Sunday, February 25, 2007

Hoplophobia, Homophobia and Political Correctness

Have you noticed how differently those who criticize non-PC issues such as gun rights are treated by the media as opposed to those who dare to make a PC blunder such as saying something politically incorrect about a minority? Under "Today's Picks" on MSN, I saw an article entitled, "Gun Remark Makes Outdoorsman an Outcast." The story links through to a Washington Post article of the same name with a caption: "Criticism of hunters who use assault rifles puts writer’s career in jeopardy." The article describes the plight of "poor misunderstood" writer, Jim Zumbo:

Zumbo's fame, however, has turned to black-bordered infamy within America's gun culture -- and his multimedia success has come undone. It all happened in the past week, after he publicly criticized the use of military-style assault rifles by hunters, especially those gunning for prairie dogs.

"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity," Zumbo wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life Web site. The Feb. 16 posting has since been taken down. "As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."

The article appears to be sympathetic to Zumbo's cause and the Post trots out an "outdoorsman" who basically calls NRA members attack dogs:

Some outdoors writers drew a different lesson from Zumbo's horrible week.

"This shows the zealousness of gun owners to the point of actual foolishness," said Pat Wray, a freelance outdoors writer in Corvallis, Ore., and author of "A Chukar Hunter's Companion."

Wray said that what happened to Zumbo is a case study in how the NRA has trained members to attack their perceived enemies without mercy.

"For so many years, Zumbo has been a voice for these people -- for hunting and for guns -- and they just turned on him in an instant," Wray said. "He apologized all over himself, and it didn't do any good."

Say Uncle has more about the above article and its pitfalls here.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with the above article is not my main point here; it is to compare the media treatment of Jim Zumbo's politically correct position of likening hunters with assault rifles to terrorists to that of someone like Isaiah Washington who made the horrible mistake of daring to criticize a politically correct minority. Rather than treat Washington as the sympathetic character they portray Zumbo as, the media seems to revel in Washington being a pariah who is sent to a treatment facility to "cure" the possibility that he will ever make a homophobic slur again! Take a foul mouthed shot at a minority and one is sent to rehab. Trash a gun owner and liken him or her to a terrorist and you are a sympathetic character who is being attacked by the fringe members of the NRA. I certainly do not condone what Washington said when he called a castmate a sexist slur, yet is it really okay for the The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation to request an apology (probably yes), try to get him fired and ABC to send Washington to "rehab," all with no one in the MSM saying this might be wrong or at least giving an opposing view as they did with the gun slur? Why is one type of speech seen by the media as okay and worth defending and the other politically incorrect type seen as not worthy of anything but disdain and punishment?

I wonder when guys like Zumbo will be asked to go to rehab to treat their Hoplophobia? Probably when Hell freezes over--as it should be, for freedom of speech is always worth defending no matter whether we are offended by it or not.

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do not think Zumbo is a hoplophobe at all. He was only expressing the view that certain technological tools, such as large magazine capacity rifles, detract from the sportmanship that for many of us should be an inherent part of hunting. Fact is that given all the advancements in technology today there is not much point in hunting just to get the kill. It is about style, challenge and skill unless you are just hunting for food. Something 99.9% percent of western hunters are not doing anyway.

He probably expressed his views in a wrong way. He used a word that was unappropiate and emotionally loaded. It was a lapse in judgement. Something that the new technology facilitates since it makes the time from writting to publication basically zero and takes away time for reflection. He probably deserves some kind of chastisement but I feel he just got caught in the middle of a political and idelogical minefield and has become a casualty due to that.

10:13 AM, February 25, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...

Anonymous 10:13:

I agree that Zumbo may not be a hoplophobe, just as Isaiah Washington may not be a homophobe for making one or two really stupid, and tacky sexist remarks. It could have been a lapse of judgement but no one will ever give him the benefit of the doubt and the fact that he was sent to a re-education camp is sickening, in my opinion. He was also caught up in the "middle of a political and ideological mindfield and was made a casualty due to that" just as Zumbo was. That is the point of this post--that political correctness is not a reason for the media to defend or not defend someone's speech.

10:23 AM, February 25, 2007  
Blogger Serr8d said...

It does not matter a whit that hunters use guns in their 'sport'; what matters is that Hunting has Nothing to do with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I'm a lifetime NRA member, and had not, until last weekend, ever heard of Jim Zumbo. I did make it to his forum, before it went dark, and left a comment, including this link to a post I made Feb. 12, blasting Rudy Guilani for the same incorrect thinking.

The core belief of left-of-center gun control advocates is to, eventually, remove all guns from the hands of private citizens (another golden brick in their road to their ideal 'nirvana', I suppose); the NRA's stance is that incremental advances in this policy must be challenged, at every step.

Jim Zumbo uses guns, pretty ones? and no matter how 'ugly' black guns are, they are protected under the 2nd Amendment (which is placed as the 2nd amendment for good reason, along with other 'individual' rights protected in the first ten).

So Jim Zumbo caught major grief, and rightly so, from gun bloggers, and others, all across these intertubes.

Unfortunately, the damage has already been done, and the left has another 'bullet' to use against our protected rights.

Again, the NRA wants to see every law on the books prosecuted to the ultimate nth degree, for peeps and perps using guns in incorrect ways. Make example of the hoodies who get, but shouldn't have, guns. Tack 10 years (or more) on sentences where guns were used, and make that without parole. Because, you see, the NRA wants to make it safe for those of us who do legally possess and use guns, to do so safely, and without criminal threats of hoodlums and miscreants.

Everyone hates criminals...

10:56 AM, February 25, 2007  
Blogger Ride Fast said...

Hello Dr. Helen,
I like your blog and have added your site to my link list.
If you would prefer to not be linked by me, let me know and I'll remove it.
Thanks and like I said, nice blog!

Ride Fast & Shoot Straight

11:38 AM, February 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a life member of the NRA, and own what some might call "a terrorist rifle." Specifically, I own an SKS, an inexpensive Chinese rifle which was popular during the Korean and Vietnamese wars. I took it on my one deer hunting outing, but never had the chance to use it. My choice of rifle was driven by economics - at $100, this was the most suitable rifle of sufficient size for deer hunting, and I'm told it works as well as any other "deer rifle." Just because it was once used in military service doesn't make it an exceptional weapon, though. It's just a rifle, nothing fancy.

The important point here, though, was made by a previous poster: While the NRA strongly opposes regulation of specific types of firearms - which, by the way, is an incremental means by which to regulate all firearms - they strongly support the enforcement of existing gun laws against criminals. There are millions of gun owners who will never violate a law, except perhaps a speeding ticket. To punish them by increased regulation, while armed thugs kill and terrorize with impunity, is just plain wrong. Let the thugs do hard time, and leave the rest of us alone.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

11:43 AM, February 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Helen,

Why is one type of speech seen by the media as okay and worth defending and the other politically incorrect type seen as not worthy of anything but disdain and punishment?

The essence of Political Correctness is the supression of politically incorrect speech.

political correctness is not a reason for the media to defend or not defend someone's speech.

You bet it is...for the liberal MSM. They don't actually believe in "free speech".

I think the root of this is in the Left's entwinement with Behaviorism. Even though that doctrine is not as dominant or respectable as it once was, it still is very influential on the Left. I think they think that if the expression of a principle is forbidden the principle itself will wither away sooner or later. (And vice versa). Supress homophobic speech and homophobia will eventually disappear. This trumps free speech for them any day.

12:35 PM, February 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have no problem with guns or the second ammendment. However, I do have a problem with the word 'homophobia'. The etymology of this verbal bomb/Orwellian wall come from the Greek language. 'Homo' means same whereas in Latin it means 'man'or 'human being'.
'phobos' means 'fear' or 'fright'

Well, the reality is that I don't know anyone who is afraid of the 'same' or those who love the 'same.' However, I am an individual that rejects that social and sexual phenomenon. I also believe it is an intrinsically disordered lifestyle---and I make no apologies.

These semantical games have been going on for too long in the West and I will say it again----if we truly live in a Plurality wherein 'tolerance' is the goal or standard then we must also tolerate intolerance for if we do not then our tolerance is Orwellian newspeak for uniformity of thought, speach and society.

1:09 PM, February 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He didn't call gun owners terrorists, in a comment about those who hunt small game with assault rifles, he referred to those weapons as "terrorist rifles".

The NRA has unbounded power, and is just as irrational and destructive in using it as the gay, lesbian, feminist, etc. groups are.

1:15 PM, February 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Zumbo is nothing new. This kind of "Mom likes me best" elititism has been in the gun owning family for years. It's sibling rivalry. Now he knows his siblings can stand up and holler.

Us siblings will deal with it and then close ranks against those who say really idiot and ignorant things about guns, the NRA, and gun owners.

1:50 PM, February 25, 2007  
Blogger Serr8d said...

Anonymous 1:15, the difference between the NRA and those 'other' groups you list is, we have our own Amendment...

Anonymous 1:09, why don't you submit a list of 'correct' words you would have us choose from, and any word you don't like, we'll ban the thing! No matter what context or document that word is in, we'll take it out.

Better hurry; there are new words coming along every day...

2:48 PM, February 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am curious as to what the first of many anonymi means by the assertion that 99.9% percent of western hunters are not hunting for food. Are we in Wisconsin "western"? Everyone I know here who hunts eats what they shoot, and I know one couple who, between hunting, trapping and fishing harvest almost all the flesh they eat.

As for full capacity magazines, the hunting regulations address that. Shotguns routinely come with a plug to reduce capacity. Is that not good enough for you?

3:21 PM, February 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 1:09 writes

Hey Serr8d,

Good Bait heh? Well just so you know where I stand---I checked out your blog and I just wanted you to know that I support Iran and I am not a muslim nor a Dem nor a Rep----I can see that you have been taken in. I can't wait to see your 'correct' interp of things.

3:28 PM, February 25, 2007  
Blogger Serr8d said...

'Taken in', anon? It's seldom I'm 'taken in' by anything; you should have seen the struggle I put up against my wife, 21 years ago! But I'm glad I've been 'taken in', by her, at least to date.

Nor am I Muslim, Christian, or Athiest, although I do profess to wonder what awaits me on the other side; if anything. I do not think there will be any virgins to speak of...

If you 'support' Iran, then you must support Ahmadman; and his history, including his training of the Basij children .

I'll say this, when you get 'taken in', you do so for teh crazy...

Love your blog, BTW

3:55 PM, February 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


When I said "for food" I meant "as a form of subsistence" and yes I could be wrong 99.9% is just a guesstimate. What percentage of Western, as in first world, hunters do you think hunt for subsistence?

As for the magazine capacities and all that I am perfectly fine with it do whatever you want to do as long as it is legal in your jurisdiction. I would not use them but I am not going to go around preaching and judging those that do either. It is mr Zumbo who seems to have a problem with it. I just pointed that having a problem with the use of a certain category of firearms for a certain use does not make you a hoplophobe.

4:17 PM, February 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 1:09 writes

serr8D...I am happy that you were taken in by your wife if all is amicable. As far as Iran is concerned... I am not blind, there is more here than meets the eye....I will show you the face of who I am against:

They have 'new' friends in Washington and they seek a new hegemony...I would rather be dead than to accept it.

4:24 PM, February 25, 2007  
Blogger Serr8d said...

Well, Anon 1:09, I now see why you wish to be anonymous. That was a video that could have used some direction from Leni Riefenstahl; and, given the site's tags "PALESTINE zionists zionism hate jews isreal terrorists terrorism zionist terrorists", I would not really have wanted to visit the thing, had you not insisted.

What I saw was a bunch of teenagers throwing taunts and insults, using foul language, not at all any different than your average hip hop/rap video (unless, of course, you add the element of anti semitism.

I, for one, would not be proud of that link...

5:27 PM, February 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


And what is anti-semitism? Please define a semite? Semites are also Akkadians, Maronites, Arabs, Copts not just Jews Sir. I think you have been taken in. If Anti-Semitism is exclusively for the Jews and excludes the other Semites than I think we need to think about who the real racists may be. As far as the youth factor goes---in vino veritas---I am sure you said the same with Mel Gibson.

You see, Anti-Semitism means everything and anything, as such it is a slippery word with offensive and defensive characteristics that are always used to thwart inquiry while also causing a sort of guilt. I do not possess that guilt, therefore the word and the conceptions attached to that word mean nothing to me.

Perhaps when you learn about the Holodomor(to use but one example) then we can talk about the extension of guilt and how it is attached to collective memories, words, thoughts and ideas. Until then, sell your Anti-Semitism to somebody else.

6:01 PM, February 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Anonymous @ 6:01 pm: anti-semitism does not mean "opposed to those of semitic origin," it means "One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews." You don't get to rewrite the dictionary based upon your preferences. And no, the definition isn't part of some secret plot amongst Jewish dictionary writers to overlook the rest of those who can call themselves Semitic.

In fact, the majority of Americans who could be victims of anti-semitism are of east European origin. But words don't always mean what the sum of their parts means - for example, carpet has nothing to do with automobiles or domesticated animals.

To Anonymous @ 1:15 pm: You said, "The NRA has unbounded power." If that is the case, why did the last Congressional election place Nancy Pelosi in the speaker's chair? You could fairly say that they have significant power, but certainly not unbounded.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

6:24 PM, February 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Perhaps you need to remind the Jews of this distinction--you are preaching to the choir.

6:34 PM, February 25, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

Great post, Helen. I'm not a hunter but I am a gun owner. Zumbo effectively called every military infantryman a terrorist. Assault weapons are just rifles that have been specialized for military use. The AR15, which is the civilian version of the M16, the US standard infantry rifle, is popular with gun owners and may actually be used by hunters, although it is of a smaller caliber than is generally used by deer hunters, but a 7.62 (.30 caliber) version is available. So are US soldiers terrorists because they use assault rifles?

The SKS, as another reader mentioned, and the AK47 are popular because there are many surplus rifles out there and they are cheap and reliable. A new Remington or Winchester bolt action hunting rifle can run anywhere from $700 to $1200 or more. An SKS in good condition can be had for $150 to $250.

Also you can find very cheap ammo for them. I bought a surplus British Lee Enfield rifle of WW II vintage last year for $130 which was a steal, but I have to buy a special caliber of ammo for it. Ammo can get expensive. Standard ammo for modern hunting rifles, 30-06 or Winchester 308 can run $0.75 to $1.00 per round. You can get 7.62x39mm SKS ammo from surplus dealers for around $0.10 per round. That makes a big difference if you like to shoot at the range on a frequent basis.

6:35 PM, February 25, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

And to answer your question, they treat the two cases differently because that's the way they think about it. It's human nature. You'll find right wing commentators doing the same thing, just in reverse. They think homophobes are messed up, sick or evil, but anti-gun people are good, courageous people like them. It's their worldview, and it's perfectly natural.

Not many people have the discipine to think "now wait, these gun nuts are just like gay activists in their own way. Zumbo is like Isaiah Washington when you draw the analogy in this way, so I'm going to write my article using the same template." I think it's better for reporters to just write the news the way it looks from their standpoint, and not pretend to come from some universal, neutral viewpoint. That's how terrorists get to be called insurgents or freedom-fighters. That way you can just identify the writer's viewpoint up front and apply the proper "windage" to compensate for their spin.

6:51 PM, February 25, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


"I think it's better for reporters to just write the news the way it looks from their standpoint, and not pretend to come from some universal, neutral viewpoint."

Sure, that would be great if the Washington Post would just admit that they are biased heavily towards the left and they write from their left viewpoint or if NBC news etc. would just announce this prior to each broadcast. The problem is, as you say, they pretend to be neutral and then spin the stories as "facts." I used to think people could tell the difference and didn't need anyone to make this distinction to them, but I realize this is not true. People often cannot tell the difference between spin and facts and thus, need some actual language that clarifies the biased view of the reporter.

7:02 PM, February 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I got to witness a blog swarm last weekend over Jim Zumbo's foolishness. While it would have been nice if everyone could have discoursed in civil tone, it was nonetheless marvelous. As Kim, viewing things from her porch said: "An Army of Davids, illustrated."

In all of the chatter (including Zumbo's initial remarks) there was one thread, and I think this applies to our culture generally: We have a ready ability to create undefined and arbitrary categories, to allocate items or actions to those categories, and gleefully to pontificate about (or discriminate against) those items or actions we consider bad.

The mainstream media are composed of people who also have this ailment. In fact, they may be the main repository for the virus. An acquaintance of mine who works for a major metropolitan daily wrote prior to the last national election about Red Staters and, specifically, Southerners something like this: They are haters. I hate haters. They should be disenfranchised.

I live on the bank of the lower Mississippi River. I have watched its mainstream. A vast quantity of water mindlessly flows south, sweeping with it whatever may get caught up in the current, simply because it is down hill.

Thus, also, the MSM. They have created their categories, they believe in their categories, and they will happily categorize any person and, if that category happens to be one of their bad ones, sweep him or her to hell, which apparently is the southernmost portion of their route.

7:22 PM, February 25, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

Yes, that is the problem, or has been, but I think the rise of alternate media makes for a more even playing field. Now blogs and conservative web outlets can call the MSM on their bias. The pose can't last forever. Eventually everyone will realize that the Emperor is naked, or biased in this case, and they just won't bother to pretend to be neutral and objective anymore.

8:40 PM, February 25, 2007  
Blogger Purple Avenger said...

such as large magazine capacity rifles

What is one of those? I know of only a very few rifles with fixed large cap mags. You can get a light weight 5 round mag for an AK-47.

The SKS, a "good gun" which fires the same round, has a fixed 10 round mag.

Personally, I'm offended by people who drive sports cars, because clearly nobody has any need for a sports car, when a Yugo will do.

I'm also offended by the color blue, because white will do just fine. Nobody needs a blue colored anything.

11:23 PM, February 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Best I can tell-
The VAST majority of directly interlaced folk conducted the recent SELF-POLICING of one of their own that commited a SERIOUS "Oh shit!" in a community that DEMANDS "one oh shit negates a lifetime of atta boys" (lifted from a forum). As has been mentioned above, this was done via the blazing white light of the internet/web, by folks voting with their feet and wallets instead of chanting for "new laws". An ASTOUNDING amount of folk weighed in with a "Too bad, he was very good in his specific field". The offence was weighed, measured, and resolved.

The MSM turned sensationist tabloids, in an effort to maintain
control as "information source of choice" did their best to wrest authority,spin it, but to no avail. They were out of the picture overnight. Kinda like the phenomina in Durham, only faster.

When it comes to "givin 'em what they want" and catering to folk with no real dog in the fight in the interest of selling commercial
ad space, AS WELL AS attempting to manipulate public opinion in order to maintain the ever fickle doyen status, the basest supermarket tabloids and other publications of "page three" ilk can still claim the highest circulation with no fear of extinction.

No accusations, misquotes, "out of context", mis-understood "irony", typos, false claims, twisted or ambigious weasle words, or non-appologies stood up unclarified for more than a half hour-and no quarter afforded to a gross violation of an alliance, presumed to bridge any eliteism.

Any question as to why the move is on to co-opt what "is" is on the new opiate of the masses? Sites of questionable (IMHO, as well as academias' recently)reputation such as wikipedia? (to name JUST ONE) come to mind, and it certainly seems to be disingenuous motive at work.

Yes, I have a dog in THIS fight. I'm glad the way it turned out. Mostly because the "Your services are not needed here." message sent to legislators and editors- so fond of piling on

12:10 AM, February 26, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff Cooper coined hoplophobia!
Makes perfect sense.

12:17 AM, February 26, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the comment made was a little misguided but don't think it was worth all this fuss. Perhaps some people will realize the consequences of throwing the word "terrorist" around.

And about this "self-policing", "free action", etc: I hope people realize that when they cross the line into crimes and torts that they are criminally and civilly liable. Yes, there is a right to free speech but there is no right to libel, slander, defame, etc. anyone.

And if you're going to engage in this have the guts to make your statements directly to the person you are criticizing. Claiming that you have a right to free speech but are afraid to say something to someone directly or to their face is cowardice. In other words show some guts instead of being a cowardly, whispering e-mob. Claiming that you are "policing" by whispering behind someone's back like schoolgirls is nothing of the sort. It is plain cowardice.

10:21 AM, February 26, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Basically the MSM endorses free speech for those they agree with, but is 'skeptical' or such claims by those they disagree with.

As Jim Kuypers has observed, the US media is effectively anti-democratic. When you get to specifics they, as a body, will always betray principle to advantage their favored outcome.

10:59 AM, February 26, 2007  
Blogger Serr8d said...

Well, Anonymous 10:21, your comment certainly fits your own bill of 'cowardice', given your own anonymity. Also see 'hypocrisy'.

There was an excellent open forum on the very subject of Internet Privacy right vs. privlelges on Protein Wisdom over the weekend. Given Jeff Goldstein's well-documented internet issues, the forum has drawn some interesting commentary.

8:43 PM, February 26, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

serr8d is anonymous too.

8:16 AM, February 27, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

serr8d & steve skubinna-

I wasn't badmouthing anyone in particular or claiming I was "policing" anyone.

If you two have the guts to communicate with someone directly when you have a problem with them -good. Then what I said doesn't apply to you.

10:30 AM, February 27, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"[F]reedom of speech is always worth defending no matter whether we are offended by it or not." Indeed, as an individual's right to bear firearms is worth defending.

The NRA serves a useful function under the First Amendment. Not everyone is blessed with the combination of brains and balls that it takes to go about one's business unarmed. The NRA should not be muzzled in its advocacy of the rights of those who are deficient in either aspect (or both).

11:43 AM, February 27, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, sometimes the anons post a thoughtful post and I respond. Other times the anon just trolls and I go get a drink of water and move on.

It is for Lent.


2:58 PM, February 27, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What an egregious comparison! As a psychologist you no doubt know that many people are naturally gay, so the question is, how bad was it for Washington to criticize people with characteristics that they were born with.

Gun ownership is quite different. Opponents have the right to try and repeal the 2nd amendment. Similarly, there are reasonable discussions about exactly what rights to arms we should have even among people who support the 2nd amendment: assault rifles? flamethrowers? tanks? thermonuclear weapons? You simply have to draw the line somewhere.

It's hard to think that the author isn't simply looking to promote her belief, rather than making a genuine inquiry.

5:22 PM, February 27, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...

Anonymous 5:22:

As a psychologist, I should know that people are "naturally gay" and this means they cannot be criticized? Thirty years ago, my profession diagnosed homosexuality as a disease, so forgive me if I don't follow along with the party line 100% of the time. Your argument is weak, pedophiles and racism have been considered to be genetic by some, should we never criticize those who express these traits? But this is all beside the point. My post is on the media giving a pass to those who criticize gun owners and applauding when a guy like Washington is basically told to head to a treatment center to hold on to his job. This is absurd and smacks of Stalinism. But the MSM is too busy pushing its socialist agenda in regards to what speech is acceptable to notice--it should concern all of us. And frankly, you could use a logic class.

6:05 AM, February 28, 2007  
Blogger lawyerdad said...

The root question here is whether or not we should consider it legitimate to criticize the individuals/groups in question. Is it okay to criticize people who advocate the use of military-style assault weapons for hunting? Of course: it's a political issue, and we can have a logical discourse about it.

But is it okay to criticize people for being homosexual? That depends on your view of the issue. If homosexuality comes from "nurture," then criticism is legitimate; you can argue about whether or not homosexuality is a bad thing, and then about how to eliminate homosexuality, etc--the same way the vast majority of people would argue about pedophilia and racism. (The vast majority of scholars consider pedophilia and racism functions of social development, and the minority who disagree only consider genetics to be one of many factors.)

However, if homosexuality is based on genetics, then criticism of people for being homosexual is inappropriate, even if you consider it to be a "flaw." (Nobody would defend the actions of someone who made slurs against someone with a developmental disorder.)

So Anonymous 5:22's argument makes logical sense; he simply has different assumptions than you do. Insofar as you can lump the mainstream media into one group, "they" have the same assumptions. Shouldn't you be attacking the MSM for having those assumptions, rather than accusing them of a "Stalinist" witchhunt?

11:22 AM, February 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Homophobia is bigotry, whereas an educated opinion about assault rifles is just that. It *is* egregious to complain that the MSM treats one differently than the other.

4:24 PM, February 28, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...

Anonymous 4:24:

Yes, it's just an "educated opinion" to liken gun owners to terrorists. Your choice of what defines bigotry is laughable. And sending Washington to the Gulag for treatment *is* egregious.

6:12 PM, February 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Plainly Zumbo has an educated opinion about firearms! He's an authority. It seems silly to deny that even if you don't agree with him.

Homophobia is certainly bigotry. Hoplophobia -- the irrational fear of weapons -- is not, as the object of bigotry is persons. You might say that intolerance of, say, the NRA is bigotry, but that's an abuse of the word. More accurately, such a person hates guns.

I didn't say Washington should be sent to the Gulag (IMO he should speak his mind). My sole point is that you are comparing apples and oranges to prove that the MSM is biased against firearms and homophobes. I happen to believe that the MSM is biased in this way, incidentally.

7:40 PM, February 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see that the "nuclear weapon" strawman has been brought out as an excuse to ban nasty looking rifles.

There is a bit of a difference between WMDs and a militiaman's basic weapons.

You cannot even store a WMD without endangering your neighbors. The consequences of a negligent discharge could wipe out an entire city.

A militia rifle properly secured or used endangers no one else.

11:38 AM, March 06, 2007  
Blogger Serket said...

anonymous @ 5:22 pm said "Gun ownership is quite different. Opponents have the right to try and repeal the 2nd amendment."

This is outrageous that you would support altering the 2nd most important amendment. What other amendments would you dispose of? Perhaps you should move to a country with malleable laws.

2:13 PM, April 03, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

11:05 PM, May 19, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home