Wingnut on Wingnut Crime: Phelps vs Klingenschmitt »« Another Primary Challenger for Chambliss?

Rios Speculates About Susan Rice’s Sexual Orientation

In all the silly attacks on Obama’s UN Ambassador Susan Rice, now a leading candidate to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, this one may be the most absurd yet — both because it’s completely irrelevant and easily known if one just consults the Google oracle. The AFA’s Sandy Rios asked a guest on her radio show about Rice’s sexual orientation:

Rios: I remember her only vaguely but I remember bad things about her during the Clinton years, but I don’t remember what those things were. What’s your perception? What do you see in Susan Rice as the UN Ambassador?

Ruse: There was a big vote in the UN General Assembly last week, a new phrase entered into a UN document for the very first time called “gender identity” and I’ll give you a thousand dollars if you can define it. Gender identity has never appeared in a UN document, it appeared in a document last week. Immediately, Susan Rice tweeted that ‘LGBT human rights have made a major stride and we will not go back.’ They are very aggressive on sexual orientation and gender identity and Susan Rice is leading the charge.

Rios: Is she straight?

Ruse: I have no idea.

Rios: We don’t know do we [sigh].

Well, we can’t know for absolute certainty. I also can’t imagine why anyone would care. But Rice has been married for 20 years to Ian Cameron. In fact, that’s one of the reasons why she is keen on moving from the UN to the State Department, to get out of New York and back to Washington DC, where her family is. What this reveals is much about the mind of the wingnut — if you can just tag someone with the label “gay,” you have immediately discredited anything they say.

Comments

  1. pocketnerd says

    Well, according to wingnuts, getting caught with his pants around his ankles in a gay bar bathroom DOESN’T mean a Republican politician isn’t completely and totally heterosexual… so I suppose it makes sense that being happily married for 20 years also doesn’t mean you aren’t secretly a radical, militant homosexual.

  2. baal says

    Straights don’t care about LGBT equality? Did they miss the most recent election? Were the marriage equality votes decided by LGBT votes only, they would have failed spectacularly.

  3. Michael Heath says

    Because it impacts who gets elected and what policy results we benefit or suffer from, I’ve come to the conclusion it’s an even bigger moral failing to bear false witness against public figures than those who are most close to us, like our spouses, children, parents, friends, business associates, and extended family. Of course both types of defamation are immoral; but I conclude lying about public figures is worse because of the resulting impact.

    The ease with which conservative Christians lie about leaders outside their tribe is both astonishing and endemic, all in spite of the Bible clearly and repeatedly demanding they not lie. And yet this group is known for lying while simultaneously claiming the Bible is holy dogma, many even claiming it’s the inerrant word of God, and yet they continually lie. What reasonable conclusion are we to make other than speculate their motivations are different than what they claim or they have some mental incapacity, where these are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And yet we’re to believe they know the truth in spite of both their repugnantly immoral behavior and their absurd claims?

  4. Stevarious, Public Health Problem says

    What this reveals is much about the mind of the wingnut — if you can just tag someone with the label “gay,” you have immediately discredited anything they say.

    Many of them also can’t understand why a person would champion rights for a group that they don’t belong to. To many wingnuts, the very fact that she fights for LGBT rights means one of those letter must stand for her.

    Shoot, since many wingnuts seem to think that rights are a zero-sum game – that it’s impossible to give some rights to some people without taking them away from others – they must think that all liberals are either gay or completely insane.

    Explains a lot, actually.

  5. laurentweppe says

    Rice has been married for 20 years to Ian Cameron

    But that’s a problem: can someone who’s so obviously scotishsexual be loyal to a country founded by Englishmen? The people deserve to know! [/sarcasm]

  6. Didaktylos says

    In a way it makes sense. They really follow the old pre-Christian idea that virtue consists of doing good to and for your own in-group. So any person that anyone does good to and for is someone they consider to be part of their in-group.

  7. matty1 says

    I’ve just wasted time trying to track down the UN document they referred to. It took a while since the various UN websites are hard to search and it simply isn’t true that this is the first mention of the term in a UN document.

    I think I have worked out that the reference is to adding ‘gender identity’ to a resolution condemning extra-judicial executions and listing some groups at risk from them but I can’t find the full text of this.

    Assuming this is the source, what kind of sick mind objects to condemning governments killing people without trial? Even if they think being transexual should be illegal and carry the death penalty, what are their grounds for not wanting courts involved?

  8. anubisprime says

    Just the modus operandi the majority of the fundy wingnuts.
    When they have no argument or lack the intelligence to formulate one, then they revert to innuendo, and character assassination by inference.

    If they can pander to pre-conceived bigotries and intolerance in their audience, which frankly is the point, then they can easily slip into righteous mode and drag the dullards along with them.

    It is what they have always done, it is a basic rhetorical tool that all fundies learn in the schoolyard and perfect in church.

  9. pocketnerd says

    Thus spake Stevarious, Public Health Problem:

    Shoot, since many wingnuts seem to think that rights are a zero-sum game – that it’s impossible to give some rights to some people without taking them away from others – they must think that all liberals are either gay or completely insane.

    The problem is that they confuse rights with privileges. Privilege really is a zero-sum game; after all, if somebody else rises, suddenly you aren’t quite so far above her. And if she rises past you, suddenly you’re the unprivileged one.

    This is how the right-wing “culture warriors” see the issues: Feminists don’t just want equality, they want to castrate men! Gays don’t simply want to enjoy the benefits of marriage, they want to destroy heterosexual marriage! People who say “happy holidays” don’t merely recognize the existence of other holidays, they want to ban the word “Christmas” and reduce Christians to a despised minority!

    I wouldn’t place any bets on whether the GOP leadership really conflates rights with privileges or just considers it a useful way to scare people to the voting booths, but the rank and file voters believe it. Anybody not explicitly for continued and expanded privilege for straight white cis males must necessarily be trying to make them into the new underclass. If Susan Rice cares about “gender identity,” she’s either a stealth agent or a useful idiot for the nefarious Homosexual Agenda.

  10. says

    a new phrase entered into a UN document for the very first time called “gender identity” and I’ll give you a thousand dollars if you can define it.

    Umm …

    Gender identity refers to a person’s private sense of, and subjective experience of, their own gender. This is generally described as one’s private sense of being a man or a woman, consisting primarily of the acceptance of membership into a category of people: male or female.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity

    Gender identity is defined as a personal conception of oneself as male or female (or rarely, both or neither). This concept is intimately related to the concept of gender role, which is defined as the outward manifestations of personality that reflect the gender identity.

    Can I haz my grand now?

  11. slc1 says

    But Rice has been married for 20 years to Ian Cameron.

    Although I seriously doubt that Ms. Rice is a lesbian, closeted or otherwise, this argument really isn’t that good. Consider the case of former Maryland Congressman Robert Bauman, who was married for more then 20 years and had 4 children. All the time this was happening, he was pursuing male prostitutes in DC and was finally outed and forced out of the closet.

  12. Michael Heath says

    pocketnerd writes:

    Privilege really is a zero-sum game . . .

    That’s not even remotely true. If it were true we couldn’t collaborate and specialize in order to grow wealth. Even in this context it’s not true, economists support the notion that not discriminating against gays increases GDP, which benefits all of us.

  13. matty1 says

    I think pocketnerd means rank is a zero sum game rather than wealth. Even then it isn’t exactly true.

  14. pocketnerd says

    Michael, Matty, I don’t think we’re exactly talking about the same thing here. Here’s a short primer of the sort of “privilege” I mean:

    http://weeklysift.com/2012/09/10/the-distress-of-the-privileged/

    Sure, everybody can grow wealthier together (though I suspect most hardline conservatives and libertarians believe in a zero-sum economy, wherein order for you to gain a dollar, somebody else has to LOSE a dollar). Likewise, better standards of living, education, medical care, et cetera can be (and should be) extended to everybody.

    But when we talk about privilege in the sense of “male privilege” or “straight privilege” or “cis privilege,” I’m referring to the subtle but pervasive — and culturally-enforced — advantages enjoyed by specific demographics. Privilege is why a heterosexual white man doesn’t have to worry about the possible workplace repercussions of bringing his partner to a company picnic; it’s why he also doesn’t have to worry about prospective employers casually assuming he’s incompetent and lazy simply because of his skin color.

    As privilege (in this context) is necessarily an advantage held by one group over another, it really is a zero-sum game. It’s not an advantage over others if everybody has it.

  15. Michael Heath says

    Pocketnerd @ :

    The problem is that they confuse rights with privileges. Privilege really is a zero-sum game . . .

    Which I fisked @ 13. Pocketnerd responds @ 15:

    I don’t think we’re exactly talking about the same thing here.
    [...]
    . . . when we talk about privilege in the sense of “male privilege” or “straight privilege” or “cis privilege,” I’m referring to the subtle but pervasive — and culturally-enforced — advantages enjoyed by specific demographics.

    I understand your point now. I do think its prudent to point-out that when people are discussing rights and bring up privilege, as you do in the sentence I quote above, those who are constitutionally literate are going to be thinking in the context of what privilege means within the context of the Constitution. So I suggest clarifying you mean a different sort of privilege than what’s normally referenced when also discussing rights.

  16. pocketnerd says

    Thus spake Michael Heath:

    I do think its prudent to point-out that when people are discussing rights and bring up privilege, as you do in the sentence I quote above, those who are constitutionally literate are going to be thinking in the context of what privilege means within the context of the Constitution. So I suggest clarifying you mean a different sort of privilege than what’s normally referenced when also discussing rights.

    That’s good advice, and I’ll try to remember it. Thank you! Likewise, in feminist or LBGT circles, I find discussions of “privilege” usually refer to the other sort.

  17. Gvlgeologist, FCD says

    I gotta admit, I’m finding the discussion of rights vs. privileges interesting and thought provoking. But pocketnerd’s example:

    But when we talk about privilege in the sense of “male privilege” or “straight privilege” or “cis privilege,” I’m referring to the subtle but pervasive — and culturally-enforced — advantages enjoyed by specific demographics. Privilege is why a heterosexual white man doesn’t have to worry about the possible workplace repercussions of bringing his partner to a company picnic; it’s why he also doesn’t have to worry about prospective employers casually assuming he’s incompetent and lazy simply because of his skin color.

    is a poor example. It’s quite conceivable, as attitudes change, that in the future no-one will have to worry about bringing their partner to a company picnic or have to worry about being thought incompetent and lazy because of skin color. By pocketnerd’s own definition, everyone can have these same rights. It’s just that at the present time, the rights have not yet been extended to everyone.

  18. says

    By pocketnerd’s own definition, everyone can have these same rights. It’s just that at the present time, the rights have not yet been extended to everyone.

    exactly. and when everyone has this as a right, having it is no longer a privilege; privilege is what you get “extra” on top of what everyone else gets

    Think of it this way: when wingnuts say that expanding the definition of marriage is destroying their marriage, they don’t literally mean it will do harm to their marriages; it will however destroy the privileged status of heterosexual marriage. that is what they’re complaining about

Leave a Reply