Sounds to me like you're not really interested in a public dialogue; sounds like you want a witch hunt. Are you angry at him? How about frustrated?
Yes. I'm angry because he's a bigot and frustrated because he's relentlessly insulting and won't engage in a rational discussion about it. He calls me a fag on a regular basis and constantly reminds me that he supports government discrimination that would impact me, often bringing up the subject himself out of the blue and then getting hypocritically annoyed if I actually try to talk about it.
And trying to get specific people in public positions to be open and transparent about where they stand with regards to subjects of relevance to their position(s) is hardly a witch hunt. Is that what you call it when reporters ask politicians probing questions to get at the truth while the politician dodges any position of substance and gives safe ambiguous answers full of happy buzz words?
Looks like he responded to your very general question.
Are you referring to calling an end to government discrimination "affirmative action" and saying he doesn't support AA?
You have not responded to him.
Are you referring to his accusation that I support affirmative action? I've never, to my knowledge, expressed support for anything remotely akin to AA. I don't know how to explain how ending discrimination by the government is not AA other than to say to learn your definitions of words. It seems to me that the comparison is erroneous and he needs to explain how he comes to such an absurd conclusion. Otherwise, can you quote exactly what you're referring to where I've not responded to him because I'm sincerely baffled. I wrote an entire article debunking his cover story for supporting government discrimination.
One of the biggest reasons for the policy is because we get angry racist-types that show up and it makes the whole project look bad. For some reason--don't know why--the media makes this idiotic leap from "the FSP wants liberty activists in one state" to "Oh, well they must be racists." Obviously, that doesn't make a damned bit of sense. But when you have Stormfront-types showing up, it doesn't like good.
The word "racism" is there in the same sentence in the FAQ about what's unwelcome in the FSP. That covers the Stormfront crowd. Is that the only form of bigotry that the FSP cares about, and if so, why add "bigotry"? Why aren't you worried about Fred Phelps types? We do get those around here too, in case you haven't noticed. Oh, but when that subject comes up, FSP spokespeople start throwing around "big tent" and other buzz words.
The point is that people in the Project should play well with others. Fortunately, most FSP types are quite tolerant and peaceful, so this isn't normally an issue. it's just when intolerant people show up and start making a mess of things.
That sounds like empty rhetoric to me. Actions vs. words. I will admit that I don't play well with others when they're bigots. Normally I just avoid them. That's what I'll start doing with Keith, I s'pose.
He's already expressed that he would support having the Loving decision rolled back because it was an expansion of government (and raised his taxes)
And did he go on to say that interracial marriages should be illegal?
Yes. He wants all marriages to be illegal (an end to
"government marriage") and he has expressed that discrimination by the government with regards to which marriages it recognizes as valid is an acceptable form of incremental progress toward that goal. I quoted him and he hasn't denied that the quote came from him, even though he changed his answer because he didn't think the general public would get it and therefore would be upset by his answer. Keith... Ya think so?
How would you feel if you were black, and this person in the FSP made a point at EVERY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY to remind you that they don't support the government acknowledging inter-racial marriages as valid and when you tried to get them to rationally defend their support for a policy of government discrimination, said "Why does this issue matter to you? It's so trivial and unimportant. Why do you dwell on this subject so much? It's not a big deal if people are racist. The FSP is just a bus anyway."?
I would not try to change his mind. I cannot do that. If he had a serious problem, first, I would listen. What is his problem?
I've stopped trying to change his mind too. I have listened. Oh... have I listened, far longer than I should have. I have theories about what his problem is, but I won't say it here because I don't feel it adds to the conversation. But I presume you mean a problem with regard to his involvement in the FSP. I would say his problem is not sharing certain goals of the FSP and having stated as much such as "bigotry is not a big deal", but if you can't change his mind, maybe teach him to keep his bigotry to himself, especially around the people he has decided to arbitrarily take issue with.
See, my friends may call me "fag" occasionally and I laugh with them, because it's so obviously in jest. My friends are mostly liberty-lovers who want me treated as an equal. Keith is not my friend. I suggest you convince him that he's a face of the FSP in my presence and many others and he should conduct himself accordingly, i.e. in a professional manner.
Author
Topic: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry? (Read 36195 times)