Photos by greggoconnell
The Perez Hilton Diatribe as a Broader Dissent Strategyby Angela Rockwood
To sum up the last few days of the Perez Hilton/Carrie Prejean same-sex marriage episode is to sum up the entire tone of the "debate" on same sex marriage since before the APA was overrun with political activism in the 1970's. I believe (heartfelt personal conviction).Oh yeah? Well you're just a (personal attack, personal attack) and a no good (personal attack).If you can't debate them, decimate them right? And so we see the popular blood letting that whips up emotion and demagogues the opposition rather than engages in thoughtful, respectful debate.
Do you have to agree in order to be polite? Carrie Prejean didn't, and yet she, on a short moment's notice came up with a simple, yet infinitely more intellectual response than Hilton's, and clearly stated, there was no offense intended.
As for Hilton? Offense most certainly intended. Hilton's body slam opinions on Prejean's personal character or attributes have nothing to do with the subject, yet in the World Wrestling Federation type Oprah analysis, he came off at least equal in all too many minds.
And the vindictive crowd goes wild! Another emotional blood letting, another emotional victory. And without wasting a single needless neuron.
At the heart of this spectacle is the idea that dissent is not allowed. If you don't agree, no holds will be barred in your public destruction. Ring any bells with the intolerance for global warming dissent or taxation dissent with the tea party "terrorist" categorizations made earlier last week?
Who is it that decides that all choices are equal? all cultures are equal? all religions are equal, all sexuality is equal? Isn't that what it boils down to? Equality for everyone! There is no wrong, no right, there is no good, no bad, only equality. If you're against equality, you're (personal attack, personal attack) and a no good (personal attack).
Interesting isn't it? No one is allowed to question, no one is allowed any degree of dissent, or they risk falling under the homogenization machine which demands total equality, regardless of the worth of those decisions. Everything is about equality, except, of course, unless you are talking about people. That's the dirty little trick in all of this. People are not allowed to be equal, because with direct personal warfare and personal attacks, the strategy is, agree with me, or you may be worth less as a person. Personal worth is the first casualty and what is at stake in this mode of thinking.
Are you afraid of others who may denigrate your personal worth? People like Perez Hilton are counting on it. They'd love it if we could be cowed into forgetting the fact that Carrie Prejean is as valuable as Perez Hilton, regardless of their opinions.
People are equal, choices aren't.
Any child can tell you, that there are consequences to choices. Some are better than others. That's a fact of life. How did that get lost in the search for "equality"?
Posts
2 comments:
You are again confusing unpopular free speech with the lack of free speech.
I am not going to argue with you as to whether her comment was well reasoned or not, it is immaterial. However, it should be noted that she represents California, and she has had a front row seat to the heartache and the passions that come from comments like hers.
The beauty pageant that she was attempting to win found her views to be at odds with their views on the same subject and she was "passed over" in favor of someone with a less divisive opinion.
Please again quit equating the consequences of free speech with the lack thereof.
Sigh, did I really need to type this.... You folks are smarter than this right? If a man goes into a Pro-Life spokesperson interview and pulls out a box of day after pills are you suppressing his free speech when you politely tell him "you'll get back to him"?
This pageant is a company, and their spokeswoman needs to be on target with respect to their views or she isn't selected to represent them....
Rick Beagle
Miss California was selected to represent CA for who she is, which includes being a Christian attending a Christian college. If this wasn't a clear message about what her beliefs might be, then someone other than Carrie Prejean dropped the ball on selecting her as their state representative.
Just because the pro-gay marriage community is more vocal in their beliefs doesn't make them the majority. I fault the pageant for allowing such an individual to serve on the judging panel, too, since there seems to be a lack of standards and rules for them to follow.
Finally, the contestants are judged on their poise in this portion of the pageant, not their position on issues. The judge(s) were wrong to not score her according to this standard and instead replace it with their own personal views of her answer. If the pageant wants pre-programmed robots to participate then they need to more carefully screen contestants in the future.
Post a Comment