Worried for a moment that somebody had hacked Dan Kennedy’s Twitter account this morning. Yesterday, Kennedy posted this lovely call-to-arms on the need to spread the legalization of gay marriage yesterday (expanded here). Then, this morning, he tweeted:
Bachmann may be nuttier than Palin, but unlike Palin, she’s a good person, and people can sense it. http://t.co/oaGXVfq
To which I replied:
@dankennedy_nu Does your definition of “good person” include being an anti-LGBT bigot?
After which ensued a long back-and-forth in which I argued, apparently with little success, that a person who publicly promotes bigotry and intolerance has lost any claim to being considered a “good person,” making a distinction between someone who privately harbors prejudice and a public figure who seeks to ensure that some humans have different rights than other humans. Kennedy argued that … well, rather than run the risk of mischaracterizing Kennedy’s arguments, I’ll put the full tweet-script below the fold.
Am I off-base? Is it wrong to be intolerant of intolerance? Is it possible to be a good person and actively campaign against the rights of our LGBT brothers and sisters?
DK: Bachmann may be nuttier than Palin, but unlike Palin, she’s a good person, and people can sense it. nyti.ms/meuxzU
SR: @dankennedy_nu Does your definition of “good person” include being an anti-LGBT bigot?
DK: @seanroche Your framing precludes discussion, which is often the case.
SR: @dankennedy_nu Break it down … is there a more anti-LGBT national political figure than Bachmann?
DK: @seanroche Maybe not, but now you’re asking an entirely different question.
SR: @dankennedy_nu Good people do not promote denying human rights to our brothers and sisters.
DK: @seanroche Couldn’t disagree with you more strongly. Misguided good people do all kinds of things we don’t like.
DK: @seanroche And let’s not forget they think we’re misguided. This is why we can’t get along.
SR: @dankennedy_nu I’m not interested in getting along with bigots, I’m interested in making sure they don’t dictate laws and public policies.
DK: @seanroche I didn’t say I’m voting for them. But life is complicated.
SR: @dankennedy_nu Bachmann is not your neighbor who feels uncomfortable around the homosexuals. She wants to make anti-LGBT sentiment law.
SR: @dankennedy_nu You’re not voting for Bachmann, just giving her a character reference.
SR: @dankennedy_nu BTW, you would have gotten no argument from me if you had said that vis-a-vis Palin, people recognize Bachmann is genuine
DK: @seanroche I think we need to fight back against urge to read everyone we disagree with out of the human race.
DK: @seanroche It’s one area where left really is as bad as right.
DK: @seanroche Right. As long as I said Bachmann is a bad person who should be shunned, you’d be fine.
SR: @dankennedy_nu One day soon, we will recognize that anti-LGBT bigotry is not consistent with maintaining a claim to being a good person
DK: @seanroche No we won’t, because anti-LGBT beliefs often stem from sincerely, deeply held religious views. Those aren’t changing soon.
SR: @dankennedy_nu Do you not recognize a difference between a person’s private prejudices and publicly campaigning to legalize bigotry?
DK: @seanroche http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/27/gay-marriage-new-york
SR: @dankennedy_nu Already read (and retweeted) your similar blog post.
SR: @dankennedy_nu Doesn’t change the fact that Bachmann is a bigot, incites bigotry, and wants to make bigotry the law of the land.
DK: @seanroche Then you already know the answer to your question
DK: @seanroche You are off on a bender. You’re essentially claiming I support Bachmann because I don’t want to send her to re-education camp.
SR: @dankennedy_nu Bachmann — rabidly anti-LGBT, “good person.” Me — rabidly anti-bigot, “on a bender.”
SR: @dankennedy_nu I never wrote anything of the sort. I’ve made a very ltd argument. Bachmann not entitled to be considered a “good person.”
DK: I think you’ve nailed it. RT @seanroche Bachmann — rabidly anti-LGBT, “good person.” Me — rabidly anti-bigot, “on a bender.”
DK: @seanroche By extension you have to say people who hold anti-LGBT views because of deeply held religious beliefs cannot be good people.
SR: @dankennedy_nu Bigotry is not less offensive because it derives from religious beliefs.
DK: @seanroche Is Mother Teresa as much of a bad person as Michele Bachmann? More? Less? Why?
[Missed this one. Did Mother Teresa campaign against gay rights?]
DK: @seanroche Will you give Michele Bachmann her due as someone who is well-meaning? Maybe that’s the way out of this.
SR: @dankennedy_nu Again, Bachmann is not a quiet church-goer who isn’t comfortable around homosexuals.
SR: @dankennedy_nu Ahh, a well-meaning bigot. Well, that changes everything, doesn’t it.
SR: @dankennedy_nu Maybe the way out is to stop tying yourself in knots defending Bachmann and acknowledge that campaigning v. LGBT is not good
DK: @seanroche Your intolerance leads you consistently to mischaracterize me. When have I ever said it’s good to oppose LGBT rights?
DK: @seanroche And you know what? Don’t bother to respond unless it’s to answer that question.
SR: @dankennedy_nu You never said that it’s good to oppose LGBT rights, but, then again, that’s not my criticism.
DK: @seanroche It’s exactly what you just said.
SR: @dankennedy_nu Funny word selection, but yes, I am intolerent of bigots.
SR: RT @dankennedy_nu @seanroche It’s exactly what you just said. // Sort of, but there is a whole twitter-sation that adds context.
SR: @dankennedy_nu I’ll summarize. 1. You, of your own accord, wrote that Bachmann is a “good person.”
SR: @dankennedy_nu 2. I took exception to the characterization, given Bachmann’s active efforts to deny LGBT people full civil rights.
SR: @dankennedy_nu 3. I distinguished between someone who is privately intolerant with someone who actively promotes intolerance.
SR: @dankennedy_nu 4. I’m willing to say that someone who actively promoting intolerance forfeits claim to being a “good person.”
SR: @dankennedy_nu 4. I’m willing to say that someone who actively promotest intolerance forfeits claim to being a “good person.”
DK: @seanroche 5. You all but accused me of being a Bachmann supporter for not marching in lockstep with you.
SR: @dankennedy_nu 5. I am further willing to state that deeply-held religious beliefs do not justify promoting intolerance.
DK: @seanroche 6. You falsely suggested I have no problem with candidates who promote an anti-LGBT agenda.
SR: RT @dankennedy_nu 5. You all but accused me of being a Bachmann supporter for not marching in lockstep with you. //Nope. Just an apologist.
SR: RT @dankennedy_nu 6. You falsely suggested I have no problem with candidates who promote an anti-LGBT agenda. // Nope. Jut an apologist.
DK: @seanroche I’m not an apologist. That’s false, too. Fundamentally, you don’t get it.
SR: @dankennedy_nu Wrong of me to say you are an apologist. Rather, you spent the morning apologizing for Bachmann. Verbs better than nouns.
DK: @seanroche I called Bachmann a nut who’s nevertheless a good person. You want total evisceration.
DK: @seanroche I’ll be off Twitter for a while, so distort away.
SR: RT @dankennedy_nu I called Bachmann a nut who’s nevertheless a good person. You want total evisceration. // Simple: she’s not a good person
SR: @dankennedy_nu I want total evisceration? Not at all. Just don’t want politician championing bigotry to be mistaken as a “good person.”
DK: @seanroche Jesus Christ, give it up. OK?
SR: RT @dankennedy_nu Jesus Christ, give it up. OK? // Would love to, but you keep attributing to me new intentions that I don’t have
You *can* have an intelligent discussion 140 characters at a time.
…I was pleasantly surprised the other day to hear Bachmann make comments to the effect that she is fine with states making the decision to legalize marriage, rather than coming down for an amendment to the federal constitution against it. I know people who are opposed to marriage equality, and with whom I strongly disagree on that matter, but I would still consider them good people.
Thanks for sharing that. I wonder if the debate would sound the same if other victims of prejudice such as “African-American” persons or “woman” or “mentally disabled” people were substituted for “LGBT.” After all, persecutions of those groups have stemmed “from sincerely, deeply held religious views,” to use Dan’s terminology, among other origins.
is that calling this person or that a “good person” — as if there were something *of essence* about that — isn’t very meaningful. There’s only good or bad policy, good or bad ideas.
“Smart person” is also similarly meaningless. Smart people often do dumb things, or very commonly delude themselves.