Quantcast

«

»

Aug 29 2012

Matt Barber: Concern Troll Extraordinaire

Matt Barber clearly cares about the Democratic party. He only wants what is best for them, obviously, which is why he’s offering them some free advice. They made a terribly mistake by endorsing marriage equality, you see, because that is an “attack” on those who disagree.

Given the support for traditional marriage typically expressed by African-Americans and Hispanics in the party, Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel Action finds it difficult to understand why top Democrats have made this move. He considers it risky.

“The DNC is really kind of sticking its neck out here, both (A) in supporting the deconstruction of the institution of marriage [with] the radical redefinition of marriage, and (B) in attacking the vast majority of Americans who support natural marriage,” he warns…

“They are completely disconnected from reality in terms of imagining that somehow a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman,” Barber notes. “But they’re also disconnected from their own constituency. There is still a robust debate relative to the issue of marriage within the Democratic Party, and certainly within those who call themselves Democrats.”

The states that passed constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage represent far more Electoral College votes than needed to gain election. So, Barber concludes that “the DNC needs to get its house in order, or they are going to start hemorrhaging those who register in that party.”

I’m sure the DNC appreciates Barber’s heartfelt concern for their well-being. And I’m sure we’ll be hearing very soon from Barber how concerned he is for the Republican party’s endorsement of tax cuts for the rich, which are far less popular than marriage equality. Right? Any time now, right? Yeah, I thought not.

29 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Michael Heath

    [Leaders of the Democratic party] are completely disconnected from reality . . . ,” Barber notes.

    Concern troll sure, but Matt Barber’s also a fine candidate for Ed’s Bryan Fischer award.

  2. 2
    daved

    the vast majority of Americans who support natural marriage

    I must have missed that poll. Possibly it was conducted among Barber and his few friends. Nationally, things are pretty much split down the middle.

  3. 3
    Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

    Barber:

    the vast majority of Americans who support natural marriage

    Wingnut math: 42% is a “vast majority”. 54%, on the other hand, is a tiny minority.

    Wikipedia:

    A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.

  4. 4
    theschwa

    A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.

    You can’t trust anything “international”! They probably used metric numbers! Using good old-fashioned American Math (TM), the numbers work out exactly to show a huge majority opposed to gay marriage.

  5. 5
    Stevarious, Public Health Problem

    Wingnut math: 42% is a “vast majority”. 54%, on the other hand, is a tiny minority.

    Well, you know, Real True Christians™ count twice – once for themselves, and once for Jesus.

    Also lots of those 54% were probably women, who don’t count at all.

  6. 6
    Bronze Dog

    the vast majority of Americans who support natural marriage

    Natural marriage? So, does that mean bonobo-like polyamory?

  7. 7
    dingojack

    MATTY BARBER: Reality Operator? It seems I’ve been disconnected!
    Dingo

  8. 8
    democommie

    “They made a terribly mistake by endorsing marriage equality, you see, because that is an “attack” on those who disagree.”

    And it will make baby JESUS, all 900′ with the frikkin’ lazerbeam eyes of him, cry!

    Matt, dweebkins; what is being done is NOT an attack.

    This, honey, might be an attack.

    Fuck you, everything you stand for and everyone who stands with you.

    Then again, it’s a fairly open secret that a lot of you KKKristic fucknuts are closet subs, so it’s as likely to be foreplay.

  9. 9
    Chiroptera

    They are completely disconnected from reality in terms of imagining that somehow a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman.

    Huh. In some countries and in some states, men have married men and women have married women, so somehow it really is possible.

    I don’t think that it is the same-sex marriage supporters who are disconnected from reality here.

  10. 10
    Subtract Hominem, a product of Nauseam

    No no no. “Natural marriage” is clearly the opposite of “supernatural marriage.” Barber is arguing for the exclusion of religious organizations from performing legally-recognized marriages!!!1!one

  11. 11
    Chiroptera

    …the vast majority of Americans who support natural marriage….

    Technically, this might be true. You know the people who support “natural” marriage? He’s probably talking about a vast majority of those people!

  12. 12
    Akira MacKenzie

    “…the vast majority of Americans who support natural marriage.”

    Even if that were true, why the fuck should I care what the knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who populate this capitalist/Christian shitpile of a country want?

  13. 13
    hexidecima

    Poor Mr. Barber. I hate to tell him that one doesn’t have to imagine that “somehow” men marry men and women marry women. It happens all of the time. No imagination needed. So, Mr. Barber, you too get to be known as a liar.

  14. 14
    cottonnero

    Call the Democratic Party whatever you like, but Obama came out in favor of gay marriage pretty much as soon as it was clear that national support for it was over 50% and still climbing.

    Barber is blind-squirrel-finding-a-nut right on his first sentence in the article: African-American evangelicals, ordinarily reliable Democrats, are less inclined to agree with the Democratic Party on this point. But then he launches into his wobbly rhetoric, and it all goes south from there.

  15. 15
    d cwilson

    African-American evangelicals, ordinarily reliable Democrats, are less inclined to agree with the Democratic Party on this point.

    Yeah, something like this might drop Obama’s support among African-Americans down to 93% or even 92%.

  16. 16
    oranje

    @Bronze Dog:

    As someone in a polyamorous relationship, I’m watching the events unfolding in Rio de Janeiro right now w/r/t the civil union granted to the three-person relationship there. The blowback from that will hit close to home.

    Though, to be fair, I haven’t been watching bonobos very closely. Are other primates deciding not to talk to them or stopped inviting them out? (I got to find out who my real friends are).

  17. 17
    Alexandra (née Audley)

    Given the support for traditional marriage typically expressed by African-Americans and Hispanics…

    Holy crap cakes, am I ever sick of this. Yes, if a bunch of white people are against marriage equality, well that’s their individual opinions, but if a group of African Americans hold the same opinion, black people just don’t support gay rights.

    Also, ps, too: Young Hispanic voters (like young voters across all races) support marriage equality at higher rates than voters overall. *shock!*

  18. 18
    aaronbaker

    I’m sure the DNC appreciates Barber’s heartfelt concern for their well-being.

    Careful there, Brayton: you’re defining a “concern troll” as someone who pretends to be concerned for people he’s actually hostile to–rather than someone who pretends to have “concerns,” and uses that pretense against people he’s hostile to.

    After venturing to disagree with P.Z. Myers on the Pharyngula blog a few years ago, I was called a concern troll, so in response I defined the phrase in the former way: i.e. I wasn’t pretending to be concerned for Myers, I was disagreeing with him. My definition wasn’t in the URBAN DICTIONARY yet–and, as a result, I was subjected for the next few hours to about every personal attack imaginable.

    (From this–and some later encounters,–I concluded that the prevailing ethic of discussion at Pharyngula is “Trollishness for me, but not for thee.”)

    So be careful. Don’t make my mistake: whether that’s using the phrase in a contestable way or posting at Pharyngula, I leave for others to decide.

  19. 19
    Randomfactor

    Also, ps, too: Young Hispanic voters (like young voters across all races) support marriage equality at higher rates than voters overall. *shock!*

    So do Catholics, IIRC.

  20. 20
    Randomfactor

    I wasn’t pretending to be concerned for Myers, I was disagreeing with him.

    If you’re disagreeing with him over matters of style or over how his stance would go over with others, you’re still a concern troll.

  21. 21
    John Hinkle

    So, Barber concludes that “the DNC needs to get its house in order, or they are going to start hemorrhaging those who register in that party.”

    Well sure. And this is based on what? I mean besides Barber’s say so? Words are not constructed from flatulence, Barber baby.

  22. 22
    aaronbaker

    If you’re disagreeing with him over matters of style or over how his stance would go over with others, you’re still a concern troll.

    If the phrase “concern troll” is to have any value it all, I think it has to refer to people who pretend to be something they aren’t: namely “concerned” for people who are actually their adversaries, or voicing “concerns” about the conduct of their adversaries, in either case as a conversational effort to undermine their adversaries.

    If you think a certain course of action is 1) per se obnoxious; 2) unjustified by the given circumstances, and 3) likely to be counter-productive, your first two objections are NOT to how it will go over with others; your third objection will inevitably have a good deal to do with how it goes over with others–but that doesn’t become an illegitimate objection because you apply an insulting epithet to it.

  23. 23
    lofgren

    “Concern troll” is among the most useless of troll designations in my opinion, although “tone troll” is a close second.

    The essence of a troll is somebody who stirs up shit in order to cause an argument. A “concern troll” should therefore be somebody who professes agreement on the face of things (“I totally agree that gay people should get married.”) but nevertheless disagrees due to some “concerns,” typically about how other people might take the OP’s position (“But I’m really worried this is too extreme for Evangelical Christians, so we should advocate for civil unions instead”) or about how other people might take the OP’s position further (“But I am very concerned that this will lead to marriages between men and goats.”)

    If the poster disagrees with the OP outright, they are not a concern troll. They are either disagreeing because they disagree, or they are disagreeing to create an argument. The former is not trolling at all. The latter is just plain old trolling.

  24. 24
    coffeehound

    Actually as a latino who knows a few other young latinos(we all know each other, you know) I’d be more concerned about the repubs SB 1070 fetish and the English only plank in their platform. Matt, do me a favor and get on that will you, get back to me with their response so I can pass it on to the other gente.

  25. 25
    Crudely Wrott

    They made a terribly mistake by endorsing marriage equality, you see, because that is an “attack” on those who disagree.

    Last I heard, turn about was still fair play.

    “They are completely disconnected from reality in terms of imagining that somehow a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman,” Barber notes.

    What is it that would compel a willingly married or willingly single person to consider such things in more than a passing fashion? Years ago I married a girl. The very last thing on my mind was what anyone else but she thought about our choice. As far as we could tell, everyone we cared about approved but even if they had not we would have still formed that sweet union. Like a question once posed to Richard Feynman, “What do you care what somebody else thinks?”.

    Is there an evil virus that infects some people with the need to dwell upon the causes, content and qualities of the relationships of other people and to then pass a judgement that they expect to be flattered by widespread approval thereby justifying their personal prejudices, druthers and fears?

    Yes, Virginia, there is such a virus.

  26. 26
    dingojack

    Crudely Wrott – “Is there an evil virus that infects some people with the need to dwell upon the causes, content and qualities of the relationships of other people and to then pass a judgement [*] that they expect to be flattered by widespread approval thereby justifying their personal prejudices, druthers and fears”? [Addition mine]

    Is ‘…on them. Why is it…’ supposed to be inserted at point marked: [*] ???

    Dingo
    —–
    * While I’m being a awfully boring pedant –
    Ed, I take it you meant ‘They made a terrible mistake…’ or ‘They made a terribly evil|timed** mistake…’, rather than ‘…terribly mistake…’, correct?

    ** or similar adjective (so that ‘terribly’ is an informal intensifier) or verb (‘terribly’ modifying the verb to mean ‘very badly…’).
    ___________________________________________________
    [/pedant] Sorry – just ignore me and move on now… ;)

  27. 27
    dingojack

    ‘…an awfully voring pedant…’ *sigh*
    Dingo

  28. 28
    dingojack

    Oh – I give up! $)

  29. 29
    Crudely Wrott

    Yes, dingojack, your suggested edit would work very well and would make my maundering more specific and clear. Thanks for that.

    By the way, do you live at a library information desk?

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site