultures of courtesy have developed regarding what's polite, what's borderline, and what's socially unacceptable in terms of posting in someone's virtual living room. On GEnie, Susan Shwartz wielded the Sacred Salmon, on his blog, John Scalzi periodically invokes the Mallet of Loving Correction, and on Making Light, one can get disemvoweled.

Second: while I am fully in favor of legally recognizing same-sex marriages, I also believe in freedom of religion. That is, I believe that a given church has the right to decide to determine that among its members and on its own premises, religious marriage is restricted to opposite-sex couples. The right of free association being what it is, it's necessarily legal -- and morally right -- to allow like-minded people freely to associate, even when we don't agree with them. [Note that associating is one thing; action is another. If you're the Ku Klux Klan, you can have all the lodge meetings you want among yourselves, but the moment you go out and commit hate crimes, you're toast.] So while it absolutely should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, it would be wrong (and tacky) for a same-sex couple to demand that their marriage ceremony be performed in a church or by a minister that opposes such marriages on religious grounds.

What this means in the physical world is that, as much as I may advocate same-sex marriage (on civil and/or religious grounds), I won't generally walk into a fundamentalist church and start preaching those views to its members on their premises -- and even if I'm invited into such an institution, in the event that I accept the invitation I will make an effort to be polite while I'm there.

And what it means on the Web is that, in a given personally hosted Webspace, I'll generally try to abide by the culture of courtesy for that Webspace -- which may mean going elsewhere to have discussions on certain issues or regarding certain subjects. In the specific context of the onion exchange, I don't know whether the acquaintance may have meant to specifically call out the onions as onions or to refer back to the onions-as-gays analogy. I don't have a good handle on the acquaintance's tone, so as to judge how much unstated hyperbole might have been in play. I also don't know how the Webspace in question normally handles sensitive or politically charged conversations, or how often they may occur in that space. However -- in the specific context of going into someone else's "virtual living room", whether with virtual onion breath or with a line of conversation the host regards as provocative -- I think the acquaintance/host isn't necessarily wrong to point out a breach of courtesy, and I would not necessarily read a post to that effect as a post expressing an opinion on the larger issue(s) in play.

Again, I'm imposing a hypothetical context on an online conversation I haven't actually seen. But given the countervailing history you cite, I'd want to be very sure of the actual context before making any long-term decisions about cutting off connections.

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

John, this rises above web manners. I posted about Ref 74 on my Facebook. He made his original remark, quoted in full above, on his. It was clearly a response to my post. I responded in his space as I quoted in full above. This isn't about manners and he wasn't scolding me for being rude. He was advocating for the denial of civil rights. It's my right--it's my responsibility as a human being--to call him on it. It's that or watch as rights get legislated away. He's coming for the gays and he's unapologetic about it. Who's he coming for next?

Seriously, do you think that an acceptable response to "Why didn't you say something to stop that bigot?" is to say, "Well, it would have been impolite?"

[daveon.livejournal.com]

For what its worth I don't think that it is acceptable to be nice to bigots, and actually, I don't think that's too strong a thing to call people in this context.

I'm sure a lot of segregationalists were nice people. I've met very nice Afrikaaners in South Africa, but they're still bigots.

[djonn]

If I'm wrong about the actual context -- and you're in a much better position to judge than I am -- then I'm wrong.

I agree with many in the gallery who have observed the unique rhetorical blind spot common among conservative Christian political activists, and I emphasize again that I don't support that flavor of political activism.

But I am concerned about backlash; just as I favor respect for same-sex couples, I favor respect for sincerely held religious beliefs, so long as those beliefs are not used to impinge on the rights of others. I have known conservative Christians who didn't (to my knowledge, at least) demonstrate the rhetorical blindness discussed here; indeed, I used to play D&D with a couple of them a great many moons ago, as twilight2000 may recall. Your acquaintance is evidently not one of these -- but I wasn't sure of that earlier, and wanted to at least explore the possibility.

peace in our time! (not a creepy internet stalker)

[science-cyrano.livejournal.com]

I think I have practical advice on this one:

Put their post in a word document (or repeat a couple sentences back to them) and replace 'gay' with 'black'. Or another minority, if you like.

Ask them if that's an opinion or bigoted. And why.

If they don't get it, well maybe scientists will find a cure some day..?

Re: peace in our time! (not a creepy internet stalker)

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

It's an excellent thought and I'm ashamed I didn't think of it myself. But I've walked away from the conversation that launched this meditation. I've walked away from the person, too (though I don't know if he's truly aware of it). I'll bear this in mind going forward though. Thanks.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

I see this a lot with libertarian leaning people - all too common in the WA tech space, and elements of fandom :(

The problem comes with not understanding bigotry nor really understand what the word means. It really is that simple.

I'm getting tired of being polite to stupid people airing stupid, bigoted views - and that cuts both ways too. The next of my liberal friends to explain that they won't vote for Obama because he's been disappointing is getting both barrels too.

(Dave is grumpy today)

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

Feel free to be grumpy; it's been that kind of week. :-) The whole not-voting-for-Obama-because-he-isn't-liberal-enough meme is another baffler to me. Anyone who heard his (admittedly convincing) speeches during the '08 campaign and didn't understand that it was campaign rhetoric and that reality is harder than he made it sound was just naive. Listening to him, even though I wanted to believe, I knew that he was speaking about an ideal, not a reality. Reality is more difficult, more complex, and requires negotiation with people who are willing to yell as loud as you are for as long as you are. He's done more than I thought he'd be able to accomplish given the political climate--and it's worse now than ever. He'll get my vote because he represents more of my perspective than the other guy does. And the thought of that other guy in the White House? Is just plain unthinkable to me.

[frabjouslinz.livejournal.com]

I feel the need to chime in, but I have nothing better to add than has been stated. Except that I have similar issues with my dad about some things. This particular one he's come around on, because Mom and Dad's church has several gay families in it, and that slowly changed his mind. And that might be the only answer - the only way that an otherwise intelligent, otherwise kind-hearted person could have his or her mind changed. We can fight the repeal of the legislation, and hope that people being more comfortable being openly gay in society will mean that those who feel homosexuality is awful will slowly see that they were wrong.

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

See, I don't even think that he--my former friend, to be clear--feels homosexuality is awful. I think he feels that he's being oppressed by people who insist that his belief in marriage only for one man and one woman is being denied. He sees himself as oppressed by those who think differently. He's not making the distinction between believing something and enacting legislation to enforce it.

I will defend his right to think what he thinks and say what he says; this is why we have a First Amendment. Where I draw the line is when he decides to legislate away another's civil rights because he thinks they're wrong. It's where the Nazis started. It cannot be allowed to stand.

[aberwyn.livejournal.com]

I have nothing new to add. So I'll just say, "Good for you!"

[torreybird.livejournal.com]

Thank you for posting about this. I keep coming up against the people who argue this "I'm not as bigotted as they/you are" strategy.

I deeply suspect this is but the chorus of some catchy, bigotted tune, played constantly on too many networks devoted to "news." The similarities across people and regions, from language to pouncing anticipation - yechh.

Thanks for drawing the Passover analogy, too. It's entirely appropriate, and I wish more folks would see it.

[xjenavivex.livejournal.com]

I am sorry that you lost your friend.