| Oh, but OF COURSE Sully opposes LGBT hate crimes legislation |
[Oct. 28th, 2009|11:13 pm] |
The most fascinating thing about Andrew "Bell Curve" Sullivan - besides his tendency to embody within himself and his warped, destructive career everything wrong with the American media, in spite of not being American himself - is how, as if driven by a compulsion, he must try to pis off the gay rights movement at least once a year. I suppose a therapist would say that Sully is possessed by a profound, fundamental self-loathing, in which case who can blame him?
Thanks to ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) justincognito, I found this gem, which I couldn't help but polish off:
"No More Matthew Shephards." That's HuffPo's headline for the hate crimes amendment to the Defense Appropriation bill. It's absurd.
It is absurd...if you take it as anything but the sort of rhetorical hyperbole common to political journalism, a field that, to be fair, Sully has little if any knowledge about (to quote Homer, "In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic!"). I think it's more accurate to say it's absurd to treat such a heading as some kind of definitive statement that can be responded to empirically. Well, absurd, dishonest, either or both work.
Does anyone seriously believe that a hate crimes federal law will actually prevent gay bashing? How exactly?
Yes, it's not like there are actual arguments used by the opposition that can be addressed here. In Sully's world, Twitter can single-handedly topple the regime in Iran, but Google can't be used to find information on the opposing side on any given issue. To be fair, though, Sully doesn't have much time to actually indulge in many debates in his blog. Judging from all the posts that are nothing but wholesale quotations and links, Sully obviously isn't able to spend too much effort on blogging. Also it isn't like he's paid for...[Actually, the blog is part of his job. - Ed.] Really? [Yes! - Ed.] Oy.
Of course, why actually make an honest, detailed assessment and rebuttal of a position when you can just pick on a four-word heading? I'm sure it's a prime example from the Sullivan Playbook of Lazy Debating, right next to the section about how you can get away with trying to make eugenics a fad again.
What it will do is allow for extra federal penalties for anyone found guilty of such an attack if its victim was selected by anti-gay bias and if local authorities refuse to prosecute.
Funny how responding so literally to obvious hyperbole can only make you sound like a dick.
Now recall that Matthew Shepard's murderers were given the harshest sentence allowed under the law (a hate crime provision would have added nothing) and that sentence was passed down in the absence of any hate crime law in Wyoming. So this bill has zero actual relevance to the Shepard case: in fact, the Shepard case is really salient in showing why hate crimes laws are unnecessary.
Seriously, does Sully just keep Megan McArdle around because she's one of the few halfway respectable online pundits who make him look like a competent political commentator by comparison?
I mean, the gall and deliberate ignorance in that one little paragraph floors me. No, it can't possibly be that there's any deeper motive driving supporters of hate crime legislation or that they're thinking not of individual victims but the group in question or that weird little matter of mens rea in criminal law, it's all about punishing gay bashers extra hard and nothing else.
Obviously I'm not thrilled that Sully opposes hate crimes legislation for the LGBT community, and to be completely frank I find it downright disgusting that this kind of attitude comes from a prominent member of the gay community. That said, I am perfectly willing to accept that there are perfectly sound arguments against hate crimes legislation that aren't built on cues taken from a "South Park" episode, even though I would still most emphatically disagree. But it's not Sully's position here that grinds my gears, it's how he expresses it: "Let me treat the title of an article like an actual coherent defense of the bill and its proponents' motives." Christ, just firing off a flippant "Every crime is a hate crime!" and leaving it at that would have been more intellectually rigorous. Let me consult that copy of the Sullivan Playbook of Lazy Debating, which I have suddenly and miraculously retrieved. Just as I suspected, the very first point is, "Your opponent's position has no reality outside of your own mind." I knew it!
And never forget he does this, in a blog associated with a once respected publication, and is not only paid for it but remains a respected media figure (oh, Glenn Greenwald, what are you thinking?! Queer solidarity can only go so far, you know.)
Anyway, let's hold our noses and dive back in.
But, again, the proof of the pudding: Let's see what results this amendment gets within six months, and every six months thereafter.
Or, you know, we could see the results from the dozens of other hate crime laws that have been passed over the years. After all, there are lots of books and articles and things. (I know it's pointless to point this kind of thing out; we are, after all, dealing with the man who apparently believed that George W. Bush had no gay rights record before he became President, as if he was never the governor of a state or something.)
Meanwhile, have some great cocktails at the White House, guys. Get a souvenir.
How appropriate that Sully would react to what a large number of members of his community are touting as a victory with bitchy disdain. We already know you feel nothing but contempt for your fellow gay men; no need to keep reminding us, Sully! |
|
|