Patterico's Pontifications

5/20/2014

No ‘Individuals’ Allowed

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:16 am

[guest post by Dana]

It is common knowledge, again confirmed during this commencement season of student protests, that there is a segment of the population that firmly rejects those who do not think and believe the way they do. No individuals allowed. In other words, groupthink- …the desire for conformity in the group… results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints… As a result of this narrow-minded bigotry, the conversation is shut down before it even begins.

Here is what happens when someone breaks rank: Anne Marie Schubert is running for District Attorney in Sacramento. Schubert is a lesbian, a mother and a Republican. And, ironically, her brother just happens to be one of the leading figures behind Proposition 8. As such, gay and lesbian activist groups are working overtime to defeat her because she did not speak out against Proposition 8, as was expected of her. (She’s gay, she must be against it!)

However, according to her political consultant, Anne Marie Schubert did not speak out against Prop. 8 as she has never been involved with that area of activism. Also,

[S]he was running for judge, and California discourages judges from expressing political opinions.

Did this make a difference to the gay activists? Absolutely not.

They believe she should have “held a news conference with her then-partner and their two children denouncing the [Prop 8] initiative,” according to the AP’s Don Thompson. They have also “wanted an opportunity to punish Frank Schubert [Anne's brother] for a long time,” gay legal activist Kathleen Finnerty told Thompson–even though Prop 8 was long since struck down by the courts.

Reading further, it’s interesting to note that,

Financial reports filed with Sacramento County show Anne Marie Schubert accepted at least $2,600 in campaign contributions from her brother.

Aha! It all comes together now.

According to the gay community, Prop. 8 is not the only reason they are opposing Schubert,

Members of the gay community say their backing of Schubert’s main opponent has to do with more than Proposition 8. They say she never engaged with them before she began running for office.

That shouldn’t matter to voters, Schubert’s supporters say.

“She’s been very clear on her orientation, but also that it has nothing to do with her job,” said Gilliard, Schubert’s political consultant.

At the end of the day, equality and tolerance are no longer enough.

Schubert’s struggles reflect an increasing political radicalization of the gay community, which has moved far beyond arguing for tolerance and equality, and now increasingly backs efforts to enforce conformity.

–Dana

49 Responses to “No ‘Individuals’ Allowed”

  1. The best response is to call upon all state and local officials to enforce and apply Proposition 8 unless they or their employers were explicitly named in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger judgment.

    Michael Ejercito (becea5)

  2. Yeah, the Right is a bastion of tolerance, open-mindedness, and rational discourse when it comes to the subject of homosexuality.

    Save us from that “segment of the population that firmly rejects those who do not think and believe the way they do”!

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  3. Let’s face it: their lives are miserable, laborious, and gay.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  4. Gay legs good. Straight legs bad.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  5. The Rise of the Gay Brownshirts.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  6. If liberalism were a race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, religion, nationality, etc, that would be the only race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc, that the left would give a damn about.

    As with liberals and black America (which is over 90% of the left), if the GLBT community suddenly, miraculously became over 70% moderate to conservative instead of over 70%-plus liberal, a lot of liberals would shout “get back into the closet!”

    Mark (99b8fd)

  7. Progressives don’t like gays. They use them, and will throw them away when the time comes.

    The entire gay agenda is a fad. Maybe it will last two generations, then it will pass away. No, worse than that, it will be blamed for a whole host of social and economic pathologies. But by that time our old system of government that might have provided some protection will be gone, having been taken out by queer cannon fodder.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  8. “Yeah, the Right is a bastion of tolerance, open-mindedness, and rational discourse when it comes to the subject of homosexuality.”

    Leviticus – Is it the open minded right that is hounding people from their jobs or demanding that they get fired, boycotting businesses, etc., etc.

    No, I thought not.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  9. Is there a ring that needs kissing?

    Sammy should be by any minute with his analysis on what the gay community really meant when they stated she failed to engage them prior to running for office.

    Take it away Sammy…

    Hadoop (f7d5ba)

  10. ” groupthink- …the desire for conformity in the group… results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints…”

    As visible in leftist causes from gay rights to climate change or abortion to gun rights. Resistance is futile.

    Leviticus says: “2.Yeah, the Right is a bastion of tolerance, open-mindedness, and rational discourse when it comes to the subject of homosexuality.”

    Well yeah, we are. I’ve never met a conservative that gives a rats ass if someone is homosexual. It is the gay Nazi’s who constantly shove their lifestyle down everyone’s throat. It’s gay activists that are always screaming bloody murder if someone doesn’t want to “celebrate” their gayness. Acceptance and tolerance are one thing, celebrating a persons sexual proclivity is another.

    Hoagie (511e55)

  11. Yeah, the Right is a bastion of tolerance, open-mindedness, and rational discourse when it comes to the subject of homosexuality.

    What kind of rational discourse are you talking about? Give a couple of specific examples if you’re going to generalize by using “the Right”.

    Hadoop (f7d5ba)

  12. “I’ve never met a conservative that gives a rats ass if someone is homosexual.”

    Mark clearly cares. But I don’t think most people give a shlt on a personal level. Leftists conflate objecting to redefining marriage as opposition to homosexuality, and proceed from there.

    JD (e12cf2)

  13. It is the gay Nazi’s who constantly shove their lifestyle down everyone’s throat.

    And they also expect — demand — that everyone wear their heart on their sleeves when it comes to HIV and other communicable diseases that plague a large percentage of the gay community, certainly the part that involves males.

    Since the left is so much into health as a form of religion (hello, Michelle!), they should want to discourage homosexuality for the same reason they want to discourage (and are quite prudish about) tobacco and smoking.

    Mark (99b8fd)

  14. Mark clearly cares.

    Hard not to when such a high percentage of the GLBT populace is of the left. Liberalism and GLBT activism (and the larger community it reflects) are so intertwined with one another, it’s difficult to know where one begins, one leaves off.

    Mark (99b8fd)

  15. Mark, even though the GLBT populace is left and intertwined who cares? Leftists are about what, 20-25% of the people? LGBTG ( I get confused with all the letters these folks use to obfuscate what they really are) is about maybe 5%. And if they’re intertwined they would be included in the 20-25%.

    I’m trying to figure out how about 5% of America can change the meaning of marriage for everyone after 5,000 years of its existence. Or how that 5% can get people fired. Or have people deprived of their property. Or how they can force (read enslave) others to take their picture or bake them a cake.

    See, once we are no longer a nation of laws we become a nation of men and those men and are subject to the whims of other men (or in this case LGBT…whatever).

    Hoagie (511e55)

  16. Yeah, the Right is a bastion of tolerance, open-mindedness, and rational discourse when it comes to the subject of homosexuality.

    Could you produce some examples ? I know the religious folks are opposed because of the Bible but most Republicans these days are libertarian and don’t care who someone sleeps with. We just don’t like being told we have to do something because someone else is gay.

    ““Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

    We are at the racket stage.

    Mike K (cd7278)

  17. I like it when they (the “they”) eat each other.

    nk (dbc370)

  18. Mark, even though the GLBT populace is left and intertwined who cares?

    Because, Hoagie, it’s no longer a matter of allowing them the privacy to do what they want to do behind closed doors, as much as it’s now a matter of their leftist biases (and, in turn, their promoting liberal policymaking, both governmentally and judicially) making them want to fling open those doors and force the public to behold them and also give them high fives and cheers in the process.

    Mark (99b8fd)

  19. Ok, that last comment could have been phrased better.

    If those “those” who don’t like this lady (how did she get the two kids, anyway?) maybe they’ll be happier with a middle-aged man, a black Southern Baptist let’s say, on the bench.

    nk (dbc370)

  20. DA, it was the last time she was running for judge. That’s worse. DAs have a lot of power. I wouldn’t vote for her either. Because she is lesbian. Just to make it clear for Leviticus.

    nk (dbc370)

  21. Comment by Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:06 am

    Sammy should be by any minute with his analysis on what the gay community really meant when they stated she failed to engage them prior to running for office.

    Take it away Sammy…

    She’s not part of the racket. She won’t twist the law to help them.

    Or, it’s not her they care about – they even openly say they are punishing her brother – but somebody wants people to be very fearful of saying no to them, or even thinking of defying them.

    They weant people to worry about, not what public opinion is now, but what it might be five years from now.

    This can quickly lead to slush funds, government contracts, and patronage jobs, and even immunity from prosecution.

    I would need to look into this to see what’s going on. Who’s leading this?

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  22. “I like it when they (the “they”) eat each other.”

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:11 am

    Get down wit yo bad self, nk!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  23. Mike K. @16, I think your analysis is correct overall. Unfortunately we have a regular commenter on this site who is very vocal about being anti homosexual and he has actually said that he considers homophobia to be almost patriotic and that our country would be better off with more homophobia. He also specializes in issuing gross generalizations based on what he assumes all people who are liberals or who “lean left” think.

    He’s entitled to his opinion but it is counterproductive in the long run. And yes, it’s infuriating when an entire group of us gets tarred unfairly when our political opponents hone in on what some obsessed individual says on-line.

    elissa (e67fb7)

  24. Hi all: longtime lurker and seldom commenter here. I live in Sacto County and have been watching this unfold.It sickens me. What I despise most about this brand of “politics” (and I would condemn it whether it came from right or left)is that it extends beyond the candidates or issues. It becomes personal. It is not enough to oppose Schubert on policy – she must be opposed peronally – declared persona non grata. Then even taken a step further – punish her brother for things she is guilty of by association. Next I am sure they will want to “punish” anyone who contributes to her campaign. This is not politics – this is forced conformity through intimidation and fear – nothing less. I think there’a a word for that..

    Mike S. (f5d617)

  25. It’s a me, Mario, Ima’ a gay. Kiss me Luigi or it’s a hate crime!

    DejectedHead (a094a6)

  26. Did she engage with the gay community before doing that, happyfeet?

    nk (dbc370)

  27. Leviticus,

    If a person is gay and wants to live that way, it is their choice.
    When they tell me I have to approve of it and teach my children to approve of it, that’s another thing.

    Was it on another thread here, or elsewhere (PowerLine?), where I read something about the “stages of revolution” as illustrated by the French Revolution. As the revolutionaries start getting their way, then they turn on each other in waves of counter-revolution.
    But I don’t think there are nice boundaries like a football game, where the rest of us could just get out of the way and stand on the sidelines.

    I think this makes sense, because often the inflammatory rhetoric is coming from logically inconsistent directions, and once they overcome the preexisting order then they can’t help but clash.
    At least that is thinking off the top of my head, subject to edumacation.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  28. Some of the most dimwitted individuals imaginable are being cranked out of America’s so-called institutions of higher learning. They are fed slogans and propoganda at our major universities and accordingly enter the working world unable to critically evaluate the complexity of an ever changing business and social environment. Hire these dolts at your own risk

    Scipio Americanas (eac5a2)

  29. “I like it when they (the “they”) eat each other.”

    nk – Is this a film review thread?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  30. Rigid orthodoxy is not the domain of the Right. At least not the clear-thinking Right.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  31. daley’s right, nk… that was way too hot for so early out here on teh West coast.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  32. Why do you think nk smokes so many cigarettes? hmmm?

    elissa (e67fb7)

  33. Of course they want conformity. The whole idea behind Political Correctness is conformity. How could it be otherwise. What they want is a society as rigid as the imagined 50′s, but with their rules enforced instead, by any means necessary.

    This was never about tolerance. They have no interest in that.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  34. Leftists conflate objecting to redefining marriage as opposition to homosexuality, and proceed from there.

    Indeed. Perhaps we should push back, and conflate opposition to lower capital gains rates, or some such, to hating capitalism. It’s sometimes true.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  35. Rigid orthodoxy is not the domain of the Right.

    The Right has its own litmus tests. Let’s be fair. On some issues we can be just as impossible.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  36. OT. On the sometime nation of Belgium, 11 million schtrong, and only 160% in hock themselves, now our third largest creditor.

    http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/the-belgian-connection/

    I suspect sub-prime financing.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  37. 25. Comment by Mike S. (f5d617) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:48 am

    This is not politics – this is forced conformity through intimidation and fear – nothing less. I think there’a a word for that..

    McCarthyism?

    http://business.financialpost.com/2014/05/15/eminent-swedish-scientist-latest-victim-of-climate-mccarthyism/

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  38. 37/ It’s notreally Belguim, it’s a Belgium-based clearing house called Euroclear, most likely he European Central Bank (remember, the capital of the Common Market/European Union, one of the two meeting places of the european Parliament, and all that stuff is basically Brussels, so it is the ECB even though the bank is headquartered in Frankfurt.)

    Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4)

  39. We’ll see how those hot little bwains operate on no food.

    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2014/05/are-you-ready-for-food-prices-to-double.html

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  40. Pennsylvania’s ban on same-sex marriage was just struck down.

    In Defeat: Defiance

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  41. Rigid orthodoxy is not the domain of the Right.

    The Right has its own litmus tests. Let’s be fair. On some issues we can be just as impossible.

    Comment by Kevin M (b357ee) — 5/20/2014 @ 10:15 am

    Not even close. Won’t see the Right taking scalps and livelihoods, at least that I’m aware of…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  42. Leviticus is thoroughly indoctrinated. All according to plan.

    REPRESSIVE TOLERANCE (Social Science)

    In the essay “Repressive Tolerance” (1965), the German-born American critical theorist Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) of the Franklin School of political theorists argued that, under the conditions of advanced industrial capitalism, the only hope for realizing the original objectives of “liberalist” or “pure” toleration (as articulated by the British philosopher John Stuart Mill [1806-1873])— freeing the mind to rationally pursue the truth—was to practice a deliberately selective “liberating tolerance” that both targeted and enacted the repression alluded to in the essay’s paradoxical title (Marcuse 1965, pp. 81, 85, 90). This “liberating tolerance” would involve “the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements” on the Right, and the aggressively partisan promotion of speech, groups, and progressive movements on the Left (pp. 81, 100).

    Marcuse professed to share liberalism’s belief in human rationality and objective truth, and a commitment to its core mechanisms, including toleration. Following G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831), however, Marcuse insisted that the meaning and logic of ideas, concepts, and principles cannot be determined abstractly, but instead are dialectically conditioned by the totality of the historical epoch in which they are practiced. Following Karl Marx (1818-1883)…

    Steve57 (c8cb20)

  43. For your viewing pleasure.

    Bill Whittle Explains our Progressive Nightmare – Part 1

    The leftist educational establishment has thoroughly embraced the ideology of the Marxists of the Frankfurt school. Which, as I’ve explained numerous times, replaces economic arguments for bringing about the Marxist revolution with cultural arguments instead.

    We must, as Barack Obama has so helpfully informed us, fundamentally transform because this country is irretrievably racist, sexist, homophobic, patriarchal, militaristic, imperialistic, blah, blah, blah. Because, capitalism. Only Marxism can fix what ails us. Except they won’t call it Marxism. Instead they’ll call it social justice or some variation of the term.

    Social justice can mean whatever the proponents of it to mean at any given point in time, but one eternal meaning is that it includes all things that are so obviously good they don’t even need to defende them, and since social justice is so obviously good any objection or counterargument to this fundamental transformation can only stem from your racism, sexism, homophobia, blah, blah, blah.

    Therefore, any counterargument must be repressed in the name of tolerance (see Marcuse above). Tolerance demands that wrongthink and speechcrime not be tolerated.

    Hence this sort of Orwellian leftist insanity:

    The Doctrine of Academic Freedom
    Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice

    …Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

    The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable.

    Ms. Korn is a good little Marxist and critical theorist. Progressives know that they can’t advance their agenda unless they suppress freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Because the progressive agenda is completely unsupportable because the evidence is entirely against it. So the very existence of evidence has to be suppressed. As a matter of fact, according to one UN document people who believe in such things as objective truth and objective standards of justice are the enemies of “social justice.” The facts and outcomes of legal procedures must serve the agenda. If they do not, then they must be repressed and new “facts” invented. Think global warming. Think “rape culture.”

    Now that this ideology has poisoned the minds of Americans for some fifty plus years, it’s oozed off the campus into larger society. And we’re now advancing to the stage where not only is it a given that dissenting speech must be repressed, but consenting speech must be compelled. Which as i read it is the complaint against Anne Marie Schubert. She is not sufficiently activist enough. And judges and DAs who are not activists are not serving the cause. Indeed, they are enemies of the cause.

    Steve57 (c8cb20)

  44. Progressives don’t like gays. They use them, and will throw them away when the time comes.

    if i remember correctly, the Soviet communists viewed homosexuality as an example of bourgeois decadence.

    Michael Ejercito (becea5)

  45. Steve57, thanks for the Bill Whittle link. I just watched part one and I have to go out but when I get back I’ll watch the rest. Man, I love that guy!

    Hoagie (511e55)

  46. If you would like to increase your knowledge
    simply keep visiting this site and be updated with the newest
    information posted here.

    payment by results SEO service (1cc4fc)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2388 secs.