So on Facebook, Michael Arrington writes a post blasting the Boy Scouts over failing to give somebody their eagle badge. So I write that the decision of the Boy Scouts not to accept gays -- which is being deliberately tested by a number of activists to name and shame them -- is constitutionally-protected freedom of speech and freedom of association. And further more, backed up by a Supreme Court decision that defends the right of the Boy Scouts not to accept gays as members. It's the very same rights that any LGBT group or "progressive" group would want for themselves. So the answer to this problem, I said, was to leave the Boy Scouts and go for a new scouts for our time that is inclusive. I added that if the Boy Scouts meet in your school or church, then leave that school or church, too, if you don't like their policies. Do that, instead of bullying people and trying to change their views.
So first, Arrington starts lecturing me -- "Catherine, discrimination against..." but then he decides, in a fit of oppressive anger, to defriend/block/mute me, and perhaps the thread is gone too, I have no idea, because when I click on the notification of him, I get a message that the link is "gone".
Sorry, but there it is -- the awful oppressiveness of the big, multi-million dollar technologists on social media that has to be fought at every turn. Why? Because so often, it is they, and not elected or appointed officials or mainstream news media figures that are controlling the public discourse, but them. Not us. Them.
You can't claim that the Boy Scouts, a private organization, is discriminating, when they make choices as a private organization. The right to chose what you want for you club is in fact what American freedom is based on. If you don't like it, make new clubs. The way that people changed the clubs that didn't admit women was they made new clubs, they didn't just complain about the existing clubs, and eventually, they changed their policies -- or they don't exist anymore. I'm for freedom. I'm not for these oppressive tactics in the gay rights movement
Frankly, I see these cases of lesbian den mothers getting into the news about being rejected all of a sudden (hmmm) or gay teenagers suddenly not getting their badges (hmmm) as being contrived and deliberately cooked up to "get in your face". Sure, that's their right under the same Constitutional rights and nobody is taking them away from them, least of all me!
But as a tactic, I can use the same Constitutional rights to say: no, that's a terrible tactic. You are trying to decrease rights for others, not enlarge them for yourself. And the key to equality is enlargement, not diminishing of rights. I stand by that.
Now, isn't Arrington exercising *his* right to have the club he wants of his little like-minded friends on his Facebook page! Exactly! And say, aren't you the smart little recursive idiot!
And that's just what is wrong with the widely-viewed "thought leaders" of social media who substitute for politically-elected leaders -- they can mute and ban you at any time like they're in a little club. And the cherry on top? A Facebook friend telling me that publishing this story about Arrington is *itself* bullying. Snort. Like...I can bully a multi-million dollar tech giant who created and sold TechCrunch to AOL and commands millions of views!
BTW, it's not for the first time Arrington has muted me. He muted me on Twitter. He muted me on his comments at TechCrunch when there. Then I was somehow unmuted and allowed back after publicizing this fact (although that may be unrelated). I don't know how I got to posting status on Arrington's FB page, as he cut off a lot of people by making them subscribers not friends or something. I remember even talking to him in IMs once, asking him why he got so upset at the haters and the snarkers. It's not worth it. But he takes this extremely seriously, and is very thin-skinned. He also travels with a bodyguard, so he may have had death threats or too-adoring fans or something.
But hell, I'm just somebody who doesn't believe in the same tactics as you do as to how to get to the same goal, which is equal rights for gays. And again, I can't stress it enough: the way to rights is not to take them away from some people, it is to extend them to all. Bullying, harassing, vilifying people who have traditional views about gays is not the way to get them to accept gay rights. It will backfire. And it's wrong, morally, to undermine freedom of speech. It's also *unnecessary*. Creation of a new scouts, or joining the Campfire Girls or some other alternative that is more inclusive and more modern (going around in uniforms, collecting badges, and learning forest camping and woodworking skills seems really outdated, no?) seems like a better alternative.
Thought leaders who bully and harass and cut off and mute those who disagree with them do not deserve to be thought leaders. I feel strongly about that. Facebook is not their goddamn livingroom. It's a public page and a public forum. We're not their friends. We're the public. We are taking part in a public conversation, not a confab with them behind closed doors. They need to thicken their skin and adjust to critical discussion, even heated and offensive discussion. It would be one thing if there were threats of violence or outright racism and obscenity, but if there is a real-life name attached to those, unless they seem to be real incitement of damages, I'm not for even deleting those. But merely disagreeing about a point of view -- if that gets you a cut-off and removes you from ever *even seeing* let alone associating with someone's public speech, THAT IS WRONG.
Recent Comments