Showing posts with label labels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label labels. Show all posts

Monday, October 05, 2015

Southern Poverty Law Center labels group representing Kim Davis a hate group. Yeah I get that.

Courtesy of Salon:  

The Liberty Counsel — the group that’s representing Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis — has been declared a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Associated Press’ Claire Galofaro reports. 

According to the SPLC, the group and its leader, Mat Staver, have virulently opposed all LGBTQ rights legislation under the aegis of “religious freedom” — it’s even defended Scott Lively, who “played an instrumental part in the Ugandan parliament’s adoption of a draconian anti-LGBT bill that originally included the death penalty in some instances.” 

According to Staver, hate crimes legislation is the equivalent of “‘thought crimes’ laws that violate the right to freedom of speech and of conscience” and “have a chilling effect on people who have moral or religious objections to homosexual behavior.” 

The Liberty Counsel has come under fire for its management of Davis, first after Staver claimed that an image of 100,000 people in Peru were gathered to pray for Davis — they were not, a fact for which Staver blamed a “miscommunication” with Peruvian officials — and later for misrepresenting Davis’ meeting with Pope Francis.

There are some who will accuse the SPLC of going on an ideological witch hunt, and in fact the Liberty Council spokesman is already doing just that.

However in my opinion calling them a hate group is a reasonable assertion, even without the rather long laundry list of reasons given by SPLC.

After all, who BUT a hate group could possibly represent Kim Davis?

Thursday, February 06, 2014

Is the label "Liberal" once again in vogue? It may soon be. Update!

The Atlantic explains why the term "liberal" was once highly respected and how that changed:  

It wasn’t always this way. In the first half of the 20th century, “liberal” enjoyed a certain prestige. When Franklin Roosevelt began using it to describe the ideology of the New Deal, for instance, small-government types accused him of linguistic theft, claiming that since the expansion of state power threatened liberty, they—and not the New Dealers—were the true liberals. 

But by the 1960s, the American right had stopped claiming “liberal” and begun demonizing it. Over the next two decades, being a liberal came to mean letting criminals terrorize America’s cities, hippies undermine traditional morality, and communists menace the world. It meant, in other words, too much liberty for the wrong kind of people. Fearful of its negative connotations, Democratic politicians began disassociating themselves from the term, and as the Obama interview showed, they still do. 

But that political logic may be out of date. “Liberal” became a dirty word at a time of soaring crime, when Democrats came under attack for allegedly prioritizing the rights of criminals over the safety of everyone else. Today, crime has dropped so dramatically that even prominent Republicans advocate less punitive sentencing. The decline of “liberal” into epithet status also coincided with a cultural revolt, especially on sexual issues like abortion and gay rights, which frightened many middle-aged Americans. But today, the people demanding greater cultural liberty—whether they be gay couples wanting to marry or individuals wanting to legally smoke pot—don’t seem nearly as radical. Finally, “liberal” grew associated with weakness during a humiliating phase in American foreign policy: when America’s defeat in Vietnam and the Iran hostage crisis dealt painful blows to national pride. In the post-Iraq era, by contrast, Republican efforts to out-hawk Obama on foreign policy have utterly failed. 

“Liberal,” in other words, got its bad name because of a series of racial, sexual, and global bogeymen that don’t frighten Americans nearly as much anymore.

However all of that could change if only we have the courage to change it.

But there’s reason to believe that today, many Americans eschew the term not because they associate it with any particular unpopular attitudes or issue positions, but merely because they’ve only heard it discussed negatively. In a thought-provoking 2013 paper, Christopher Claassen, Patrick Tucker, and Steven S. Smith of Washington University in St. Louis note that although most Americans prefer the term “conservative,” those same Americans are “remarkably consistent” in telling researchers that they prefer liberal policies. How come? One reason may be that “conservative” has positive “extra-political” associations. To many Americans, it connotes “caution, restraint and respect for traditional values,” positive attributes irrespective of one’s views on specific policies. 

But even more important, Claassen, Tucker, and Smith suggest, may be the negative way in which “liberal” is publicly discussed. “When certain labels are emphasized or favored by political and media elites,” they write, “the public is more likely to identify with them than others. Public framing often promotes the term ‘conservative,’ while the term ‘liberal’ is used with much less frequency and has long had a more negative connotation.” Part of the reason Americans consider liberal an epithet, in other words, is because they mostly hear it used as an epithet.

If you have noticed I tend to favor the word liberal on this blog, over the more PC term "progressive."  And the reason for that is becasue I refuse to allow myself to be labeled by the conservatives who have this irritating way of creating language that everybody quickly adopts, and which never describes people like me fairly.

It is the same reason that I call myself an "Atheist" rather than an "agnostic." Sure calling myself an agnostic would offend fewer people and make me seem more acceptable, but it would be a inaccurate, and I don't pander to assholes.

So yes I am a liberal. Like most people I am somewhat too complex for that label to fit comfortably, but it describes my politics, my morality, and my feelings about personal freedom better than any other.

And I for one thing it is a beautiful thing to be called. ESPECIALLY when it is shouted at me by a raging homophobic, misogynistic, conservative jerkwad!

Update:

Yeah, what he said.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Are there really people who think this way?

Just speaking personally, I have had more women come on to me while wearing skirts that would be considered "proper" of even "old fashioned" than I have ones wearing clothing that would be considered "provocative" or "asking for it" as defined by this picture.

I once had a one time fling with a woman wearing paint overalls. So what does that tell you?

Friday, July 06, 2012

Oh, well good to finally have a label for it.

By the way, though this might be the most accurate definition for my particular fetish, it still sort of has to also include the female parts.


I guess I would be more of a hetero-sapiosexual.

Nothing more attractive than a smart woman who is not trying to act dumb in some media instructed methodology to attract men.


Monday, December 19, 2011

Just a reminder of how some children are taught to view Atheists.

This is from a handout given to children in their Sunday School class.

"Don't talk to those grumpy old atheists kids. They might tell you something WE don't want you to hear."