The Descent of Dissent–Demanding Homogeneity Amongst Diversity

wwf_perez_hilton_bodyslamPhoto by greggoconnell

The Perez Hilton Diatribe as a Broader Dissent Strategy

To sum up the last few days of the Perez Hilton/Carrie Prejean same-sex marriage episode is to sum up the entire tone of the “debate” on same sex marriage since before the APA was overrun with political activism in the 1970’s.

I believe (heartfelt personal conviction).

Oh yeah?  Well you’re just a (personal attack, personal attack) and a no good (personal attack).

If you can’t debate them, decimate them, right?  And so we see the popular blood letting that whips up emotion and demagogues the opposition rather than engages in thoughtful, respectful debate.

Do you have to agree in order to be polite?  Carrie Prejean didn’t, and yet she, on a short moment’s notice came up with a simple, yet infinitely more intellectual response than Hilton’s, and clearly stated, there was no offense intended.  As for Hilton?  Offense most certainly intended.  Hilton’s body slam opinions on Prejean’s personal character or attributes have nothing to do with the subject, yet in the World Wrestling Federation type Oprah analysis, he came off at least equal in all too many minds.perez_hilton_homogenization_strategy

And the vindictive crowd goes wild!  Another emotional blood letting, another emotional victory.  And without wasting a single needless neuron.

At the heart of this spectacle is the idea that dissent is not allowed.  If you don’t agree, no holds will be barred in your public destruction.  Ring any bells with the tea party “terrorist” categorizations made earlier last week?

Who is it that decides that all choices are equal?  all cultures are equal?  all religions are equal, all sexuality is equal?

Isn’t that what it boils down to?  Equality for everyone!  There is no wrong, no right, there is no good, no bad, only equality.  If you’re against equality, you’re (personal attack, personal attack) and a no good (personal attack).

Interesting isn’t it?  No one is allowed to question, no one is allowed any degree of dissent, or they risk falling under the homogenization machine which demands total equality, regardless of the worth of those decisions.

Everything is about equality, except, of course, unless you are talking about people.  That’s the dirty little trick in all of this.  People are not allowed to be equal, because with direct personal warfare and personal attacks, the strategy is, agree with me, or you may be worth less as a person.  Personal worth is the first casualty and what is at stake in this mode of thinking.

Are you afraid of others who may denigrate your personal worth?  People like Perez Hilton are counting on it.  They’d love it if we could be cowed into forgetting the fact that Carrie Prejean is as valuable as Perez Hilton, regardless of their opinions.

People are equal, choices aren’t.

Any child can tell you, that there are consequences to choices.  Some are better than others.  That’s a fact of life.  How did that get lost in the search for “equality”?

—Beetle Blogger



  1. Robert said,

    April 21, 2009 at 3:21 pm

    “Let me let the cat out of the bag for those who miss Mrs. Gallagher’s overall point.

    Support for SSM has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do staying in a loving and monogamous relationship. It has everything to do with the ability to SUE anyone who doesn’t show the proper respect.

    I’m old enough to remember Andrew Sullivan getting spat on and assaulted for first suggesting gay marriage – BY LESBIAN AND GAY GROUPS! They claimed that the whole thing was an attempt to “normalize” gay relationships. “Coerced monogamy” was one phrase that stuck with me.

    Since then, the gay political class has changed its tune. They realized that SSM would NOT actually mean societal pressure to fewer partners (one partner?), but it would mean a new legal stick to whack churches, Boy Scout troops, dating services and anyone else that reminds them they are not heterosexual.

    As a gay man, in a monogamous, loving relationship for over a decade, I don’t need the Iowa judges or even the Vermont legislature to give me their approval. I’m doing just fine, thanks. But, then again, read back through the shrill comments prior on this blog and look for a single instance of someone who’s actually looking to settle down… go on and look. I’ll wait. ;-)

    Be very afraid straights! We’re gunning for you and THIS time we brought our lawyers. “

    This is a comment on the dallas news interview with Maggie Gallagher. BTW THIS IS NOT ME, but provides a very interesting point.

  2. Euripides said,

    April 21, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    One of the reasons Perez Hilton can do this sort of thing with impunity, is the fact that the rights of the individual have been subsumed to the rights of the group. Gay activists feel their group identification is far more worthy than the mere rights of anyone who may disagree with them. It’s time we stop the gay activists from derailing the gains of the civil rights movement and turning the whole thing into an identity political joke.

  3. beetlebabee said,

    April 21, 2009 at 4:00 pm

    Interesting comment you found there Robert. It’s right on.

  4. beetlebabee said,

    April 21, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    Euripides, I think you’re right. I’m still learning the ropes on identity politics, but it’s incredible to me the amount of hate and garbage that spews out of these activists and it’s all supposed to be swept under the rug because they’re a protected class, they’re wounded, persecuted, so they’re justified. Can’t we all be against wounding and persecution? We’re not “gays” and “straights”, we’re people. We’re brothers and sisters, we’re all struggling in our own way against our own foibles. Even Miss CA I’m sure has her struggles. Who is Perez Hilton to tear her down?

    The thing I am just amazed by the most is that we just went through all this “Day of Silence” anti bullying charade, and here, hours later, comes Mr. Hilton with his diatribe and does exactly to someone else, what this group claims to be against for themselves. They just gave total authenticity to the groups rejecting the Day of Silence as gay propaganda.

    Respect is not a one way street, tolerance of ideas is not a one way street. It goes both ways. If Day of Silence meant anti bullying, this expletive laced personal attack wouldn’t have happened, and it wouldn’t have been cheered by the gay “rights” movement.

  5. Pearl said,

    April 21, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    Those who demand to be classified as victims often believe that whatever emerges from their mouths is justified by their victim status, no matter how offensive or hypocritical it is.

    Thanks for posting this, Beetle. This is so spot on and so simply stated that it’s hard to believe that anyone could have any doubts about the ambiguity and hypocrisy in this situation.

  6. { Lisa } said,

    April 21, 2009 at 5:59 pm

    What I found funny about his little tirade was that he said that presidential candidates can pick a side but that she really had no right to (I am writing in my own words here) yet he is the genius that asked her the question that required her to take one side or another!! Hello little man, what you meant to say was that she had no right to go against what you believe!!

  7. beetlebabee said,

    April 21, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    Lisa, that reminds me of the people that say if you’re not part of a certain group you can’t comment on the decisions they make, because you haven’t “been there”. It’s just another way of discounting what someone has to say, short cutting the logic to get to the desired end, which is no opposition.

  8. { Lisa } said,

    April 21, 2009 at 6:23 pm

    Yes exactly. What I am wondering is, when is someone, anyone, in a place of “power” going to stand up and say something! Why isn’t someone pointing out the hypocracy in what they say and do? The bible was right when it said that people would call good evil, and evil good.

  9. beetlebabee said,

    April 21, 2009 at 8:28 pm

    I think “someone” is, it’s just not the someones we want, which would be the mainstream media. You know most of them haven’t even covered Hilton’s comments? They don’t because they don’t have to. They have their own agendas, and holding people to truth isn’t part of that.

  10. Chairm said,

    April 21, 2009 at 10:47 pm

    BB’s comment illustrated Euripedes point about identity politics.

    Suppose a different contestant had been asked the same question.

    The young lady gives an answer in support of SSM.

    Rather than boos and jeers, the SSMers in the crowd would have lept to their feets and given her a standing ovation. Jeers and boos from those who’d disagree with her? Nah. Almost certainly, no.

    But hang on. What if the young lady answered in oppositon to SSM?

    But what if she was a lesbian? Could she give such an answer or would she feel obliged to adhere to the politics of identity?

    Well, given that surveys and participation rates indicate a very low interest in entering SSM where it is registered with the government, and given that there are sound religious beliefs and secular reasoning that would backup opposition to SSM, is it not plausible that such a young woman might give an answer very like the one given in by Carrie Prejean?

    Ah, I bet it seems almost unimagniable, right? How could a lesbian publicly oppose SSM?

    Imagine the sort of response that would have gotten from Hilton.

    Indeed, if she was not “out” one might more easily imagine the pressure of someone among the gay activists to make sure she was “outed” for the good of the cause.

    Now, I’m not saying that this will ever happen in America. It might but I make no predictions on that score.

    But surely there would be quite a stink. On one hand a lesbian contestant would be a “trailblazer” for the new civil rights movement, right? She’d be owned by the group, however, and if she dissented she’d be treated far more harshly than Carrie Prejean has been.

    If she did the politically correct thing instead, well, her courage and brilliance would be sung to the heavens.

    That’s how the double-edge sword of identity politics works. It worked that way with racist identity politics and our country should know better than to let something like it rise again.

    The contrast with the professed purpose of the pro-gay stunt in public schools is unmistakable. The stunt was intolerant and it was aimed at a more or less captive audience. Hilton’s stunt has been smoothed over by the newsmedia BECAUSE it is assumed that Americans are increasingly a captive audience.

    * * * *

    I invite others here to describe another scenario in which a persons who belongs to (i.e. is owned by) an aggressive form of identity politics also is on that stage and asked a similair question.

    What if she had been an African American, for example, who voiced dissent? You get the idea.

  11. Chairm said,

    April 21, 2009 at 10:54 pm

    I don’t want to leave the impression that identity politics is always harmful. But using identity to trump everything else, that’s the aggressiveness which leads to harms pretty quickly. And it becomes very difficult to reverse. Gay identity politics is today a headlong rush to brinksmanship.

  12. Pat said,

    April 22, 2009 at 6:02 am

    Interesting side note to the whole thing. President Obama on gay marriage during the campaign:

  13. Fitz said,

    April 22, 2009 at 12:18 pm

    On a pure P.R. standpoint this was a clear win for marriage. The beauty queen was caught in a “gotcha” moment by a vile self promoting jerk. The whole country got a taste of how things will be if this (ss”m”) is allowed to move forward. Bill Oreilly had a prominent gay marriage activist on his show talking about this. The guy, like most activists was such a absolutist that he said she shouldn’t even be allowed to win the contest with an opinion like that. Its worth a post on our site.

  14. Chairm said,

    April 22, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    BB’s reposting of Rich Wyler’s remarks illustrate the influence of identity politics on “ex-gay” people or people who aspire to reorientating their lives toward a principles they hold higher than the identity group that presumes to “own” these people as subjects of identity politics.

    Of course, these folks are not subjects of a group, they are citizens of a free society. And yet for pointing that out (as did Carrie Prejean in her off-the-cuff remarks) and for living by their aspirational ideals, individuals like Rich Wyler are subjected to verbal abuse and brutish political intimidation.

    Doesn’t work on most people, usually, but it can be very draining and so the tactics of relentless attack and zero tolerance works to induce issue fatigue. That may “silence” many people but it doesn’t convince anyone.

  15. beetlebabee said,

    April 22, 2009 at 2:15 pm

    Fitz, I have to agree with you there, it has turned into one of those iconic moments that define the militant activist gay movement. It’s going to be one of those images like the violent demonstrations after prop 8, the graffiti plastered on temple walls amidst chants of “Burn it down”, the little old lady getting mobbed by angry protesters and assaulted, the group of teenagers sexually harassed in the Castro District, the H8 Maps and the boycotts of El Coyote, Leatherby’s and more. The carefully crafted image they promote is a thin veil.

  16. April 23, 2009 at 11:43 am

    I’m sure that the demonstrations after Prop 8 would’ve been quite civil if it had banned straight marriages…

  17. Chairm said,

    April 23, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    Modusoperandi, Prop 8 did not ban gay union. The man-woman criterion of marriage in the marriage law did not ban gay union.

    Indeed, the marriage amendment constitutionalized what society has long affirmed — continuously — long before there was such a thing as “gay” identity which is a very recent construct.

    But Prop 8 advocates did say, in oral arugment before the CA Supreme Court, that they’d be okay with abolishing marital status.

    On the other hand, despite the various steps taken by the SSM campaign to impose a localized merger on Californians, there have been no comparable mass protests, reprisal campaigns, vengeance-seeking, and public bullying of a Miss America contestant.

    The balance is not in favor of your comment, Modusoperandi, which amounts to another false equivalence of the pr-SSM propaganda machine.

  18. April 23, 2009 at 9:59 pm

    It didn’t ban gay union, but it did ban gay marriage. It didn’t ban civil union (which, incidentally, is being fought every bit as hard in other states that don’t yet have it), but it did say that their relationship, which aside from either an extra Y or one less Y, is the same as ours, isn’t good enough.
    The Miss America thing is weird. On the one hand I’m both surprised that there are still Pageants and that they’ve fallen enough that some blogger twit qualifies as a judge, but on the other I’m surprised that a girl in a bikini on a stage is talking about biblical values while a homosexual is a judge.
    History is not in your favour, Chairm. It is coming. In some places, indeed, in some countries, it’s here. The worst thing that gay marriage results in is gay divorce. I’d have more respect for Prop 8 and DOMA, and the folks behind them, if they’d pluck the log from their eye (60% divorce rate) before criticizing the splinter in the eye of an unpopular minority.

  19. Chairm said,

    April 29, 2009 at 7:00 pm

    It did not ban “gay marriage”.

    Before the amendment, was there a gay requirement when two men showed up for a license? Nope.

    If anti-8ers are to be believed, the localized merger of domestic partnership and marital status was a merger in all but name. They still publicly called domestic partnership, marriage. Indeed, the gay people referred to their gay marriages. And still do.

    The amendment did not ban “gay marriage”, not in fact and not in name.

    It affirmed marriage, good ole marriage, as the union of husband and wife, with no need to add an asteriks to clarify that it is NOT “gay marriage”.

    The amendment did not say that this or that was “not good enough”. It re-affirmed what has always been the core meaning of marriage in California.

    The historical and the anthropological records are indeed in favor of what I have said.

    What surprises you about bikinis? Suppose she wore jeans and t-shirt, would that make the content ofher opinion a surprise for you? Come on you sound very uptight for a supporter of SSM.

    The marriage movement was making needed progress on all kinds of marriage related issues, including divorce, but then SSM was pushed to the top of the agenda and sucked all the oxygen out of the room.

    The impsition of SSM would lock-in the divorce trends. It has not stalled nor reversed those trends anyplace it has been imposed under whatever name it has been given.

    Modusoperandi, you have been to the future and back already, I guess. Your predictions are a little too convenient, to say the least.

    As we saw in California, we have election campaigns for a reason. And although the abuse of judicial review can push SSM onto an unwilling society, it cannot make it stick all on its ownio.

    What unpopular minority, by the way? Please be specific.

    Do you mean polygamists? Or adults who’d like to marry relatives? Or some other clearly identifiable group who has been singled-out by the marriage laws?

    Surely you do not mean a “sexual orientation” minority. There is no such sexual orientation requirement in the man-woman marriage law. Neither in the text, the principle, nor the effect of the marriage amendment.

    You know it is not there. So perhaps you rely on gay identity politics to conjure it up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: