Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kutulu
I think it is necessary for the gay community to out closeted gay politicians that choose to align with republicans and seek out anti-gay policies. I also think that straight people should not get involved with these disputes within the gay community (ie outing of a closeted gay is ok if done by other gays, not ok if done by straight people).
|
Because it's only okay for gay people to resort to such childish and disgusting tactics as 'valid' responses to opposition. I could possibly see relevance if the sexual orientation of anti-gay policy proponents had any bearing on the validity of the policy. It doesn't. Hypocrisy, if it is present in a given situation, only indicates inconsistency and not which part of the inconsistency should be trashed. It's not relevant, and bringing it up can only serve as a way to hurt someone you disagree with. Bring it up if it has any bearing on their job or their adherence to law. (Out of curiosity, what'd you think of the whole Clinton/Lewinsky episode?)
Quote:
|
Taking this back to the issue of 'oreos,' many Black leaders see the Republicans as being an enemy to black americans. If they choose to attack him for what they percieve as being a 'traitor to their kind' and call him an oreo, then that is their fight. White democrats should stay out of it.
|
Nonsense. White democrats are just as capable of debating the validity of such charges. They can look at policies and decide whether they necessarily entail an anti-black agenda. And HINT, not all consequences resulting from public policy are intended.
Quote:
|
Deciding not to stay out and not condemn does not equal agreement with a tactic.
|
No. But it does equal condoning.