To Do or not To Do

The outing game

This topic contains 67 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by  Davis 5 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 68 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #852

    Davis
    Participant

    A well known anti-gay politician outed

    Outed gay politician voting against gay interests

    Yet another anti-gay politician outed

    Yet another

    Honestly...who didn't know this guy was batting for the other team?

    Who didn’t know this guy was batting for the other team?

    In an article in the dialy beast, several issues of journalistic ethics were discussed…most notably that of potentially ruining someones life by reporting on a man on a business trip ordering a gay escort to party, using very flimsy evidnece.

    Was this business man a CEO who donates lots of money to an anti-gay-marriage foundation? No. Does he moonlight as Was he or is he aiming to be a politician with a platform of conservative christian family values? No. What was the public interest in the story? We don’t know. Why out the CEO of a company if there is no obvious case of sexual identity irony? Most importantly…why damage this persons life (regardless of their later choice to kill the article) at all…let alone with the flimsiest of evidence.

    There are many debates about outing gay politicians, evangelist minister, anti-gay-marriage-advocates and anti-gay-rights-douche-bags in general. I’ve never been 100% comfortable with it…as ultimately…we are lobbying for a world where our sexual lives, our sexual identity and our sexual behaviour is no ones business and never something that someone else can use to discriminate against us. One article discusses how the author is still not sorry for any of the gay-outings in the recent pass. This longer article in TIME is against. We should also note that not all outing is done in the name of exposing hypocracy as one that is also somewhat of a personal vendetta.

    If Politicians were outed for their hypocricy on family values…then straight politicians meeting female escorts should be just strong a story (and nobel an act) when they are outed. But you barely see it these days.

    My biggest problem with public outing, where the person is not an anti-gay warrior…is that still today…outing a person isn’t just showing the world their hypocricy…it is also judging them in a very negative light because of their sexuality (whether the purpose is nobel or not) and for many who read and delight in the article…it makes the person seem lesser because of his different sexuality.

    Should people ever be outed for their personal sexual choices?
    If yes…where do you draw the line and why?
    How reliable should your sources be? (indeniable proof, very incriminating evidence, a good source swears it’s true).

    • This topic was modified 5 years, 3 months ago by  Davis.
    #856

    cecilia fx
    Participant

    the ONLY reason to “out” anyone is to show their hypocrisy.

    There’s nothing wrong with being gay – but there’s everything wrong with being a lying hypocrite

    #860

    .
    Spectator

    Cecilia said it beautifully! I concur.

    #863

    BeckyL
    Participant

    I agree. Once you take a public position that makes a moral judgment, your morals become open to scrutiny. I also agree that when the person making those moral judgments is heterosexual, infidelity is free game. I look forward to the day when one’s sexuality is a non-issue, but until then, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    #873

    DrBob
    Participant

    I agree. Once you take a public position that makes a moral judgment, your morals become open to scrutiny.

    Are we sure we want to say that’s OK?

    So a politician who takes a moral stand against, say, predatory banking … it’s OK to smear her for an affair? Or even for having had investments in AIG or Citibank?

    In that case, why would anybody ever take a stand against predatory banking?

    I think what you’re really saying is that you feel it’s OK to out anyone whose views you disagree with, as a form of revenge tactic… or worse. Rather than countering their views with better arguments, try to dig up dirt to attack them personally. Any tactic is OK, as long as you can discredit and humiliate them.

    For me, that sort of thing is just a form of violence. I think it should be possible to disagree with people, and argue with people, while remaining compassionate and still seeing them personally as fellow human beings, and treating them as such.

    #885

    Davis
    Participant

    For me, that sort of thing is just a form of violence. I think it should be possible to disagree with people, and argue with people, while remaining compassionate and still seeing them personally as fellow human beings, and treating them as such.

    Says the guy who calls fellow Christians stupid morons. LOL

    #893

    erock68la
    Participant

    Apples and oranges, Bob.

    If a candidate touts himself as a champion for “family values” people should know if he is frequenting hookers or banging pages.
    If a candidate preaches fiscal responsibility then his own financial records should be made available.

    And besides, not many successful national politicians ever ran against predatory banking and actually did something about it after winning office. They would most likely reduce predatory banking by redefining what “predatory” means.

    #896

    gina rex
    Participant

    Politics: What can we expect from people who lie as a matter of habit and self-deception? What could they be “outed” for that’s WORSE than being a politician?

    #898

    .
    Spectator

    I ultimately am starting to think a person’s sex life shouldn’t be something we talk about publically….I myself have a lot of ideas and things I want to try that may or may not give me more of a public platform, and the last thing I want is my sexual past to be dragged through the mud publically….or the fact that I’ve become a phone sex actress to get through school. Those sort of things shouldn’t be something that a person gets judged for. I’ve decided to be a total bitch about it and say…”This is who I am, fuck you if you don’t like it.” I believe it’s better to be brutally honest than to try to hide behind something that will get found out anyway…

    I don’t care about politician’s sex lives. I do care if they’re trying to drag their bigotry into our laws and government. If they try to do that, I don’t care who they are, they deserve to be made a fool of if they are a hypocrite.

    #899

    Gallup’s Mirror
    Participant

    Should people ever be outed for their personal sexual choices?

    That depends.

    Is the information about the person’s sexuality reliable and reasonably true?
    Is the person in a position of significant social or political power?
    Is the person using that power to harm others directly or indirectly?
    Is outing the person likely to curtail his or her power to harm others?

    If the answer to all four is yes, I say out you go.

    If yes…where do you draw the line and why?

    If outing someone has little or no benefit to others, that’s where I draw the line. For instance, what is to be gained by outing someone like Tim Cook? It wouldn’t stop Apple from making iPhones in Chinese sweatshops. In contrast, if outing someone like Scott Lively may cost him followers, resources and credibility, it might hamper his efforts to have homosexuals in Africa jailed or executed.

    How reliable should your sources be? (indeniable proof, very incriminating evidence, a good source swears it’s true).

    Video, photo or voice evidence is the best. Next would be documents such as phone or credit card statements showing activity like phone sex, purchases of pornography, escort services, and so on. Corroborated testimony from several sources (like ex-lovers or prostitutes) is less than ideal but workable. If it’s much less than that, it may not be worth it. The key in all cases is if the information is reasonably true and (above all) persuasive.

    #962

    Davis
    Participant

    @erock68la

    Indeed. Predatory banking is a silly example and hardly relates to what we are talking about here (those who campaign or vote to discriminate against a protected class of people (while they moonlight as one of them) attacking their rights, dignity, sense of equality and making them lesser than others. Outing this person is hardly violent. What a bizzare adjective to use.

    @gallupsmirror …yes…that sounds like a pretty solid criteria.

    @Bellerose … this is pretty much how I feel on the topic. In the first article…this man was outed with flimsey evidence to begin with…and there is nothing about his job as a CEO that has anything to do with protecting or fighting against gay rights. Exposing him…would be needlessly judging him…as you say.

    @gonewild … I suppose it depends on the political system. If you have an agressive two party system with fundamentalist religious leaders as a fundamental part of it … I suppose most politicians are attracted to politics for all the wrong reasons. What’s worse than a politician? A politician who votes to suppress the rights of a protected class of people (which he secretly is a member of desperate to keep it unknown).

    @ceciliafx and @categorical … I agree with this for the most part…but I would add that the politician/minister must also be campaigning in some way to undermine the rights/dignity of others.

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 3 months ago by  Davis.
    • This reply was modified 5 years, 3 months ago by  Davis.
    #974

    Strega
    Moderator

    I think ‘outing’ is discrediting a person, not his or her opinions and actions. So you call out a hypocrite. You out a guy for having homosexual phone sex whilst voting against LGBT protections. How is that helping the cause?

    First of all, you’re declaring he is secretly part of the LGBT community, thus making that community seem hypocritical by association.

    Secondly you’re labeling someone a hypocrite, which will only please those people who already think the way you do. It won’t change anyone’s opinion of their policy itself.

    Finally you’ve deflected attention from the actual issues, and pointed it at someone’s secret behaviors – effectively derailing the topic for a sideshow.

    We don’t allow ad hominem attacks on our forums. I would suggest that ‘outing’ falls into that camp too. We are no longer children and should put away childish things.

    #999

    Davis
    Participant

    @strega ,

    Calling out a homosexual intent on limiting the rights of others (as well as himself) to keep his seat in a legislature…is not ad hominem. It’s revealing that the person…quite likely…doesn’t even agree with the argument he is making. How is that ad hominem? It would be ad hominem if we said “hey…that politician was a closeted homosexual and outwardly appearing homophobe…there fore nothing he says is credible or should be taken seriously”. That would be ad hominem.

    I understand your argument but I think if we follow through each point…that there are a lot of assumptions involved.

    First of all, you’re declaring he is secretly part of the LGBT community, thus making that community seem hypocritical by association.

    Acting as though there is not internal dissent or undesireable elements within your community…so that people have an overall good image of your group…is like hiding your disabled child in the basement so that everyone thinks you are a normal family. I cannot see what good there is in doing that.

    Secondly you’re labeling someone a hypocrite, which will only please those people who already think the way you do. It won’t change anyone’s opinion of their policy itself.

    Are you sure that when one finds out how even a homosexual feels pressured to vote against his own interests…that at least some voters do not re-evaluate the ideas he was pretending to support? I’m not sure the point is…over all to simply finger point at a terrible person…but to show how difficult it is to even express your genuine views because of the current atmosphere of prejudice and hostility towards an ill-treated group. Surely some will feel less strong about their ideas when one of their own is injured like this.

    Finally you’ve deflected attention from the actual issues, and pointed it at someone’s secret behaviors – effectively derailing the topic for a sideshow.

    That’s one way of looking at it. Another way is pointing out in the process how hollow much of the support for anti-gay marriage is (or even being openly gay and proud of it) when you see how many people agree just for the sake of maintaining the approval/relationship with full out hard core homophobes. Imagine someone sitting on the fence over euthanasia and every republican votes against it…and we discover that one representative has secretly donated money to a euthanasia group and went with his grandmother to dignitas in Switzerland. This is damaging to what seemed like a clear unquestionable support one party seemed to have.

    #1003

    Strega
    Moderator

    if this had been a black and white clear cut matter, you would not have raised it in a moral debate now would you? 🙂

    I believe there is a moral blind spot in us when we ridicule others, because I think it feeds into a smug sense of superiority by the ridiculer that is primitive and not particularly socially helpful.

    Outing someone is an act of aggression, very basic in human nature, but not particularly civilized from my perspective.

    #1004

    Davis
    Participant

    if this had been a black and white clear cut matter, you would not have raised it in a moral debate now would you?

    Hence phrases like “I’m not so sure” or “that’s one way of looking at it”.

    I believe there is a moral blind spot in us when we ridicule others, because I think it feeds into a smug sense of superiority by the ridiculer that is primitive and not particularly socially helpful.

    No doubt…many homosexuals delight in an outing just for the sake of the outing…but I think it’s extreme to claim that outing is in general…done for the sake of outing someone (or emotional gratification).

    Outing someone is an act of aggression, very basic in human nature, but not particularly civilized from my perspective.

    With your other comments I have my doubts but with this I seriously disagree…for two reasons. First…it is a broad over-generalization. Outing someone in any way can be done through good intentions (to help a person who wants to come out but is unwilling to make the first move).

    Second Outing someone is also rather linked to “catching someone red handed” which can either identify someone who is not playing by the rules, who has done something that almost everyone thinks unethical (stealing, manipulating, lying). In many cases there is nothing uncivilised about it…especially if what they are hiding is something that can directly harm a group (or lead to harm) or if a group has put a notable amount of trust into the person.

    If you are a group of liberal activists and you find out your leader is an undercover-conservative (and believe me this happens) is outing the person an act of aggression, an act of self-protection, an act of “catching someone red handed”, an act of smug sense of superiority, an act of ridicule? It’s likely a various mixture of the above…rather different depending on the person. I highly doubt many in the group would feel satisfied after finding out how dupped they were and having to move on and correct the damage and find a new direction.

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 3 months ago by  Davis.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 68 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.