Social media is raging about Phil Robertson and his right to his religious views.Calling something a religious belief doesn’t make it immune to criticism.
“The appointment of this race of men to servitude and slavery was a judicial act of God, or, in other words, was a divine judgment.” – Origin and History of the Negro Race- Josiah Priest (1853)
I read the article in defense of “snark” at Gawker. I also read a very good response to that article. Both were very good articles and very lengthy analyses of the way we discuss issues.
Snark (according to Urban Dictionary): verbal ingenuineness that is brief, subtle, yet quite stabbing. snark is often marked by deep creativity & use of psychological attack. It employs coldbloodedness and is best served unprovoked. Snark can contain hidden complimentary meaning under a mean face, but it hurts more than it strengthens.
I mentioned it in my last post, but I want to be clear; I want you to start a fight.
Chances are, you encounter something you disagree with every day. You probably see it on Facebook or Twitter or whichever is your social media fix of choice. You probably keep scrolling. Perhaps, you write something on that person’s wall but the comments drive you away.
At this moment, I’m thinking of the discussion of Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty. He made some very problematic statements and if your criticism of those statements becomes too forceful, then you’re “attacking his beliefs.”
The problem is this: bigotry is bigotry. Calling it “religious beliefs” is just a way to de-fang you. So, I’m advocating for everything in moderation, including moderation.
Sometimes, you’ve got to shout. Sometimes, you’ve got to piss somebody off. Get in somebody’s face and call him/her out. You went to elementary school, you played on playgrounds, and you met a bully or two there. There comes a time when you’ve got to raise your voice because polite discourse has failed.
Now, I don’t think anger changes anyone’s mind. What I do believe is this: anger can silence someone for fear of reprisal. In instances of bigotry and intolerance, silence seems alright.
I’m not advocating ad hominem attacks; attacking someone on a personal level is almost never a useful method. I’m talking about criticizing belief systems. Some like to hide behind their beliefs as if they’re unchangeable, unassailable rights. They’re not.
If I believe that everyone who drives a SMART car is a terrible driver, that doesn’t give me the right to demand those cars be outlawed. A belief and an action are two different things. Fight hateful actions, and don’t be scared by the word ‘belief’.
Editor’s Note: There are caring, considerate, compassionate (alliterate much?) people from every faith. I’ve met many of them. For these people, religious belief is not a bludgeon to force everyone into one way of thinking. For them, belief is a personal connection with someone larger than themselves, and that is just alright with me.
Photo— Flickr/ Stephen Luke
Further Reading: Consequences of Free Speech
Should Phil Robertson’s Statements Matter?
I think one can make this point without defending snark.
It is not exactly creative, it is sarcasm in a cheap tux. It might just have its place if there is an actual solid case it is being used to defend. But more often than not it can be used to reinforce in-group bias and shame legitimate criticism. Feminism is a prime example of how snark is used to reinforce erasure of men’s issues, which are often seen as no big deal. It is thus an obstacle to true equality.
The knee-jerk reaction to the statements that were tossed around in the media, as opposed to the message that was in the full interview is what the outrage was all about. He compared all sins, not a direct correlation to beastiality, although I do find it ironic that beastiality is legal in more states than gay marriage. There’s a difference between hateful speech directed at a group and just saying it’s illogical in his mind. It’s illogical to a lot of people, just as many other things are. And shouting down and starting a fight are not how you handle… Read more »
As repugnant as they are, even people like Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps have the right to be heard.
Having said that, I think they should take the advice, “It’s better to remain silent and be thought
a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.”
I think the problem here is the knee jerk reaction to pull his show and silence the comments. Free speech was never intended to make people feel good and just because if offends does not mean it must be silenced and the person banned for life. I have seen comments that this situation could have been a good way to open a public dialogue about homosexuality and the difference between bias, rights and free speech. I have no problem with gays, have know and loved several, but am straight. I very much disagree with the comments made to GQ but… Read more »
Reprehensible as I find his opinions, I believe Phil Robertson does have freedom of speech. However, society doesn’t owe him a televised platform from which to do so. A&E can’t force him to stop speaking in public, but they’re well within their rights to decide they don’t want their brand associated with that kind of opinion. In terms of LGBT rights, I’d like for it to always be possible for all parties to meet and discuss in a calm, constructive manner. That said, such meetings and discussions are far easier to manage when all parties involved are on relatively equal… Read more »