Jesse Lee Peterson is Not a Happy Camper

Right wing fringe figure Jesse Lee Peterson is highly agitated at the moment. He’s upset because he saw a man — GASP! — kiss another man on television. And because this is apparently going to destroy free speech and turn other men gay and cause dogs and cats to live together.

Millions of American families were caught off-guard by the disturbing televised image of black football player Michael Sam and his “boyfriend,” Vito Cammisano, mouth kissing after the St. Louis Rams drafted Sam. The liberal press is celebrating Sam for being the first openly gay player in the NFL.

The world has become one upside-down place! Christians are being slammed while homosexuals are being lifted up.

Yeah. That might be because Christians, unlike homosexuals, sponsor so much absurd, authoritarian and dangerous legislation. Just a thought.

In America today, good is mocked and evil is rewarded. People who speak out against the immorality in the culture are accused of being hateful and judgmental.

Yeah, that’s because they’re hateful and judgmental.

GLADD and other LGBT homosexual groups are using Michael Sam’s race and his sexuality to force black Americans and, by extension, all Americans to accept an abnormal lifestyle. This is not about tolerance or diversity – it’s an attack on masculinity and the traditional family.

Ah yes, the “traditional family.” It’s never been clear how treating gay people as human beings is an “attack” on the “traditional family,” and that is by design. That’s how dog whistles work, they don’t actually say anything but they signal others that the person uttering them is a member of the same tribe of bigots.

If you criticize Michael Sam or the LGBT movement, the gates of hell will open and evil will come after you.

For example, former Super Bowl champion Derrick Ward was viciously attacked after he tweeted, “I’m sorry but that Michael Sam is no bueno for doing that (mouth kissing his boyfriend) on national TV …” He added, “Man U got little kids looking at the draft. I can’t believe ESPN even allowed that to happen.”

OMG! Little kids might have seen that! And therefore…what? What would they learn, that gay people are human beings with equal rights? That gay people have people they care about just like straight people? Those things are true. Some Christians like to use the trite cliche that “we struggle not against flesh and blood.” They’re right. Their struggle is with reality. Always has been.

It’s not hateful for Dolphins player Don Jones to point out that Sam’s gay mouth kissing was “horrible”; it was spot on! The team’s overreaction is an attack on free speech, and it will have a chilling effect across the league. We expect this kind of assault on individual freedom in communist North Korea, not in the United States!

Yes! Communist North Korea! And Hitler! And Darth Vader? And that Pinhead guy from the Phantasm movies! And Freddie Kruger! And that guy who tried to molest Arnold on Different Strokes! And you’ll pardon me if I don’t take seriously the protestations about freedom from a guy who wants to deny women the right to vote.

"The Law of Unintended Consequences, aka, The Oops Factor.Always, always account for the Oops Factor. ..."

Roy Moore Goes Down in Flames
"Flipping a bird at the future when the left-handed people would be allowed to pour ..."

Wingnut: Statue of Liberty a ‘Pagan ..."
"I'm picturing it in a white bed sheet, wearing a hood, and holding that Bible ..."

Wingnut: Statue of Liberty a ‘Pagan ..."
"Hispanic is considered white, when contrasted with Martin's High Dermal Melanin Density, at least as ..."

Dinesh D’Souza and the Downfall of ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • eric

    I’m actually somewhat ambivalent about the league fining the Dolphin’s player. Yes, they are a private employer. But I dislike it when private university Duke goes after one of its students for making porn movies. I dislike it when private or public schools fire teachers for extra-curricular jobs or activities they don’t like. And in all three cases the same basic logic is used – you aren’t the role model we want of our employees/members, your actions reflect on our image, so we’re going to punish you for that.

    I’m also aware of the parallels between this and Sterling, as well as Eich. In my mind those are quantitatively different, however, because those folks were much higher up on their respective corporate totem poles. The role model argument (IMO) carries a bit more weight when you’re talking about a senior official vs. a standard grunt worker. But Don Jones (the Dolphins player) is not a senior official, he’s very analogous to a regular school teacher or Duke student. Corporations should not be fining and punishing rank and file employees for their extra-curricular activities when those activities have little or nothing to do with the corporation’s business.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    Two things jump out at me. First, “black football player Michael Sam” makes me wonder what the colour of Sam’s skin has to do with anything. Second, “mouth kissing” is a very odd term, especially when it gets repeated.

  • Mr.Diby StillCertainlyObjects

    It’s not right to shove this down our throats. Parents have the right to raise their children with morals, and it’s just not right that the popular culture is forcing this on our children. People can’t even watch TV with their children. We have to tape everything in advance to make sure the children are not exposed to that perversion.

  • zippythepinhead

    It was so disturbing, he couldn’t look away.

  • daved

    And that Pinhead guy from the Phantasm movies!

    Pinhead is from the Hellraiser movies.

    And @1, Duke didn’t’ go after the student who did porn; she said the administration has been supportive. It’s the other students who make her life hell.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    Parents have the right to raise their children with morals

    Diby, my morals state that there is nothing wrong with two men or two women kissing, and that trying to make them hide their love in shame is immoral. So please tell me why you think your morals get to win out over mine.

    Bonus points: Your morals drive young gay people to suicide. My morals have less devastating deaths involved. Explain why your morals are better.

  • Mr.Diby StillCertainlyObjects

    The LGBTQILMNOPXYZ campaign is driving young people to suicide. They brainwash the young people into thinking we hate them.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Wow, Mr.Diby – you know about a lot more different kinds of kink than I do!

    Could you please explain them to us?

  • http://timgueguen.blogspot.com timgueguen

    Diby, no one needs to be brainwashed to see you and folks like you hate gay people. And why? Because of a couple of passages in the Bible, one of which is part of a long list of laws that Christians have decided don’t apply to them. Yet strangely they hold on to the supposed prohibition against gay people. Then there’s the story of Lot, who apparently thought it was okay for people to rape his engaged daughters instead of a couple of men.

  • Taz

    Mr.Diby StillCertainlyObjects –

    1. ESPN shows the NFL draft

    2. They often have cameras on hopefuls waiting to see if they’re drafted

    3. These hopefuls often kiss their significant others when they get the good news

    At what point was a wrong committed, and how would prevent it in the future?

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    At what point was a wrong committed

    The point where young men were drafted into a sport that will leave many of them with serious concussion-related health problems for the rest of their lives?

  • dogmeat

    I’m actually somewhat ambivalent about the league fining the Dolphin’s player. Yes, they are a private employer.

    Odds are good they had a behavioral component to his contract which means, to a certain degree, he agreed to his punishment in advance.

  • pocketnerd

    Somebody has to explain to me how a gay football player is an “attack on masculinity.” Fide Wikipedia, Michael Sam is 6’2″ and 261 pounds. In the traditional “Who Can Kick Whose Ass?” test of manhood between Michael Sam and Jesse Lee Peterson, I know which way I’d bet. Or maybe that doesn’t count because he’s not the right kind of “masculine”?

  • gshelley

    So, I understand why they put marriage in scare quotes, but boyfriend? Is he somehow trying to imply that Cammisano is not a real boyfriend?

  • Taz

    I think I just got whiplash from the change of topic.

  • John Pieret

    It’s not right to shove this down our throats.

    OK, it’s clear that Diby is just trolling.

    Parents have the right to raise their children with morals, and it’s just not right that the popular culture is forcing this on our children.

    Since Diby is just echoing what some religious right wingnuts are saying, I’ll just point out that they have no compunction with using the government to force their religion on children. Be that as it may, they can raise their children with whatever “morals” they want (including to hate whoever they want) but they don’t have the right to control popular culture.

  • marcus

    Dear Friends, Please don’t try to teach the Diby-shit to think. It wastes your time and it only encourages the troll.

    (PZ has already banned this dumbass twice in the last few days.)

  • comfychair

    The good pious Christians don’t really hate gay people, not all on their own, it’s God that hates gay people, and, well, they gotta follow the Big Guy’s rules, that’s all. Besides, rounding up all the minorities and nonconformists into camps would only be for their own good, some of them might come to see the error of their ways and repent and be rewarded with everlasting life in Candy Mountain.

  • pocketnerd

    Assuming Diby isn’t a false-flag troll (it’s possible he doesn’t care about homosexuality at all, and is just saying whatever will provoke a reaction) he’s yet another data point suggesting the true goal of the religious right isn’t same-sex marriage or gay characters on sitcoms. If seeing a man kiss a man is “shoving this down our throats” and “forcing this on our children,” then what the fundagelicals are arguing for is complete erasure — they want queers not to exist (or at least to be so deeply closeted most people never see one).

  • http://tonythompsonjr%40facebook.com Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Tabby Lavalamp:

    Two things jump out at me. First, “black football player Michael Sam” makes me wonder what the colour of Sam’s skin has to do with anything. Second, “mouth kissing” is a very odd term, especially when it gets repeated.

    Agreed on both points.

    When I first read the term “mouth kissing”, I was struck by how bizarre it was.

    As for mentioning Sam’s race…this is a wingnut we’re talking about.

    ****

    Diby:

    It’s not right to shove this down our throats.

    It was a kiss. No one is harmed by watching two people kiss.

    Parents have the right to raise their children with morals,

    You’re right and I hope that more parents will teach their children that there is nothing immoral about homosexuality. There is no moral (or immoral) component to homosexuality any more than there is to heterosexuality or bisexuality. When taken to mean “codes of conduct put forth by our society”, morality guides our actions in relation to others. Avoidance and prevention of harm to others is a core component in morality. The sexual orientation of an individual does not adversely affect that individual or others (the perception by some that a particular sexual orientation causes harm to others has yet to be proven).

    Furthermore, the bible does not provide an internally consistent code of conduct aimed at avoiding and/or preventing harm to others. The bible has been used as a justification for both enslaving other humans and giving charitably to those in need. In addition, biblical rules such as not working on the sabbath, not wearing clothing with mixed fibers, or not eating shellfish lack justification for why these things should not be done. Theocratic minded people such as you think it’s enough to say “god has prohibited this action, therefore we cannot do it”. That may work for you (though I doubt it, as I don’t know any theist who follows all the rules of their religion), but not everyone belongs to your religion. Some people are Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu. Some people are pagan. Some are Scientologists. Some people are agnostic, others are atheists. In the United States, we are [ostensibly] a secular nation. The US government may not show a preference for one religion over another (nor should they; as an atheist, I don’t want to be forced to follow the arbitray rules of your vile deity). Thus, when devising laws to govern our conduct, the government is not permitted [in theory] to use any religion as justification for said laws.

    and it’s just not right that the popular culture is forcing this on our children.

    This “argument” is so tired. Many children have no problem understanding that some people are attracted to members of the same sex. Seeing two men kiss is not going to cause harm to children (if you’re going to assert that it does, you need to provide evidence of such; I know that’s not forthcoming as you’ve provided no evidence for any of your beliefs). The problem lies with bigots like yourself who are unable to comprehend that homosexuality is not harmful, nor is it immoral.

    People can’t even watch TV with their children. We have to tape everything in advance to make sure the children are not exposed to that perversion.

    Many parents have no issue with their children seeing two men kiss. It’s a non issue for a great many families, so don’t presume to speak for other parents. That you have an issue with two men kissing speaks to problems you need to address with yourself.

    BTW, I invite you to fuck off. My attraction to men is not ‘perversion’. Nor is it anything that I have control over (and I wouldn’t change even if I could).

  • http://tonythompsonjr%40facebook.com Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Diby the bigot:

    The LGBTQILMNOPXYZ campaign is driving young people to suicide. They brainwash the young people into thinking we hate them.

    Citation please. If this is true {everyone other than this asshole-believe me, I know it’s not true}, you should have no problem supporting this statement with evidence.

    BTW, when you refer to homosexuality as a perversion, that’s hatred. Your religion has twisted your understanding of emotions like hate and love.

  • Synfandel

    “Mr.Diby StillCertainlyObjects” has yet to make anything even vaguely resembling an attempt at an argument. He’s just trolling with contrary assertions. I suggest we give him exactly the amount of attention he deserves until such time as he genuinely joins the conversation.

  • Mr.Diby StillCertainlyObjects
  • dugglebogey

    First thing: Dude, you are obsessed with the term “mouth kissing” (the rest of us call that kissing)….screams latent homosexuality.

    Second, I have never heard a “christian” be “slammed” (this guy is so gay) for just being a christian. I only hear them get redressed when they do or say something hateful and bigoted.

    Third: if it disturbs you so much to see two men kissing, the problem is with you. See a shrink, he’ll help you come out of the closet. Case closed.

  • Mr.Diby StillCertainlyObjects

    The good ‘ole, “if you speak out against the homosexual perversion, then you are homosexual” trick. It’s strange that you think you’re insulting someone by calling them gay.

  • dingojack

    “… the disturbing televised image of black football player Michael Sam and his “boyfriend,” Vito Cammisano, mouth kissing after the St. Louis Rams drafted Sam.”

    Lucky they weren’t felching.

    @@

    Dingo

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    Does that sound hateful to you?

    “I think you’re broken and your life is a lie, but I’ll cover it with talk of love love love.”

    Chocolate covered shit is still just a mouthful of feces once you take a bite.

  • comfychair
  • comfychair

    How long before we get the ‘the bible is true because it says so in the bible!’ argument?

  • http://www.etsy.com/shop/LDORIGINALS Dalillama, Schmott Guy

    Mr Dipshit

    If what’s on the TV upsets you that much, there’s a very simple solution:turn the damn thing off and go do something else with your time.

  • http://florilegia.wordpress.com Ibis3, Let’s burn some bridges

    @1 By spouting off with his bigotry, the Dolphins player is contributing to a hostile work environment for his fellow players and team staff, and he should rightly have been disciplined for it. That’s not the same as a teacher being disciplined for something legal they did on their own personal time (for example).

  • dingojack

    Dill-by – [POINTS] Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

    [wIPES TEARS OF MIRTH FROM EYES, POINTS] Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

    Dingo

  • John Pieret

    Does that sound hateful to you?

    Yeah, pretty much:

    We have two paths: marriage or celibacy. When Jesus talks about Godly alternatives to marriage, he does not mention “fooling around,” cohabitation, or faithful and loving same-sex partnerships. He mentions celibacy, “eunuchs.” Celibacy is not a curse, but a blessing.

    Good ol’ Catholics! But of course, the really hateful part is that the Catholic Church is trying hard to keep non-Catholic gay people from getting married. It’s one thing to foist such nonsense on people of their own faith, but it is downright evil to deny others the right to choose their own path.

  • http://giliellthinkingaloud.blogspot.com/ Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-

    OMG! Little kids might have seen that! And therefore…what?

    That’s why I don’t let the kids watch TV (not a statement of fact). I make sure they see two men kissing in meatspace!

    And to this day they have never even asked about why their uncle and godfather have boyfriends.

  • robnyny

    I wonder why he wrote “black football player.” What could be the reason for that?

  • arakasi

    I never realized that Alan Turing killed himself because the GBLT community convinced him that the straight community hated him. All this time, I figured that it was because he was convicted of homosexuality in court, prevented from continuing his work for the British government and was chemically castrated in lieu of imprisonment. Thanks, Diby, for setting me straight.

  • John Pieret

    I wonder why he wrote “black football player.” What could be the reason for that?

    I know why he didn’t write “white boyfriend” … just too blatant.

  • frog

    I wasn’t confused by “mouth kissing.” I read that as a synonym for “romantic kissing,” as contrasted with a filial kiss. I can picture a proud father kissing his NFL-drafted son on the cheek, and certainly there are many cultures (of white people, even!) where men sometime kiss on the cheeks in a “manly” way.

    But since bigots don’t want to admit that gay men might have actual romantic feelings for each other, they can’t say “romantic kissing.”

    Golly, what would they have done had tongues been involved?

  • D. C. Sessions

    But of course, the really hateful part is that the Catholic Church is trying hard to keep non-Catholic gay people from getting married.

    Take it easy. This whole “consent” thing is new to them. Their original business plan was to get the Emperor to sign on and then everyone in the land was instantly Catholic, POOF!

    That’s still their preferred approach: get the Legislature to make their doctrine law and never mind the proles.

  • http://tonythompsonjr%40facebook.com Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Synfandel:

    “Mr.Diby StillCertainlyObjects” has yet to make anything even vaguely resembling an attempt at an argument. He’s just trolling with contrary assertions. I suggest we give him exactly the amount of attention he deserves until such time as he genuinely joins the conversation

    Diby (not sure what hir gender is) has yet to show any interest in having a genuine conversation, so that may be a loooooooong time.

    Personally, I think xe deserves to be mocked, criticized, and ostracized.

    ****

    Diby:

    Does that sound hateful to you?

    Your link could show christians showering queers with love and compassion and it still wouldn’t change the fact that many religious believers–YOURSELF INCLUDED–are hateful douchebags who support efforts that deny full equality (read: the same human rights as everyone else, including the right to marry) for queers. Thankfully the numbers of religious believers supporting INequality has been dropping, but there are still people like you who have no problem with queers being treated as less than human (which is what happens when you deny our fundamental rights). That you do not explicitly state “I hate queers” does not change how you view and treat LGBTQI individuals.

    You would deny me the right to marry based on *your* religious beliefs. You seek to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else and you do NOT have that right. I do not believe in your deity. Even if it did exist, I would not worship such a horrible being. I refuse to sit back and be forced to follow the dictates of *your* religion you theocratic thug.

    ****

    dugglebogy:

    Third: if it disturbs you so much to see two men kissing, the problem is with you. See a shrink, he’ll help you come out of the closet. Case closed.

    I don’t think you mean anything hurtful here, but the above implies that homophobic individuals are battling internalized homophobia rather than just being homophobic assholes. That may be the case for a small number of high profile individuals, but is there proof that it applies to other homophobes? Is Michelle Bachmann secretly lesbian? Does Rick Santorum take it up the ass? None of us knows enough about these people (and internet armchair psychological evaluations hold no merit) to reach the conclusion that they’re secretly homosexual. What we do know is that their words and deeds mark them as homophobic.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    IT IS BAD!!! JUST AWFUL!!! HOMOSEXUALS HAVE RUINED FOOTBALL!!! I CANT EVEN WATCH A GAME NOW STARING AT THE SLO-MO AT ALL THOSE GIANT MEN IN SHOULDERPADS AND SPANDEX PANTS PILING ON EACH OTHER OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITHOUT BEING REMINDED ABOUT HOW GAY THAT ONE GAY MAN HAS MADE THIS MOST MASCULINE AND HETEROSEXUAL OF SPORTS!!!

  • Pen

    It’s not right to shove this down our throats. Parents have the right to raise their children with morals, and it’s just not right that the popular culture is forcing this on our children. People can’t even watch TV with their children. We have to tape everything in advance to make sure the children are not exposed to that perversion.

    Well so do all the rest of us. It worries me that my daughter might turn on the tv and be confronted with off-putting and irresponsible spectacle of grown adults wasting time and money (usually other people’s) and achieving nothing whatsoever because they’ve taken a break to invoke the aid of sky fairies (known to them as public prayer). I don’t find it cute or inspiring (adjectives I’m prepared to apply to Michael Sam’s kiss, at a pinch). I find it nauseating and really quite disturbing. I don’t like to have to explain to my child that there are adults in this world who are totally out of touch with reality and don’t even care. And not just a few of them, either. I try to teach her that it’s important to seek evidence for all our positions and to judge our actions by their effectiveness. This kind of stuff may confuse her. It may entice her away from the path of responsible and effective engagement with it’s bewitching ease and the intoxicating aura of social status apparently accorded to it.

    Or maybe not… but still, it really is hard to teach her to treat the religious with a modicum of respect when they’re constantly heard screeching like banshees at other people.

  • spamamander, internet amphibian

    A bit late to the party, but my children had absolutely no issue with understanding that their Aunts loved each other and lived together as spouses. They DID have an issue understanding why some people would hate them or condemn them for being together. And now that my oldest has a girlfriend, her siblings are just fine with it, even as they both seem to lean towards the hetero side of the spectrum. Funny how that works, when you raise them with morals- the kind of morals that teach them love is a good thing.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    Mr. Diby:

    Do you mind if I just call you “d.b.” for short? Yes? too bad, fuck you.

    Hey, you know what’s really disturbing is that AFTER the draft is over and the people all leave the ballroom and go back to their hotel rooms there is prolly some serious cocksucking and buttfucking going on–and a lot of it is likely to involve white, Christian heterosexual women. Just sayin’, my bro’ in KKKrist.

  • http://Reallyawakeguy.blogspot.com somnus

    I never saw the original broadcast, but to hear the religious right ranting about the “lustful display,” I was half expecting they had some kind of deep tongue makeout session on national television. So I finally decided to google the video and see what horrifically pornographic display had been thrust onto our poor, unsuspecting straight eyes.

    And… Seriously?! That’s what the hullabaloo is about?! Sam kissed his boyfriend three times in the video. None of the kisses lasted more than a second, and there was nothing of lust in them whatsoever. It was exactly the way I would expect a couple to kiss in a moment of heightened emotion (like,say, learning that one of them had just achieved one of their greatest dreams). Any man kissing a woman like that even on a Saturday morning kids’ show wouldn’t have elicited the slightest of comments, and would certainly never have been accused of making a “lustful display.”

    It seems that some people just refuse to comprehend that gay couples just might have the same range of emotions between them that straight couple do.

  • John Pieret

    D.C Sessions @ 39:

    Their original business plan was to get the Emperor to sign on and then everyone in the land was instantly Catholic, POOF!

    Not to mention that those who weren’t (the right sort of ) Catholics went POOF in a puff or two of smoke.

  • dingojack

    And what did Jesus say about eunuchs?

    For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

    Matthew 19:12.

    That’s it.

    Dingo

  • Nick Gotts

    There’s been some discussion at Pharyngula of whether loathsome bigot Mr. Diby StillCertainlyObjects is also loathsome bigot jonathangray, aka Piltdown Man. I’d be inclined to think not, but for the reference to Hilaire Belloc in Diby’s nym. Belloc, a highly disputatious Catholic, wrote a series of articles attacking H.G. Wells’s Outline of History, which included attacks on the theory of evolution by natural selection, and asserted that “Man is a fixed type”, i.e., our species is not the result of gradual evolution. Wells responded in a book: Mr. Belloc Objects to “The Outline of History”, and Belloc in turn responded with Mr. Belloc Still Objects. One of the points on which Belloc turned out to be right and Wells wrong was Wells’s (tentative) acceptance of Piltdown Man as representing a genuine early human species. It seems an unlikely coincidence that two unrelated Catholic ultra-bigots should happen to choose nyms relating to such an obscure episode.

  • Nick Gotts

    Tony! The FuckingQueer Shoop!@40,

    Unfortunately more than one commenter here appears completely unable to grasp that blaming all extreme manifestations of homophobia on closeted gays is itself homophobic, in effect if not intent. Maybe they will take note that it gives homophobes a valid rhetorical point (Mr. Diby@25).

  • http://giliellthinkingaloud.blogspot.com/ Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-

    spammander

    A bit late to the party, but my children had absolutely no issue with understanding that their Aunts loved each other and lived together as spouses.

    THIS!

    They have also taken to play mother-mother-child, because there’s no need to argue about who’s going to play mum when there can be two of them!

  • bargearse

    Dill-by – [POINTS] Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

    [wIPES TEARS OF MIRTH FROM EYES, POINTS] Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

    Dingo

    Sure it’s funny the first time but if you’re feeling especially self-loathing go check out the thunderdome thread at pharyngula. Trust me, Diby’s schtick gets a lot less funny after 600+ comments, I don’t know how some commenters didn’t have an aneurism.

  • eric

    @5 – thanks for the correction. Even without that example, however, I still don’t like the ‘you’re not a role model’ corporate excuse for punishing extra-curricular speech.

    @12 – I don’t care, I still don’t like it. It still has the net result of reducing free speech. You’re talking about a kid choosing between earning millions/year vs. whatever job he can get with a mediocre B.A. degree. That is an extremely coercive environment in terms of speech limitations in a contract. True, the constitution doesn’t prevent you signing away your free speech for the promise of big income, but when the difference is between likely poverty and likely prosperity, that IMO is just as much a forced giving-up of your free speech right as it would be if there was a police or other federal official standing over you with a baseball bat, watching what you say. The vast, vast majority of US citizens work *for* someone else. They are not self-employed. And I think our world becomes much more restricted and less free when those employers start deciding that giving up your right to talk freely about non-work issues will be a condition of employment.

    @31 – He tweeted “OMG” and “Horrible” in his off hours. That’s what he did. Are you seriously claiming that creates a hostile work environment? Before answering, please consider: do you think YOU should be fined or censored for publicly opining to your friends, after work, that something a co-worker did was “horrible?” If you say here that Christianity is horrible, and it gets back to your office, do you think that qualifies you for a fine and means you created a hostile workplace?

  • whirligig

    On television–daytime, regular people television–I once saw people literally shoving shellfish down their throats and therefore figuratively shoving shellfish down mine! I don’t understand why God doesn’t put a stop to that kind of abomination, but He’s right not to (unless He decides to stop it, in which case that will have been right, of course).

  • dingojack

    Bargeass (It’s still warm!) – pointing & laughing at the risible arguments of (really piss-poor) trolls, lowers the blood pressure I find.

    Eric – so you’re OK with bullying other employees, just as long as it’s off-premises cyber-bullying. Got it.

    Where do you work again? (I want to avoid that institution/business, and to tell others to avoid them too, unless they find the normalisation of bullying behaviour acceptable).

    Dingo

    ——–

    PS Tony &etc., nope it’s never, ever happened that an virulently anti-gay preacher (for example) has been caught snorting cocaine and having anal sex with a gay rent-boy in a public toilet*, oh no never! Such things are completely implausible, because there’s absolute no pattern of this kind of thing happening before, none.. @@

    *anal sex with a rent boy – meh, if that’s your thing, fine. Cocaine – not good (lots of people in between get hurt/killed). Sex in a public toilet – get a room, I don’t come into your bedroom and shit on your pillow. Hypocrisy – sorry but that’s gonna get a smack-down that’ll leave a mark.

    It’s such a shame you can’t tell the difference between criticising homosexuality and hypocrisy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=523300770 stuartsmith

    To be fair, I’m sure the religious right were equally shocked and outraged when the first man/woman kiss was shown on television. They probably talked about the lewdness being a bad influence on ‘the children’ back then as well.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “To be fair, I’m sure the religious right were equally shocked and outraged when the first man/woman kiss was shown on television.”

    No doubt that is the reason behind their continuing lead in the demographics for downloading porn*. They need to keep current! Check out the photo of the Mormon Tabernacle’s Organ, in the linked article.

    * http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20090302_utah_shows_big_love_for_porn#below

  • Kermit Sansoo

    Mr.Diby StillCertainlyObjects: Does that sound hateful to you?

    .

    Yes, actually. “What you are – someone attracted to the same gender – is inherently wrong. You should never, ever, have a life with a loving partner or you are bad.” Yes, this is hateful, actually.

    .

    The good ‘ole, “if you speak out against the homosexual perversion, then you are homosexual” trick. It’s strange that you think you’re insulting someone by calling them gay.

    .

    Oddly enough, I agree with you here.

    .

    But to expand on this: if a person is raised to be a homophobe and is also gay, then that person lives a life of self-denial, self-hatred, and/or fear. These kind of comments are not usually so much an accusation that gay is bad so much as an accusation that such behavior is necessarily an expression of being gay while raised in an oppressive atmosphere. No, it’s not. People can learn to be hateful this way with being gay. They will very likely be on the lookout for any signs of it in themselves. Religious homophobes usually seem to believe that one can choose to be gay or not. (Hint: it’s not a choice.) Sad to think of all the men who refused to follow their inclinations to write poetry, or garden, or play the flute because it isn’t manly enough.

  • eric

    Dingo:

    Eric – so you’re OK with bullying other employees, just as long as it’s off-premises cyber-bullying. Got it.

    I do not think a single word negative opinion about another employees’ conduct necessarily amounts to bullying. if there’s a history of other conduct behind it, maybe yes. But without that, no I do not think we should define ‘bullying’ so broadly that it basically sweeps in any negative opinion – no matter how minor and terse – of another co-worker’s conduct.

    I’ll ask you the same question I asked Ibis3. If you call some conduct ‘horrible’ on this site, and it gets back to your work, should you be fined, punished, and accused of bullying because of it?

  • dingojack

    Eric – imagine you’re a woman. You’re at a trade show and so chat to a large number of people. A couple comes up to you and starts chatting in a friendly manner, you take a vague interest in them because, as a middle aged couple, they’re perhaps a little older than one would expect for this kind of trade show. Later that evening, just as you are packing up your pitch, they turn up again and, without a word, hand you a card which you absent-mindedly take. It’s only when you realise it’s an invitation with a rather explicit nude photo of them that you realise something is wrong. Apart from them there’s no one else around and your car is parked way on the other side of a very dark car-park.

    How would you feel?

    Sometimes it’s not intent, but effect that is the key.

    Dingo

  • Crimson Clupeidae

    I’m sure this Peterson chap was at least as outraged about what catholic priests are doing to young children, right?

  • eric

    How would you feel?

    I feel that you are dodging my question. You answer mine first, then I’ll answer yours. If you call some conduct ‘horrible’ on this site, and it gets back to your work, should you be fined, punished, and accused of bullying because of it?

  • scienceavenger

    It’s only when you realise it’s an invitation with a rather explicit nude photo of them that you realise something is wrong.

    What’s wrong? Nudity? The invitation?

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    ” feel that you are dodging my question. You answer mine first, then I’ll answer yours. If you call some conduct ‘horrible’ on this site, and it gets back to your work, should you be fined, punished, and accused of bullying because of it?”

    Imagine you’re working for a football team that just went through a fucking shitstorm of bad press, NFL investifucking and allathatshit LESS than six months ago and, on 2/14/14 issued the NFL issued their final report, which included this:

    ” We ultimately concluded that Martin was indeed harassed by Incognito, who can fairly be described as the main instigator.”

    The report continued,

    “With the recent announcement by Michael Sam, a defensive lineman from the University of Missouri who is expected to be selected in the 2014 NFL draft, that he is gay, it is even more urgent that a tolerant atmosphere exist throughout the league. The frequent use of homophobic insults undermines this goal.”

    I suspect that the Dolphin’s front office spent more than five minutes letting EVERYBODY who has anything to do with coaching or playing on team know, in fairly concrete terms that there would be a zero tolerance policy–or, they didn’t and realized immediately this latest incident that they should have.

    I can assure you that when I worked for Verizon as a lowly union clerk that ANY conduct in or out of the office that could be construed to be discriminatory was liable to be investigated and could lead to disciplinary actions including termination.

  • eric

    I suspect that the Dolphin’s front office spent more than five minutes letting EVERYBODY who has anything to do with coaching or playing on team know, in fairly concrete terms that there would be a zero tolerance policy–or, they didn’t and realized immediately this latest incident that they should have.

    Maybe they did, but I don’t think you’re getting my point – I don’t like those sorts of policies. I think they are inimical to free speech. The proper response when one employee is harassing another is to stop harassment, not slam down the doors on all opinion whatsoever. I see that sort of response as analogous to suspending a 13-year-old for playing hangman in class because the administration decides to have a no-tolerance policy towards violence, and the hangman doodle is violent (this happened 2 days ago). Its overreaction in the name of security and/or getting along. And I think the Dolphin’s front office’s reaction is also overreaction.

    I can assure you that when I worked for Verizon as a lowly union clerk that ANY conduct in or out of the office that could be construed to be discriminatory was liable to be investigated and could lead to disciplinary actions including termination.

    I believe you. And I think Verizon’s policies (or at least the way you describe them) are part of the problem, not an example of a good solution. Verizon should not be firing union clerks for expressing anti-gay bigotry off the job, so long as they do their job in an unbigoted manner. Unless you think its perfectly fine for them to fire you for expressing pro-SSM opinions off the job too. Do you? Because that’s two sides of the same coin. You can tell me that you think both firings are ethical and reasonable, or that you think both are not ethical and not reasonable, but its just hypocritical to think firing people for expresing an opinion (off the job) you don’t like is ethical but firing someone for expressing an opinion you like is terrible and unethical. So pick: ‘both okay’ or ‘both not okay.’ I pick the latter.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “I don’t like those sorts of policies.”

    I don’t either, so I don’t work for the Dolphins or Verizon. When I worked for Verizon I didn’t like them but I HAD to comply with them as an item of employee conduct as CLEARLY OUTLINED in the employees’ conduct handbook.

    “The proper response when one employee is harassing another is to stop harassment, not slam down the doors on all opinion whatsoever”.

    He’s entitled to hold his opinion, he’s allowed to state his opinion. If his stating that opinion violates rules laid down by his employer re: harassment or discrimination (or anything else, for that matter) that they may, as a matter of law, require him to do or not do, as a condition of employment than his first amendment rights are protected and they’re limited to taking disciplinary actions that are a legal remedy under contract law. They cannot silence him,. they can silence him in the workplace.

    It doesn’t make any fucking difference WHAT I think about the ethics in play. Verizon and the Miami Dolphins are NOT the gummint. What they are doing is NOT illegal. When it becomes illegal they will stop doing it or risk penalties.

    FWIW, I think the guy’s a fucking idiot who can’t keep his mouth shut–I wouldn’t fire him, for what he said, if he worked for me. I would require that he apologize, publicly, to the party/parties he offended and if he refused, THEN, I’d fire him. My company, my rules. Your company, your rules.

  • The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge

    I don’t think diby sursch is Pilty/jonathangray. To begin with he’s considerably less articulate. I’m afraid the “Still Objects” part is my fault. After he switched from quoting G.K. Chesterton to quoting Hilaire Belloc, I linked to H.G. Wells’ takedown of Belloc in Mr. Belloc Objects to “The Outline of History”.

    Hey, diby: You were only banned from Pharyngula—you can use your original ‘nym here.

  • dingojack

    I love Welll’s descriotion of Stawmanning:

    “With what is evidently the dexterity of an expert controversialist and with an impressiveness all his own, he seems to look over and under and round the man he knows, and sketches in the man he proposes to deal with, his limitations, his pitiful limitations, the characteristics, the disagreeable characteristics, that disfigure him.”

    Did he ‘invent’ the internet I wonder?

    Dingo

  • dingojack

    Sigh, pressed ‘send’ too soon.

    That first line should read: “I love Well’s description of Stawmanning”.

    😮 Dingo

  • dingojack

    Before he could even set about syndicating this Companion to the Outline of History he had to incite a partisan receptivity in the Catholic readers to whom he appeals, by declaring that a violent hatred for their Church is the guiding motive of my life. He had to ignore a considerable array of facts to do that, and he has ignored them with great courage and steadfastness. He had to arouse an indifferent Catholic public to a sense of urgent danger by imposing this figure of a base, inveterate, and yet finally contemptible enemy upon it. His is a greater task than mere dragon-slaying. He had to create the dragon before he could become the champion.”

    Gosh that sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it?

    Dingo

  • dingojack

    He produces first certain remarkable a priori arguments—his “three a priori arguments.” The first is beautifully absurd. It is difficult to believe it is advanced in anything but a spirit of burlesque. He says that an advantage is not an advantage. He says that an advantage does not give an advantage unless it is combined with other advantages. You will think I am misrepresenting him. Then please read this:—

    “(1) The advantageous differences making for survival are not of one kind in any particular case, but of an indefinitely large number (e.g. climate getting colder needs not only warmer coat, but power to digest new food, protective colouring so as not to show dark against snow, etc., an indefinitely large number of qualities). Now the chance of all being combined (and co-ordinated) in a single individual, without design, accidentally let alone of their thus appearing in many individuals accidentally and without design approximates to zero.” “

    Irreducible Complexity?

    Mr Ham, meet Mr Belloc….

    😀 Dingo

  • dingojack

    The last one promise. I like this turn of phrase:

    What is going on in this dispute is not that I am beating and putting over my ideas upon Mr. Belloc or that he is beating and putting over his ideas upon me, but that the immense increase of light and knowledge during the past century is imposing a new realisation of the quality and depth and import of life upon us both, and that I am acquiescent and he is recalcitrant. I judge his faith by the new history, and he judges the new history by his faith.

    Very nicely put.

    Dingo