Comments on: “I’m rubber and you’re glue!”

By: Main Street Plaza » Sunday in Outer Blogness: Sunny Day Edition!

Main Street Plaza » Sunday in Outer Blogness: Sunny Day Edition! — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:21:02 +0000

[...] totally done with all of the righteous indignation I can handle for this week, what with that scary little lecture we had earlier. Fortunately, we’ve also had a bunch of positive ideas and feel-good [...]

0 likes

By: Sunday in Outer Blogness: Media Edition! | Main Street Plaza

Sunday in Outer Blogness: Media Edition! | Main Street Plaza — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:44:26 +0000

[...] Girl Who participated in an NPR segment about objectivity in Utah media, especially regarding the Oaks [...]

0 likes

By: chanson

chanson — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:47:56 +0000

They just keep rolling in!

Here are some more:

Saganist explains that Dallin H. Oaks is wrong again: but not so much in what he preaches as in not practicing it.

Natalie Collins writes Dear Dallin, and the Urban Koda touches on the speech while Dealing with Trolls.

Then a couple of people have started new discussions building on our free speech topic: sweet baby space jesus and A closer look at Dallin Oaks’ sinister speech.

Enjoy!

0 likes

By: A brave new definition of “free speech” | Main Street Plaza

A brave new definition of “free speech” | Main Street Plaza — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:38:16 +0000

[...] All of the levity over Mormon being the new black is a bit of a sideshow — obscuring the meat of what Elder Oaks is proposing: Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights. [...]

0 likes

By: chanson

chanson — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:19:04 +0000

Troy — Yeah, and the funny thing is that if they hadn’t gone out of their way to pick (and then escalate) this fight, they’d be in a position to silently “mainstream” on this — like they’ve done with so many other unpopular beliefs…

Gen. J. C. Christian — True, that would be quite interesting…

LDChino — Thanks for the link, quite interesting.

0 likes

By: chanson

chanson — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:01:54 +0000

Actually, I just noticed one more interesting point in the discourse:

Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights.

Scuse me? Should not be allowed? Should not be allowed to make a point you disagree with?

Personally, I have a very different view of my opponents’ rights to free expression. You can make any right/wrong/intelligent/stupid point you like, as long as I also have the right to counter with my own free speech.

0 likes

By: chanson

chanson — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:51:03 +0000

Alan — You’re right that he’s turned this into arguing for “the freedom to have defined gender roles”, and unfortunately he’s also arguing for the “freedom” to impose those eternal gender roles on people whose beliefs are different from his.

Saganist — I know! For years I’ve debated whether to call this rhetorical move “the ‘I know you are but what am I?’ defense” or the “the ‘I’m rubber and you’re glue [everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you!]‘ defense.” Maybe I should have gone with the former.

I do think they’ve taken up a strategy of deliberate polarization (to solidify the loyal base of supporters at the expense of alienating everyone else).

Steven B. — Thanks for the link, that’s an excellent analysis! The beginning and end bits are a little disrespectful, but the author does a great job of showing — point by point — how Oaks is arguing for a mangled new definition of the word “freedom.”:

Oaks’ is making a bald-faced argument that religious believe deserves special treatment, and that simply claiming “It’s my religion” should exempt one’s actions from criticism and examination.

Exactly! LDS leaders have been making this claim ever since the initial bad PR fallout from Prop. 8 started rolling in. But as (correctly) pointed out by Steve B.:

Peaceful protests are not anti-democratic. Rather, they are the lifeblood of democracy. The gay rights community chose to exercise its First Amendment rights to express its disagreement with a political position that the LDS Church had taken. That is democracy. “[F]reedom from retaliation” does not mean freedom from criticism or protest.

I made the same point myself in Free Expression Basics (and went on to argue that they know it, and are deliberately creating a rhetorical side-show because they know their arguments are far too weak to win a fair debate).

0 likes

By: LdChino

LdChino — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:15:04 +0000

If you’ve got a second, please watch the video available at this link:

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=110092&catid=2

The caricature that Oaks is trying to sell will appear more distorted by the day as an ever-increasing number of folks get a chance to see and hear from the real deal, from the real people working to establish marriage equality in this great country.

0 likes

By: Gen. JC Christian, patriot

Gen. JC Christian, patriot — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:54:20 +0000

I wonder what Sister Gladys Knight thinks about this. Someone should ask her.

0 likes

By: Troy

Troy — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 03:07:25 +0000

This is a real PR nightmare for the church. In this age of internet and fast news coverage, they’re digging themselves deeper and deeper. It’s hard to imagine a sudden revelation from god after all this. That would surely be the last straw for any serious member. Two “get out of jail free” cards in 30 years? I don’t think so.

What an idiot of an organization.

0 likes