The Boycott of Target

[MagGnome]

Many of you may not know this, but Target Corporation is based out of Minneapolis, Minnesota. I used to live and work near their corporate headquarters downtown, and they are a big player in the Twin Cities. Target Center is where the NBA Timberwolves play and hosts many big concerts, and Target Field is the new Twins' stadium. There are over 35 Target stores in the Twin Cities metro, and they have corporate buildings scattered around the Cities.

Target recently donated $150,000 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/28/tom-emmer-anti-gay-pol-ge_n_662535.html) to a group called MN Forward, that, among other things, supports the candidacy of Tom Emmers, who is running for governor of Minnesota in this year's election. This ignited a firestorm in the gay rights community and other liberal circles, and many groups have been calling for a boycott of the chain. Protests have taken place at Twin Cities' Target locations, employees at Target HQ began asking questions, and groups have sprung up all over Twitter and Facebook in favor of a boycott.

The CEO of Target apologized (http://www.startribune.com/local/100051999.html) in an e-mail to employees, but this hasn't been enough for many people angered by the donation. The cry for a boycott seems to be swelling, and in-store protests have taken place, including this one that I find frankly embarrassing to watch:

9FhMMmqzbD8

I'm all for sticking it to the man, but this seems entirely misplaced to me. Target donated to the group because they support laws that favor tax breaks and the like for businesses in Minnesota, not because of the group's connection to anti-gay and worker's rights candidate Tom Emmers. Why not focus this energy on something that will cause a real change, instead of lashing out at a company that quite frankly has been pretty good to the gay community over the years? Many of my friends are extremely upset and have stopped shopping at Target over this, yet most of them don't bat an eye at the mention of any other pressing social issues.

I don't know if this will generate much interest on COG, but I figured I would bring it up and see what you guys think.

[Generation ABXY]

Embarrassing, yep... that sums it up pretty good, in my opinion.

[pomeroy]

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w53/pomeroy_bucket/tumblr_kyby7pa0J81qzxzwwo1_500.gif

[Hawkzombie]

Ok, once she started singing I just stopped.

I'm with you Mags. This is just stupid. Also, worst protest ever.

Five bucks says once the dislikes get more than the likes, they'll disable rating and comments on the video.

[MagGnome]

I have some friends who are very involved in these protests, and I've all but stopped talking to them. They didn't like me trying to point out how ridiculous this whole thing is.

[Vigil80]

Should we start watching for pictures of umbrella wielding hipsters at People of Wal-Mart? I mean, where is there left to shop if you boycott Target? :p

This is stupid and misplaced. So, right in line with projections for most protests.

Personally, I'd start shopping at Targets in the area just to see if I'd catch a spontaneous sideshow musical number.

[KamaItachi]

Strokes of protestors at G20 summits who go on about abolishing poverty by destroying public property.

Hey assholes, setting up protest lines and making some minimum wage schmucko's day infinitely harder doesn't endear me to your fucking plight.

[MagGnome]

Should we start watching for pictures of umbrella wielding hipsters at People of Wal-Mart? I mean, where is there left to shop if you boycott Target? :p

This is stupid and misplaced. So, right in line with projections for most protests.

Personally, I'd start shopping at Targets in the area just to see if I'd catch a spontaneous sideshow musical number.

I know you were joking, but there are MANY other stores that sell the same kind of goods that Wal-Mart and Target do.

As for your last point, I've been to the Target they shot that at before several times (if I'm right about which one it is), and you can bet I'm hoping to see one of these protests in person.

I did a little shopping at Target the other day, and I was really tempted to update my Facebook status to something like "I found some great deals at Target!", but I didn't want to deal with the fallout. :D

[Vigil80]

I know you were joking, but there are MANY other stores that sell the same kind of goods that Wal-Mart and Target do.
Not so much in my area. I'd expect it to be different in Minneapolis, though. But yes, I was joking.

[Hawkzombie]

Strokes of protestors at G20 summits who go on about abolishing poverty by destroying public property.

Hey assholes, setting up protest lines and making some minimum wage schmucko's day infinitely harder doesn't endear me to your fucking plight.

As a minimum wage schmucko, I agree with this statement.

[Chris_D]

Yeah, I despise the destruction of public property in a protest. Who is that really hurting in the end? But then, I suspect it's usually just anarchists piggybacking on someone else's cause so they can go on a rampage and know they will almost be guaranteed not to get jail time.

[RandoM51]

What would Nietzsche do?

[Adam Blue]

Reminds me of the hackers that fucked with Ubi's servers to prove a point. It only hurt the ones legitimately playing the game.

[Chris_D]

I guess so, but in that case it was pointing out a significant weakness in the DRM system.

[Ox]

Remember, kids: democracy doesn't mean donating to an interest group that then endorses a political candidate. Democracy means trespassing and causing a public disturbance in violation of both civil and criminal law.

When the guy said the police were on their way, I actually cheered.

As a side note, it is interesting to me how LBGT rights have boiled down to a single issue now. I hope this trend continues. Perhaps one day we'll watch a Presidential debate where the moderator says, "Now we move on to civil rights, and Governor, this question's for you. Are you in favor of civil rights or against them?" We can follow that up with the foreign policy question and the economy question ("Bill, let me be completely clear: I am strongly in favor of the economy"), and we can wrap the whole thing up while I'm waiting for my Hot Pocket to be done.

[Kelegacy]

Reminds me of the hackers that fucked with Ubi's servers to prove a point. It only hurt the ones legitimately playing the game.

I was all for that. And a point they definitely proved.

When I shop at Target I don't get the icky feeling I have when I shop at Wal-Mart. Plus, Targets are like Ritz-Carltons compared to Wal-Mart. Whenever I shop Wal-Mart I get a broken cart with either a messed up wheel or some other component that makes me pushing it a hassle or pure labor, and Wal-Marts always feel dirty and dingy and depressing, and the people that shop there are the same (a stereotype that rings true more often than not).

Target, they have nice carts, a big wide open store that is clean and vibrant. Clearance prices are amazing whereas Wal-Mart sucks. In my experience Target is cheaper than Wal-Mart in many areas, though for some reason Wal-Mart gets the "deal" reputation. Better sales at Target, I think.

And Target gives what...3% of it's profits to charity each week/month or something? I don't hear much about Wal-Mart. Maybe they're not good at publicizing it.

[Doogie2K]

I did a little shopping at Target the other day, and I was really tempted to update my Facebook status to something like "I found some great deals at Target!", but I didn't want to deal with the fallout. :D

I'd do it; trolling your friends is infinitely more entertaining than trolling random assholes. ;)

Yeah, I despise the destruction of public property in a protest. Who is that really hurting in the end? But then, I suspect it's usually just anarchists piggybacking on someone else's cause so they can go on a rampage and know they will almost be guaranteed not to get jail time.

No, instead what happened is, everyone in downtown Toronto got arrested simply for being there for any reason, up to and including catching the bus.

[Ox]

Reminds me of when I had jury duty. One guy was asked about whether he had any problems with cops. "No man. The only thing I don't like is how you'll be standing on the street and they'll just stop you for no reason. For no reason at all, man, no reason at all. Dude totally couldn't have seen me."

[Drayven]

I know it's wrong to think this way but when I see a chick with hairy arm pits I automatically think she's just one of those people that protests everything for the sake of protesting.

[MagGnome]

Remember, kids: democracy doesn't mean donating to an interest group that then endorses a political candidate. Democracy means trespassing and causing a public disturbance in violation of both civil and criminal law.

When the guy said the police were on their way, I actually cheered.

As a side note, it is interesting to me how LBGT rights have boiled down to a single issue now. I hope this trend continues. Perhaps one day we'll watch a Presidential debate where the moderator says, "Now we move on to civil rights, and Governor, this question's for you. Are you in favor of civil rights or against them?" We can follow that up with the foreign policy question and the economy question ("Bill, let me be completely clear: I am strongly in favor of the economy"), and we can wrap the whole thing up while I'm waiting for my Hot Pocket to be done.

This may be the first time that you and I are in full agreement on an issue. Imagine that? :p

Really though, I think having the right to marry is important, but I understand what you are saying. It's not the only issue that matters, but you wouldn't know that from watching the national debate.


I'd do it; trolling your friends is infinitely more entertaining than trolling random assholes. ;)

They probably wouldn't be my friends anymore, although that might not be so bad in some cases.



The other thing about this that really gets me is that a lot of people calling for a boycott are saying that Target should make an equal $150,000 donation to the HRC (Human Rights Campaign), which I think is one of the most useless groups out there. The HRC takes in millions of dollars every year, and for what? All they do is throw lavish dinner parties for the elite and publish a list of the supposedly most-gay friendly companies each year. They are highly overrated, and there are a lot of gay-rights groups out there that actually do some good for real gay people. The HRC is a damn joke.

[iHap]

I don't think i could boycott Target personally. I know a couple of people who work at a Target and the money I spend there keeps their jobs. Living/Working here in SoCal > Orange County > Fullerton is hard because of the 2 colleges and the MANY people who need jobs to go to school. I try to support most of the business' around my area even the bigger corps no matter their mistakes. I don't think about how much money the company makes a year, i think about the actual people who work in the stores who are trying to keep their jobs and earn enough money to live life.

[Widgetcraft]

I was all for that. And a point they definitely proved.

When I shop at Target I don't get the icky feeling I have when I shop at Wal-Mart. Plus, Targets are like Ritz-Carltons compared to Wal-Mart. Whenever I shop Wal-Mart I get a broken cart with either a messed up wheel or some other component that makes me pushing it a hassle or pure labor, and Wal-Marts always feel dirty and dingy and depressing, and the people that shop there are the same (a stereotype that rings true more often than not).

Target, they have nice carts, a big wide open store that is clean and vibrant. Clearance prices are amazing whereas Wal-Mart sucks. In my experience Target is cheaper than Wal-Mart in many areas, though for some reason Wal-Mart gets the "deal" reputation. Better sales at Target, I think.

And Target gives what...3% of it's profits to charity each week/month or something? I don't hear much about Wal-Mart. Maybe they're not good at publicizing it.

It's all about management. I've been in relatively nice Wal-marts, and I've been in shit-holes. The same can be said for most chains. For example, a lot of people say that Wendy's is a really enjoyable fast food chain, while my experience with my local Wendy's is often far from pleasant.

[Krispy]

Reminds me of when I had jury duty. One guy was asked about whether he had any problems with cops. "No man. The only thing I don't like is how you'll be standing on the street and they'll just stop you for no reason. For no reason at all, man, no reason at all. Dude totally couldn't have seen me."

I can't read that without picturing Lawrence from Office Space speaking those lines.

WDgq-K2oYLo

[diablopath]

It's all about management. I've been in relatively nice Wal-marts, and I've been in shit-holes. The same can be said for most chains. For example, a lot of people say that Wendy's is a really enjoyable fast food chain, while my experience with my local Wendy's is often far from pleasant.

You live in Hazard though, don't you? Is anything in that city pleasant? I walked into a Giovanni's/Gas Station up on a hill to ask for directions, and I could just feel the residue of roaches swarming around in the walls.

I used to have a few friends that would do stupid protests. They even started one of those CopWatch things, this being their only video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsW2fPqs0wU). I hate the condescending attitude that these groups spew. "If you don't support us, then you support THIS EVIL THING."

There are intelligent ways to do these things, fellas.

[Hawkzombie]

Democracy is only working if everyone agrees with your beliefs.

[Ultima Thulian]

Boycotting Target in an attempt to promote the cause of LGBT rights is like yelling at a McDonald's cashier for not stocking McRibs all year long. It's both nearsighted and completely missing the wrong mark.

Bah, whatever. The public sucks anyway. Fuck them.

[ShivaX]

The upshot of the whole thing is that the whole concern about companies throwing money into campaigns has the upside of people actually knowing where that money is going. At least thats my understanding of the whole thing. Previously Target would've done this under the table as far as the public was concerned, though they'd have limits on what they could donate. Now they can donate whatever, but they have to publicly declare that they're doing it.

Or maybe I'm totally wrong.

Its interesting in that its showing how things are panning out as far as the SCOTUS decision, though this might not have been the right battle persay. Then again they are supporting a anti-gay dude. Not because hes anti-gay, but because they want tax breaks, but that doesn't change his stance on homosexuals.

[Widgetcraft]

You live in Hazard though, don't you? Is anything in that city pleasant?

No, no, no... I wish I lived in Hazard. I live in a shithole city an hour away from Hazard, and Hazard is where I go when I want to buy anything other than toilet paper. Actually, I've started going to Norton, because that is a much nicer place, but the fact remains that Hazard is way, way better than where I live.

Way.

Anyhow, the worst big store chains, in my experience, are K-mart and Toys'R'Us. I think that is mostly because Toys'R'Us stores tend to be ancient and have never been remodeled, while K-mart is still reeling from it's financial troubles. The only good TRU I've ever been in was their flagship store in New York, which is fuckawesome.

[MagGnome]

The upshot of the whole thing is that the whole concern about companies throwing money into campaigns has the upside of people actually knowing where that money is going. At least thats my understanding of the whole thing. Previously Target would've done this under the table as far as the public was concerned, though they'd have limits on what they could donate. Now they can donate whatever, but they have to publicly declare that they're doing it.

Or maybe I'm totally wrong.

Its interesting in that its showing how things are panning out as far as the SCOTUS decision, though this might not have been the right battle persay. Then again they are supporting a anti-gay dude. Not because hes anti-gay, but because they want tax breaks, but that doesn't change his stance on homosexuals.

I definitely agree with the overall sentiment of this post. I don't think that corporations should be able to donate unlimited funds to whatever campaign they want, but while they can I think it is good that people are watching them. I just don't think this particular donation deserves all of this fuss.

[Ox]

I don't think that corporations should be able to donate unlimited funds to whatever campaign they want
You know corporations can't donate directly to campaigns at all, right?

[MagGnome]

Isn't that what the Citizens United ruling said?

Perhaps I'm mistaken.

[Ox]

Yeah, yeah you are. I suggest reading the decision yourself to verify I'm right, then asking yourself, 'Who gave me misinformation about Citizens United? Should I trust that source in the future?'

[MagGnome]

Aren't the decisions really, really long?

I'm lazy.

I'm just stick with what I read on HuffPo, thanks. :D

[Drayven]

Read the bill? What good is that gonna do if it takes 2 hours and a team of lawyers.

[civil]

I stopped when she started singing. Someone please tell me that a few seconds afterward she got shot.

Please? Even if you say a minimum-wage-Mexican-worker did it, just confirm it for me.

[BigJonno]

I stopped when she started singing. Someone please tell me that a few seconds afterward she got shot.

Please? Even if you say a minimum-wage-Mexican-worker did it, just confirm it for me.

How did you know it was Zero? :D

[JayK47]

So annoying people will avoid Target making Target even more enjoyable? Sweet.

[bstiff]

I stopped when she started singing. Someone please tell me that a few seconds afterward she got shot.

Please? Even if you say a minimum-wage-Mexican-worker did it, just confirm it for me.

I watched the whole thing hoping to see them lead away in handcuffs after being arrested for trespassing.

[EternalGamer]

I actually don't care that much about the gay marriage issue, or at least I thought I didn't until recently.

However, the more I think about it, the more I think that in 2010 someone should not be able to get away with donating to a company that discriminates against gays in this way any more than they could get away with funding a candidate that supports the idea that inter-racial marriage should be illegal. It is the same kind of biggotry and it does and should overshadow the other political positions held by the candidate. Whether it is five bucks or five million, nobody would tolerate a big company that donated money to a blatant racist and they should tolerate one that donates money to a homophobe to any more of a degree.

I actually never thought I was one for identity politics, but people saying this is no big deal makes me upset specifically because I know that if you replaced "gay" in this story with any other minority group, everyone would agree that this govenatorial candidate's political career would be over and Target would be in a huge shit storm. It is no less offensive that he is against gay marriage to me than if he didn't think blacks should be allowed to marry.

Isn't that what the Citizens United ruling said?

Perhaps I'm mistaken.

They can donate unlimited to third party groups that run ads on politicians behalf, but not directly to the candidate. Essentially, for all practical purpose they might as well be allowed to donate directly to the politician, though since it amounts to the same thing with less transparency.

[EternalGamer]

This may be the first time that you and I are in full agreement on an issue. Imagine that? :p

Really though, I think having the right to marry is important, but I understand what you are saying. It's not the only issue that matters, but you wouldn't know that from watching the national debate

Movements need a focus. Just like the black civil rights movement and debate focused around ending segregation even though there were other issues concerning blacks.

And I don't know why protest and civil disobedience is honorable when it is against segregation, but when gays do it they are obnoxious thugs. These guys organized what I thought was a pretty clever, upbeat, non-violent protest. It wasn't an unruly angry mob, it didn't obstruct anyone from entering or buying stuff from the store, and it was short and to the point. Actually, I think it was a pretty pitch perfect example of how to conceptually practice civil disobediance, regardless of what you think of the actual song. I'm really not sure what your or Ox's problem is with it. Well, ok, let me rephrase that, I'm not sure what your problem is with it.

Alot of people who grew up in the civil rights era thought those protests were obnoxious and single minded too. Don't let the fact that you are very close to historical events blind you to their significance.

There are more important issues, no doubt, but this type of protest and the gay rights movement in general is on the right side of history.

[civil]

A friend (who is gay) and I were discussing this very same issue the other day (what issue could the GLBT community rally around that other movements had in the past). It's a difficult analogy, because (judging from people I've spoken with who were involved in civil rights issues in the 60s) nearly every black person (I hesitate to say all) was for ending segregation, while not every gay really cares about the marriage issue (such as my friend). Equal civil rights he's very much for, obviously, but so many specifics have been "portioned out" that he was feeling the issue was diluted in some respects.

He and his partner have been together for ten years or so, and they never wanted to marry so that may be why he doesn't feel as strongly about the issue as others. His concern was always partner benefits/rights, and much of that has been doled out but in increments, not wholesale.

He also hated that Target demonstration video. Mainly because he felt the people in it were a bunch of retards and he was embarrassed that they were supposed to be representing him and his interests. But also because, and I was laughing at this, they ruined a good Depeche Mode song. I have to agree.

[EternalGamer]

A friend (who is gay) and I were discussing this very same issue the other day (what issue could the GLBT community rally around that other movements had in the past). It's a difficult analogy, because (judging from people I've spoken with who were involved in civil rights issues in the 60s) nearly every black person (I hesitate to say all) was for ending segregation, while not every gay really cares about the marriage issue (such as my friend). Equal civil rights he's very much for, obviously, but so many specifics have been "portioned out" that he was feeling the issue was diluted in some respects.

He and his partner have been together for ten years or so, and they never wanted to marry so that may be why he doesn't feel as strongly about the issue as others. His concern was always partner benefits/rights, and much of that has been doled out but in increments, not wholesale.

He also hated that Target demonstration video. Mainly because he felt the people in it were a bunch of retards and he was embarrassed that they were supposed to be representing him and his interests. But also because, and I was laughing at this, they ruined a good Depeche Mode song. I have to agree.

Actually, there were a number of prominent blacks that were against ending segregation because they thought it wasn't the most important issue and that doing so would cause a backlash that would do more harm than good. One example that comes to my mind immediately is the famous writer Zora Neale Hurston.

I think a lot of this came from a sense of shame, some blacks, even some very prominent ones, didn't want to be seen as trouble makers or imposing upon the white community. They were too afraid of being rejected to stand up for themselves, and, honestly, I think subconsciously the same thing may be true for a lot of gays. As I said before, I never really believed in identity politics and used to even think gay pride parades were obnoxious and embarassing.

Furthermore, I personally have no interest in marriage either even though I have been with my partner for 9 years. But I still think the principle of the unequal treatment it represents is important. And I think it is equally important that I not convince myself that it is no big deal. I think 20 years from now, it will be clear to nearly everyone that it really was a big fucking deal. But history is sometimes too close for us to realize it while it happens.

[Serapth]

If you make a boogeyman out of the benign, you are right fucked when there is an actual boogeyman.


My version of the boy who cried wolf. Frankly people stop taking any activist serious once they start bitching about such trivial things. Its sorta like how so many people turned against the feminist movement in the 80s/90s when they started doing stupid shit like rallying against the word 'manhole' ( as in manhole cover ) as being bigoted.

Much along the lines that PETA probably does more harm than good for the animal rights causes. The majority of people fundamentally support their core tennets on their cause, but when you take it to zealous extremes, you lose that support damned fast.

[EternalGamer]

That is my point. It isnt benign. The issue is important. If you replaced "he doesn't think __________ should be allowed to marry" with any minority group other than gays, this candidate would not have a political career any more, and Target would be in even deeper trouble. The fact many people in society still hold the candidate's view does nothing to change this. There were many during the civil rights movement that thought the protesters were making a big deal out of nothing too.

Again, I personally have no interest in getting married. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize the bigotry of people who argue that I shouldn't be allowed to. Maybe this candidate is really a nice guy with great ideas, a lot of people who argued on behalf of segregation were nice people with great ideas. That doesn't mean people should not have put pressure on them to stop promoting bigotry.

I find it heartening that this story has gotten as big as it has. It just sends that much more of a clear message that association with this sort of biggotry, even tangential association, has social consequences.

[civil]

Actually, there were a number of prominent blacks that were against ending segregation because they thought it wasn't the most important issue and that doing so would cause a backlash that would do more harm than good. One example that comes to my mind immediately is the famous writer Zora Neale Hurston.
I think she was more an anomaly than the norm. Doing some quick research (I have to admit I knew of her writing but not her politics) it seems that her reasoning (at least in Brown v BoE) was actually more prescient than many would have guessed:

Hurston opposed the Supreme Court ruling in the Brown v. Board of Education case of 1954. She felt that if separate schools were truly equal (and she believed that they were rapidly becoming so) educating black students in physical proximity to white students would not result in better education. In addition, she worried about the demise of black schools and black teachers as a way to pass on cultural tradition to future generations of African-Americans. She voiced this opposition in a letter, "Court Order Can't Make the Races Mix", that was published in the Orlando Sentinel in August 1955. Hurston had not reversed her long-time opposition to segregation. Rather, she feared that the Court's ruling could become a precedent for an all-powerful federal government to undermine individual liberty on a broad range of issues in the future.

But I still hold it is possible there was more support in the black community to end segregation than in the gay community to begin marriage. I have no way of backing this up, only personal experience, and I'm sure a gay person's experience would reveal a lot more than mine. But from the gays and lesbians I know, marriage itself isn't an issue, equal rights overall (of which marriage is a part) is. I fully understand that I am speaking as someone who is outside of that community, though, so this is all my personal belief and not meant to be an empirical statement.

I think a lot of this came from a sense of shame, some blacks, even some very prominent o es, didn't want to be seen as trouble makers or imposing upon the white community. They were too afraid of being rejected to stand up for themselves, and, honestly, I think subconsciously the same thing may be true for a lot of gays. As I said before, I never really believed in identity politics and used to even think gay pride parades were obnoxious and embarassing.
Most of my GLBT friends have been pretty outspoken, with a few wanting to just be "normal". I don't mean they want to be straight, they just want to be seen the same as anyone else and they don't want to be mainly identified by their sexual orientation.

Furthermore, I personally have no interest in marriage either even though I have been with my partner for 9 years. But I still think the principle of the unequal treatment it represents is important. And I think it is equally important that I not convince myself that it is no big deal. I think 20 years from now, it will be clear to nearly everone that it really was a big fucking deal. But history is sometimes too close for us to realize it while it happens.
I agree. I think in ten, twenty years the unfairness of how gays were treated will be as shocking to future generations as the treatment of blacks is to us now.

Oh man, it breaks my heart typing those words out.

[Generation ABXY]

How big has the story gotten, exactly? I haven't seen it anywhere else but CoG...

[EternalGamer]

How big has the story gotten, exactly? I haven't seen it anywhere else but CoG...

I saw stories on it on prime time CBS and in the New York Times. it has gotten pretty big.

The particular story about the Target donation is really just the vehicle at this point. Obviously, there are probably better ways to bring the issue to the public spotlight, but, for whatever reason, this has gotten national attention. As King knew well, when it comes to forming strategies for activism, you take what you've got and use it for all it is worth.

[EternalGamer]

I think she was more an anomaly than the norm. Doing some quick research (I have to admit I knew of her writing but not her politics) it seems that her reasoning (at least in Brown v BoE) was actually more prescient than many would have guessed:


Oh, I totally understand Hurston's arguments but, to me, regardless of whether or not she was prescient on some of those points, I think there is a more important lesson for me to be learned: that progress is often messy and can seem hard to discern at the time, but it is necessary regardless. I think nobody today would argue (ok, nobody but Ran Paul at least) , despite how we handled the aftermath, that ending segregation was the "wrong" decision. Even if sophisticated arguments on its behalf could be made at the time and even though a lot of people argued that it was a boat that didn't need to be rocked. Again, history is often tough to see when you are so close to it.


But I still hold it is possible there was more support in the black community to end segregation than in the gay community to begin marriage. I have no way of backing this up, only personal experience, and I'm sure a gay person's experience would reveal a lot more than mine. But from the gays and lesbians I know, marriage itself isn't an issue, equal rights overall (of which marriage is a part) is. I fully understand that I am speaking as someone who is outside of that community, though, so this is all my personal belief and not meant to be an empirical statement.


I don't know how we test this either, but really don't think there would be much difference. I mean, if you asked your gay friends if they were were "against" gay marriage, most would probably say no, but they just didn't think it was the most important issue or not important to them. Similarly, I am sure there were many more economically well off blacks who felt like they had a stable job, maybe in a nice part of town and their kids went to a nice private school, so they really didn't want/need the upheaval and the tensions the civil rights movement was bringing.


Most of my GLBT friends have been pretty outspoken, with a few wanting to just be "normal". I don't mean they want to be straight, they just want to be seen the same as anyone else and they don't want to be mainly identified by their sexual orientation.


Of course, but I don't think even being "out spoken" means that subconsciously we don't make some compromises in terms of what we feel we should be allowed to stand up for. I obviously don't speak for your friends, but more and more, I really wonder how much of my "moderate" stance gay rights issues are not the result of a subconscious desire not to be a trouble maker and just to be viewed as "normal."

The thing that really got me thinking about this was seeing the video of the women who took back her target purchases because her son was gay. She was almost in tears. It really got to me that she obviously cared so much about this (maybe also because I could never see my parents doing the same thing). Seeing those protesters in that video, many of whom also were not gay, touched a similar nerve. These people (the woman at Target and the singing protesters) find the energy to get worked up about something that doesn't even impact them directly and they are passionate and put a lot of effort into their political activism (regardless of what people think of the video itself, those people clearly did a lot of planning and had the talent to pull it off). Watching them, I felt incredibly touched. Here they are being outspoken and protesting on an issue that, while it directly relates to me, I haven't done anything about. I'm a goddamn cynical son of a bitch, but it almost made me cry.

[Ox]

I'm really not sure what your or Ox's problem is with it. Well, ok, let me rephrase that, I'm not sure what your problem is with it.
Oh, don't be coy. If you can peer into my soul, by all means share with the class.

[civil]

Before this gets too ugly, I want to point out that I also wanted those people to die in a fire or a line of bullets. I wouldn't want those people supporting my right to oxygen, much less anything else. Sadly, it the Right To Breathers that have kept people like that alive so long.

But annoying is annoying, no matter what the cause. Because people are acting like twats supporting a cause I also support doesn't mean they aren't twats and should be treated as such.

[EternalGamer]

Oh, don't be coy. If you can peer into my soul, by all means share with the class.

I wasn't playing mind rape. I was actually going off your snide "remember kids" remark about the protesters. To you upholding law and upholding justice or even the concept of democratic freedom seems to be synonymous. You pretty blatantly implied that you felt there is nothing wrong with the law that allows corporations to give unlimited funds to political third parties. But to you, these people who were practicing civil disobedience were somehow doing something much more egregious and undemocratic merely by the very fact that they were breaking a law.

I, however, totally disagree with that perspective.

[Ox]

Hey, EG: while you're figuring out what, exactly, you're accusing me of, I'd love to see you try to reconcile these two statements:
However, the more I think about it, the more I think that in 2010 someone should not be able to get away with donating to a company that discriminates against gays in this way any more than they could get away with funding a candidate that supports the idea that inter-racial marriage should be illegal. It is the same kind of biggotry and it does and should overshadow the other political positions held by the candidate.
[President Obama] fervently defended many of these foreign policies then as he also defended the separation of straight marriage and civil unions. I didn't agree with him on either of those things, but I knew what I was getting... He's a pretty milquetoast, middle of the road, democratic politician in terms of policy. And that's fine with me because it enabled him to get some stuff done.
Those two posts were less than five hours apart. You have an admirable degree of intellectual flexibility.

[Serapth]

Not really seeing your point Ox. I don't really see how either quote invalidates the other.

[EternalGamer]

Your right, I probably should be more upset at Obama for his stance, logically. I am certainly not happy with it. And, as I said in that first post, more and more I am coming to that conclusion that issues surrounding gay rights should concern me more whereas before I didn't really associate much with the gay rights concern. My attitude towards this issue is in process of re-formulation. It was seeing that video of the mother returning her stuff to Target and seeing this protest video posting by someone on my facebook account today for the first time that made me pause and think about how maybe I don't take this issue as seriously as I should.

But, regardless, I don't think the tone of Obama's position and this govenor's is exactly the same. That is specifically why I said "in this way" as a qualifier.

As far as I know, for example, Obama never called for a constitutional amended to ban gay marriage the way Emmers did. Nor did he donate money to gay hate groups like "You Can Run but you Can't Hide" like Emmers did (http://minnesotaindependent.com/63263/msnbcs-maddow-looks-into-emmers-affiliation-with-anti-gay-ministry). Obama seemed to take the position of of civil unions merely on the grounds of political compromise, not because he considers gays an abomination. He pretty much outright said as much in the presidential debates where he argued that civil unions was a "viable" way to ensure gay rights and it is something that is politically possible. That to me, is a pretty significant difference, in my opinion, from someone who outright wants to deny gays equal rights.

[EternalGamer]

Before this gets too ugly, I want to point out that I also wanted those people to die in a fire or a line of bullets. I wouldn't want those people supporting my right to oxygen, much less anything else. Sadly, it the Right To Breathers that have kept people like that alive so long.

But annoying is annoying, no matter what the cause. Because people are acting like twats supporting a cause I also support doesn't mean they aren't twats and should be treated as such.

How much more ugly can it get? You just called people who did a 3 minute musical protest "twats" whom you wish to die in a fire. I really don't get the bile being directed at these people. All things considered, I can't really think of a more light hearted way to voice public dissent than what they did. And it certainly took a lot of effort and, in my opinion, bravery, to put forth that kind of public performance protest. I wish I actually had the courage and the political will to do something other than just comforttably argue on the internet. It isn't like they were on the side walk obnoxiously screaming at people going into Target or blocking the entrance way. They performed a 2 minute song and dance and left.

[Ox]

Your right, I probably should be more upset at Obama for his stance, logically. I am certainly not happy with it. But I don't think the tone of Obama's position and this govenor's is exactly the same. That is specifically why I said "in this way" as a qualifier.

As far as I know, for example, Obama never called for a constitutional amended to ban gay marriage the way Emmers did. Nor did he donate money to gay hate groups like "You Can Run but you Can't Hide" like Emmers did (http://minnesotaindependent.com/63263/msnbcs-maddow-looks-into-emmers-affiliation-with-anti-gay-ministry). Obama seemed to take the position of of civil unions merely on the grounds of political compromise, not because he considers gays an abomination, which is a pretty significant difference, in my opinion.
Ah, so supporting the foulest bigotry is acceptable provided it's a cynical political ploy? And what about Target? There's no indication the company's executives actually hate gay people. They simply donated to a political action group geared toward pro-business interests, and that group decided Emmers was the most pro-business candidate. Unlike the President, Target has never opposed gay marriage even as a cynical political ploy.

Your distinction that Emmer is somehow a sincere gay-hater while the President is just pandering is, I think, wishful thinking. Your evidence for that is -- what? That his house campaign committee donated $250 in 2008 to a Christian punk-rock ministry? This is how seething anti-gay bigots vent their black hatred? And if there's room for reasonable people to disagree about exactly how evil a particular politician's opposition to SSM is, where do you get off declaring that support for some anti-SSM politicians is "fine" and support for others is something one shouldn't "get away with"?

And EG, once again your comprehension is woefully deficient. I do not claim and do not believe that 'democracy' is synonymous with either 'freedom' or 'justice.' I do think that political speech in favor of a candidate for office is a good example of what democracy is. I also think that civil disobedience, even when justified, is a non-democratic act. There is nothing majoritarian about civil disobedience, indeed it is a deliberate violation of law that was presumably adopted through democratic means. If you favor civil disobedience, that is defensible; but not on the basis of 'democracy.'

As for whether this particular civil disobedience is acceptable, there are several key distinctions between this disobedience and, say, sitting at a segregated lunch counter. In the first instance, there's nothing unjust about the trespassing laws. Violating an unjust law like segregation is more easily defended than violating a just law to protest an unjust one. I suppose I could flash women in the park and claim I was engaged in 'civil disobedience' to protest the marriage laws, but most would say this is not an appropriate form of protest.

I do find it ironic that someone in the middle of a cri de coeur about gay marriage would confuse the concepts of democracy and justice and then gratuitously slam someone who manages to remember they are distinct, but whatever.

[EternalGamer]

Ah, so supporting the foulest bigotry is acceptable provided it's a cynical political ploy? And what about Target? There's no indication the company's executives actually hate gay people. They simply donated to a political action group geared toward pro-business interests, and that group decided Emmers was the most pro-business candidate. Unlike the President, Target has never opposed gay marriage even as a cynical political ploy.

Your distinction that Emmer is somehow a sincere gay-hater while the President is just pandering is, I think, wishful thinking. Your evidence for that is -- what? That his house campaign committee donated $250 in 2008 to a Christian punk-rock ministry? This is how seething anti-gay bigots vent their black hatred? And if there's room for reasonable people to disagree about exactly how evil a particular politician's opposition to SSM is, where do you get off declaring that support for some anti-SSM politicians is "fine" and support for others is something one shouldn't "get away with"?

One of them has supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. After his buddy over at that Christian Rock Group went on the radio and called Muslims moral for killing gays and stated that gay people rape hundreds of children on a regular basis, Emmer referred to them as "nice people." The other, Obama has said this:

"Semantics may be important to some. From my perspective, what I'm interested (in) is making sure that those legal rights are available to people. . . . If we have a situation in which civil unions are fully enforced, are widely recognized, people have civil rights under the law, then my sense is that's enormous progress"

I don't see how you don't see a world of difference between these two politician's stances.



I do think that political speech in favor of a candidate for office is a good example of what democracy is.

That is an amazing euphemism for unlimited corporate monetary influence.




Violating an unjust law like segregation is more easily defended than violating a just law to protest an unjust one.

You state this with a lot declarative confidence, but I'm not convinced. To me this seems pretty contextual both based upon your justification for needing to violate the law in order to protest effectively and the severity of the law you are protesting.


I do find it ironic that someone in the middle of a cri de coeur about gay marriage would confuse the concepts of democracy and justice and then gratuitously slam someone who manages to remember they are distinct, but whatever.

A law that is undemocratic can be passed in a democracy. Just because a law exists in a democracy, that does not mean that upholding that particular law is upholding democracy. To me, that is what the whole gay rights debate is largely about. It is also what the protest against the Supreme Court decision of corporate donations is about.

[TheFlyingOrc]

A law that is undemocratic can be passed in a democracy. Just because a law exists in a democracy, that does not mean that upholding that particular law is upholding democracy. To me, that is what the whole gay rights debate is largely about. It is also what the protest against the Supreme Court decision of corporate donations is about.

You seem to be under the impression that something being tyranny of the majority does not make it democratic. This is not true.

[EternalGamer]

You seem to be under the impression that something being tyranny of the majority does not make it democratic. This is not true.

That depends on what you consider the most important aspect of our democracy. I guess, etymologically speaking, you are probably correct, but, on the other hand:


de·moc·ra·cy
   /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2.
a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3.
a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. p

I obviously prefer definition 3.

[TheFlyingOrc]

That depends on what you consider the most important aspect of our democracy. I guess, etymologically speaking, you are probably correct, but, on the other hand:

Remember that dictionaries include common usages that may not be technically correct. I get what you MEAN, but when you say "this legislation passed in America is not democratic", my natural response would be "that is impossible".

Ox, don't you dare post some technical example where I'm wrong I'll murder you.

[EternalGamer]

Common usage is the technically correct definition.

/descriptivism

[TheFlyingOrc]

Common usage is the technically correct definition.

We are having a conversation within the framework of legality so common usage definitions do not apply. ;)

[Ox]

I don't see how you don't see a world of difference between these two politician's stances.
Yeah, the President has never cozied up (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/3365/) to homophobes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Warren).

You state this with a lot declarative confidence, but I'm not convinced. To me this seems pretty contextual both based upon your justification for needing to violate the law in order to protest effectively and the severity of the law you are protesting.
I thought using the phrase "more easily defended" made it pretty clear I wasn't necessarily stating a categorical rule against violating generally just laws. Of course, it would be hard to claim that the only possible effective way to protest Target's actions (or the Supreme Court's, it's still not totally clear to me) is by defiant trespass.
A law that is undemocratic can be passed in a democracy. Just because a law exists in a democracy, that does not mean that upholding that particular law is upholding democracy. To me, that is what the whole gay rights debate is largely about. It is also what the protest against the Supreme Court decision of corporate donations is about.
You apparently see no distinction between the words "democratic" and "good." You can use words however you wish, but don't pretend I have to employ your impoverished and unclear lexicon.

[EternalGamer]

Yeah, the President has never cozied up (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/3365/) to homophobes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Warren).


If you really think that Obama is demonstrating the same attitude towards gays as Emmer, then I really don't know what to say. The gulf between their attitudes and their behaviors seem tremendous to me. To you it apparently doesn't, fine. I'll let the argument rest there because I think it is pretty obvious that you are wrong but my evidence would just involve repeating what I already said.



You apparently see no distinction between the words "democratic" and "good." You can use words however you wish, but don't pretend I have to employ your impoverished and unclear lexicon.

No, I am basing it on the concept of equal rights for every individual. Both in terms of political representation and actual laws granting them freedoms.

I also if you keep...

You have an admirable degree of intellectual flexibility.

I do find it ironic that someone in the middle of a cri de coeur

Ah, so supporting the foulest bigotry is acceptable provided it's a cynical political ploy?

And EG, once again your comprehension is woefully deficient.

don't pretend I have to employ your impoverished and unclear lexicon.

Then I'll begin to think maybe we are not doing it for love anymore and are instead just going through the motions.

[EternalGamer]

We are having a conversation within the framework of legality so common usage definitions do not apply. ;)

There is no Academy Fracaise in the U. S. Common usage is our linguistic authority.

[Ox]

Sure, common usage is a source of linguistic authority. And I'll note that the definition of democracy I used happens to be the first one listed in the dictionary you quoted. This is not dispositive that my usage was a valid one, but it is highly probative. So when you start claiming that I conflate law and justice, or democracy and freedom, or whatever with whatever else, I encourage you to reflect upon the fact that you have a shitty track record of speculating what I think about things.

[Blue]

Wow, those people were obnoxious. While I absolutely support gay rights and have marched for them in the past (and will, likely, need to in the future), this just seems like a dumb way to go about making your point. And while I don't necessarily want them to die in a fire, they should at least be slapped or sprayed with a fire hose.

Even as a Christian I'm annoyed by other Christians who yell at others and just shout fire and brimestone at people. They're doing it wrong and ruining it for others. The same goes for the people who butcher Depeche Mode in the middle of Target.

[Ultima Thulian]

Agreed, Blue. Generally speaking, acting like a bunch of dummydicks will not garner people to your cause. It will only hurt things in the long run.

[ShivaX]

The same goes for the people who butcher Depeche Mode in the middle of Target.

Wait, they butchered Depeche Mode?

Well I withdraw any sort of support I had for them and wish them harm.

[Hawkzombie]

Wait, they butchered Depeche Mode?

Well I withdraw any sort of support I had for them and wish them harm.

Didn't you watch the video? :p

[ShivaX]

Didn't you watch the video? :p

Fuck no, I didn't need to watch a bunch of nitwits.