Ridicule vs. Inequality

Owldolatrous has a really good post about tolerance and perspective in the Gay Rights debate especially in light of folks being conservative Christians who feel they get ridiculed for being for “traditional marriage” while not, outright, hating gays.: · Aesop to the Right: Why I Believe Bristol Palin. In my opinion, like the race debate, this stems from a privilege the Majority has and its difficulty understanding that privilege when we’re all taught that everything should (and is!) equal.

Some choice quotes:

The answer you must normally get from LGBT supporters like me—and it’s an answer that I normally give—is that trying to get our equality is not the same as trying to silence you. Tolerance is a two-way street and it doesn’t work if you’re passing laws that block one whole lane…

 

But it’s important for you to recognize that there is a vast difference between facing ridicule or even occasional civic rejection, and facing systematic social and political inequality. There is a vast difference between being told you’re superstitious or old-fashioned and being told you’re an abomination that doesn’t deserve to live. There’s a vast difference between being told you’re acting hateful and being told God hates you.

 

 

More on POC in TV

Good article over at Gawker relating the show Girls I posted about earlier. My fave bits:

It’s a failing of contemporary American culture that if there’s ever a discussion about adding a black character to a show, people immediately think that means a slang-spitting, wise-cracking stereotype. They assume the person asking for diversity is asking for the show’s creator to change the entire dynamic of the program. Instead, what’s more often happening is that the person interested in diversity is simply asking for the show’s creator to understand that black people can and do do everything white people do, usually making a character’s race irrelevant.

And:

When he won the Pulitzer this year for criticism, the Boston Globe‘s Wesley Morris owed part of his victory to his writing about the Fast and Furious film series. Though the Fast movies are almost universally mocked as obnoxious pieces of shit, Morris calls them “incredibly important” for their depictions of race. “[U]nlike most movies that feature actors of different races, the mixing is neither superficial nor topical,” Morris wrote of Fast Five. “It has been increasingly thorough as the series goes on—and mostly unacknowledged. That this should seem so strange, so rare, merely underscores how far Hollywood has drifted from the rest of culture.”

I’ve also noticed this about the Fast series and glad it got a mentioned here. My Masters thesis was on the depiction of Asian Americans in American film and televisions so this issues is obviously close to me and I’m glad to see if getting some traction by the media…

Good thing there’s no “activist judges” in SCOTUS

Arizona, Immigration, and the Supreme Court: A Dispatch from Foxnewsistan

So Roberts, Scalia et. al., are reviewing Arizona’s SB1070 anti-immigration law and have immediately declared that racial profiling, which is at the very least implicitly encouraged by the law, off the table for arguments. Not to mention the dismissal of the Fed being the sole enforcer for immigration law apparently. This is very dangerous reasoning. No matter your politics on this issue, granting one state the right to enforce or otherwise interpret federal law opens the door for any state to freely interpret and cherry-pick laws it chooses to accept and enforce. This already happened during the Articles of Confederation days and was deemed by the Framers to be ineffective.

Granted, California is one state that has chosen not to enforce marijuana laws in favor of medical marijuana, but that situation is different in that it’s more of a protest against federal law and besides it’s not actually the State’s duty to uphold federal laws pertaining to controlled substances and/or international affairs (immigration).

I could go on, but for right now I’m very nervous about these activist judges claiming to be upholding what the Framers wanted and instead totally going against them to further their personal politics and biases. Not to mention the Arizona law is phrased in such a way to promote and encourage racial profiling with goes against other federal anti-discrimination laws. This whole thing is fucked up.