King: Visiting Mexico Undermines Our Sovereignty »« Sylvia Browne Has Some ‘Splainin to Do

Seriously, Niall Ferguson?

Niall Ferguson is a prominent and influential historian of economics at Harvard. He’s also married to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. And boy did he step in it with some recent comments at a private gathering of wealthy investors, when he said that John Maynard Keynes’ economic policies were flawed because he was gay and childless.

Speaking at the Tenth Annual Altegris Conference in Carlsbad, Calif., in front of a group of more than 500 financial advisors and investors, Ferguson responded to a question about Keynes’ famous philosophy of self-interest versus the economic philosophy of Edmund Burke, who believed there was a social contract among the living, as well as the dead. Ferguson asked the audience how many children Keynes had. He explained that Keynes had none because he was a homosexual and was married to a ballerina, with whom he likely talked of “poetry” rather than procreated. The audience went quiet at the remark. Some attendees later said they found the remarks offensive.

It gets worse.

Ferguson, who is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, and author of The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die, says it’s only logical that Keynes would take this selfish worldview because he was an “effete” member of society. Apparently, in Ferguson’s world, if you are gay or childless, you cannot care about future generations nor society.

This takes gay-bashing to new heights. It even perversely pins the full weight of the financial crisis on the gay community and the barren…

Throughout his remarks, Ferguson referred to his “friends” in high places. They should all be embarrassed and ashamed of such a connection to such small-minded thinking. Ferguson says U.S. laws and institutions have become degenerate. Rather, I dare say, it’s Ferguson’s arguments which are.

I’ll give Ferguson credit for issuing an actual apology:

But I should not have suggested – in an off-the-cuff response that was not part of my presentation – that Keynes was indifferent to the long run because he had no children, nor that he had no children because he was gay. This was doubly stupid. First, it is obvious that people who do not have children also care about future generations. Second, I had forgotten that Keynes’s wife Lydia miscarried.

My disagreements with Keynes’s economic philosophy have never had anything to do with his sexual orientation. It is simply false to suggest, as I did, that his approach to economic policy was inspired by any aspect of his personal life. As those who know me and my work are well aware, I detest all prejudice, sexual or otherwise.

My colleagues, students, and friends – straight and gay – have every right to be disappointed in me, as I am in myself. To them, and to everyone who heard my remarks at the conference or has read them since, I deeply and unreservedly apologize.

At least he didn’t do that “if anyone was offended” notpology nonsense. But is it sincere? Who knows. The thing I want to know is what the hell he was thinking when he said it. Seriously, how twisted does someone have to be to think or say something like that? And as this blog notes, it’s not the first time Ferguson has brought up Keynes’ sexuality when discussing his economic ideas. To any reasonable person, that would be entirely irrelevant. If Keynes’ was wrong, it certainly isn’t because he was gay.

On the other hand, there is Andrew Sullivan, who has been friends with Ferguson for decades. He writes of the incident:

I am obviously an interested party to this. I’ve known Niall as a friend since we studied history together at Oxford. This has not deterred me from criticizing his public arguments on the merits, so I’m not a suck-up. But I have known the man closely for many years – even read Corinthians at his recent wedding – and have never seen or heard or felt an iota of homophobia from him. He has supported me in all aspects of my life – and embraced my husband and my marriage. He said a horribly offensive thing – yes, it profoundly offended me – but he has responded swiftly with an unqualified apology. He cannot unsay something ugly. But he has done everything short of that. I am biased, but that closes the matter for me.

And one other small thing: if he really believed gay men had no interest in future generations, why would he have asked me, a gay man with HIV, to be the godfather to one of his sons? And why would I have accepted?

Still, it’s difficult for me to get my head around how anyone who is not a bigot could have thought what he thought and said what he said. I don’t know him, and even if I did that would not necessarily mean that I know his innermost thoughts. We are all two people to some extent, and it is hardly unusual for someone to hold prejudices against a group while still treating some within that group, those to whom we are close, with love and respect. Human beings are complicated and we often do compartmentalize in this manner.

Comments

  1. says

    I guess according to Ferguson’s logic, nobody should pay any attention to Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham, because they’re childless too. Or does it only count if you’re childless AND gay?

  2. daved says

    Ferguson had a column in Newsweek for a while, even wrote one of their cover stories. I got thoroughly sick of him in short order; he was primarily a lapdog apologist for the very wealthy. Maybe he’s a good economic historian, but he isn’t much of an economist.

  3. says

    My disagreements with Keynes’s economic philosophy have never had anything to do with his sexual orientation.

    …but he’s happy to bring it up if he can’t find any other way to discredit Keynes.

    As those who know me and my work are well aware, I detest all prejudice, sexual or otherwise.

    So he knew, at the time, how detestable his diversinary rhetoric was?

    Throughout his remarks, Ferguson referred to his “friends” in high places.

    …which only serves to remind us that Ferguson’s sophistry is crafted to serve the interests of those in power.

  4. says

    And with one swift move, Sullivan turns a “that thing you said” conversation into a “what kind of person you are” conversation. “I know what kind of man this person is, and he’s a good man, and that settles it!”

    Well, no….it really doesn’t.

    But I don’t really care whether, deep down, Niall Ferguson is really, truly, a homophobe or not. Sullivan does, but I don’t. I just want to know what other kinds of spectacular failure in logic go on in the mind of someone who thought it reasonable to declare that people with no children must not care about society.

    And also why he didn’t bother apologizing for that.

  5. Dennis N says

    A pox on Ferguson and a pox on Sullivan; two people I had no use for before, and have no use for now. While we’re at it, I’ve been long losing respect for Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Marrying Ferguson (I wasn’t aware they were married) is another point against her.

  6. raven says

    Maybe he’s a good economic historian, but he isn’t much of an economist.

    I’ve read more than a few Niall Ferguson pieces here and there.

    All I got out of it was…he is an idiot.

    This latest just reinforces that opinion.

    FWIW, I never knew Keynes was gay For one thing, he was married. It is simply irrelevant to his work

  7. doublereed says

    I honestly took it as more of a immature jab at the childless, not homophobia. It’s incredibly insulting and a nonsensical accusation against Keynesian Economics. I think I care more about that, because that leads to this Austerity BS that conservatives always use as an excuse to gut the futures of the next generation.

    Wow, and he’s married to Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Interesting.

  8. matty1 says

    I’m afraid I lost patience with Ferguson after seeing one of his TV shows where he praised Augusto Pinochett but in this case I think the likely explanation is he dislikes Keynes and will seize on any criticism. Why a professional historian has allowed disagreement with a historical figure to turn into this kind of personal antipathy I don’t know.

  9. says

    But I have known the man closely for many years – even read Corinthians at his recent wedding…

    Interesting. I wonder what part of Corinthians he read.

    Was it this…?

    7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
    7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

    Or this…?

    11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

    Maybe this…?

    14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
    14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

    But no. I would bet money it was the “Love is patient…” part, because it’s more palatable.

  10. Reginald Selkirk says

    Niall Ferguson is a prominent and influential historian of economics at Harvard.

    But we don’t know why.
    Hey, isn’t Harvard where those prominent and influential economists Reinhard and Rogoff work? Maybe Harvard needs to worry less about prominent and influential, and more about quality.

  11. jamessweet says

    Still, it’s difficult for me to get my head around how anyone who is not a bigot

    There’s your problem right there: Bigotry as an either-or state of being.

    It looks like Mr. Ferguson has some unexamined attitudes that, in this instance, manifested themselves as bigotry. It also seems that in most respects he is an enemy of bigotry and an ally to the LGBT community. Those two statements only seem contradictory if you use language like “is a bigot” and “is not a bigot”.

    There’s a flip-side here too: Ed knows he “is not a bigot”. So if someone were to point out some unexamined attitude you have, or some behavior that has a prejudicial result, you may be less ready to recognize it and alter it — because you’re “not a bigot”, so therefore you can’t possibly have engaged in bigoted behavior or expressed a bigoted attitude, right? Yeah, doesn’t work like that.

    (Disclaimer: When it’s completely unambiguous, I have no problem with the “is a” language. It’s sort of speaking imprecisely, but in that case the cognitive/linguistic shortcut is harmless. It’s only when talking about ambiguous cases like this that I find the “is a” language to be detrimental.)

  12. escuerd says

    Tabby Lavalamp @ 10:

    Interesting. I wonder what part of Corinthians he read.

    Given the present context, this one also comes to mind*:

    1 Corinthians 6:9:

    Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

    Nah, I’m sure that wasn’t it either.

    *To head off a possible tangent, I do know there are alternative interpretations of the words “ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται”, though I tend to think that the traditional consensus that it’s anti-gay makes more sense. Either way, there’s some irony that Corinthians has historically been interpreted with an anti-gay message.

  13. says

    A Hermit: thanks for the cite. This just shows that Ferguson’s apology is crap — especially the bit about detesting prejudice — and that Andrew Sullivan either doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or is desperate to cover for a friend and/or fellow conservative ideologue.

    And besides, what reason could Ferguson have had to make such ignorant off-the-cuff remarks if he didn’t believe them beforehand? Anger, fear, panic and desperation are acceptable excuses for saying something one wouldn’t normally say; but none of those apply here. Or maybe they do, if you’re a conservative starting to realize that everything you believed has been proven wrong.

  14. says

    Ferguson from leftwingfox’s cite:

    And one of the things I learnt from my stupidity last week is that those who seek to demonize error, rather than forgive it, are among the most insidious enemies of academic freedom.

    So now he’s saying he’s not only learned from his mistake, but has become wiser than all of his critics who pointed out how dead wrong he was? This alone totally negates his apology. This is in the ballpark of that Catholic bishop who crowed about how blessed by God his humiliation had made him, after he’d been exposed as yet another child-rape-enabler.

  15. Synfandel says

    It even perversely pins the full weight of the financial crisis on the gay community and the barren…

    “The barren”? There are reasons for not having children other than being gay or “barren”, thank you very much.

  16. raven says

    Hey, isn’t Harvard where those prominent and influential economists Reinhard and Rogoff work?

    Indeed it is.

    Apr 28, 2013 – The discovery of an error in an influential research paper by Harvard University economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff has sparked …

    And they were outed by a graduate student at U. of Mass.

    Despite all the words wasted babbling on about liberal professors, there is an industrial-military-academic complex. One of their past achievements was the Vietnam war.

  17. lofgren says

    My guess would be that he is interested in how Keynes’ personal life shaped his philosophies, which is critical to understanding any historical figure, and inadvertently phrased it in such a way that suggested all gay, childless people share Keynes’ perspectives rather than the more reasonable suggestion that being gay and childless had a specific, individualized influence on Keynes’ outlook that shaped his beliefs in certain identifiable ways.

  18. says

    My guess would be that he is interested in how Keynes’ personal life shaped his philosophies…

    Your “guess” is disproven by the longstanding pattern of willful ignorance and blatant dishonesty that Ferguson has been showing toward Keynes since 1999. Read the article A Hermit cited @5. Seriously, do you really think Ferguson’s bullshit is ANYTHING like an honest attempt to understand or explain anything?

  19. raven says

    My guess would be that he is interested in how Keynes’ personal life shaped his philosophies…

    Naw.

    Frauds and quacks like Niall Ferguson start with a conclusion. And then make up stuff to support it.

    Keynes was and is a towering intellect in economics. Most economists are Keynesians. The competing theory is supply side economics which is fake pseudoscience, just wrong, and doesn’t work when people try it.

    Ferguson is simply a deranged mouse scurrying through the underbrush of our society.

  20. raven says

    Being childless is really irrelevant to what a person is, does, or accomplishes.

    Some examples.

    Jesus. Buddha. All the Popes since the 12th century. (Supposedly, who knows how many actually had children stuck away here and there?) George Washington.

    I’m sure there are more. People don’t tend to even notice this fact because, really, who cares? It’s not important.

  21. tyros says

    @lofgren, 19:

    Perhaps, but he had nothing to back it up but bigotry and distaste for Keynes’s economic theories. It’s the sort of thing that could easily be tested in ordinary social science experiments, but I’m not sure that that argument is actually intended as a factual or generalizable statement most of the time. So I think you’re being too charitable to Ferguson.

  22. says

    Thanks, pinkboi — yet another sign of how desperate and insane the far-right’s hate-on for Keynes has become.I don’t know enough about economics to judge whether Keynes was the “towering intellect” raven says he was — but he sure as hell towers over his more recent critics.

  23. raven says

    @25

    wikipedia:

    John Maynard KeynesFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search “Keynes” redirects here. For other uses, see Keynes (disambiguation).
    John Maynard Keynes Keynesian economics

    John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes,[1] CB, FBA (pron.: /ˈkeɪnz/ KAYNZ; 5 June 1883 – 21 April 1946) was a British economist whose ideas have fundamentally affected the theory and practice of modern macroeconomics, and informed the economic policies of governments. He built on and greatly refined earlier work on the causes of business cycles, and is widely considered to be one of the founders of modern macroeconomics

    and the most influential economist of the 20th century.[2][3][4][5]

    His ideas are the basis for the school of thought known as Keynesian economics, as well as its various offshoots. In many ways, subsequent developments in 20th century economics can be viewed as either building on Keynes’ ideas or reacting against them.

    According to the Fount of a Lot of Knowledge, Lord Baron Keynes was… the most influential economist of the 20th century.

    Wikipedia also says he was bisexual and not childless by choice. He was married to a Russian ballerina who got pregnant but miscarried.

  24. raven says

    Niall Ferguson Explains Why Keynesian Policies Are Dooming The …
    www. zerohedge. com/…/niall-ferguson-explains-why-keynesian-policies-…‎

    Oct 24, 2010 – Ferguson explains why those who push for Keynesian policies in a … our eyes (which is not to say that Austrian economics is necessarily better …

    Niall Ferguson is a quack.

    He is an anti-Keynesian.

    And his attack on a long dead scholar as a gay man is an ad hominen and wrong, Keynes was bisexual.

    He is also wrong again. Obama did the routine Keynesian things and we are recovering noticeably from the Bush Catastrophe. Fuck you, Niall.

  25. pacal says

    So Niall Ferguson said:

    And one of the things I learnt from my stupidity last week is that those who seek to demonize error, rather than forgive it, are among the most insidious enemies of academic freedom.

    Lets see:

    1), Poor, poor me – check.

    2), Criticism is persecution – check.

    3), Criticism is censorship – check.

    4), Mindless hyperbole – check.

    5), Whine and whine- check.

    6), I’m the victim! – check.

    7), and more poor, poor me – check.

    So many of the features of the modern “conservative” whine.

  26. Michael Heath says

    The liar Niall Ferguson:

    I had been asked to comment on Keynes’s famous observation “In the long run we are all dead.” The point I had made in my presentation was that in the long run our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are alive, and will have to deal with the consequences of our economic actions.

    Let’s also not forget that the liar Niall Ferguson was lying when he falsely claimed that J. M. Keynes didn’t care about the long-term. The above quote from Keynes is a quote-mine that misrepresents what Keynes actually said and meant – it’s defamation.

    In Ferguson’s apology he does not repent for perpetuating this falsehood about Keynes; therefore he deserves no forgiveness from anyone. Fuck him and fuck others who do the same, including those on the left who are defended by some other liberals when they do it.

    From my perspective this defamation of Keynesian economics will cause far more harm in the future than what bigoted elites in western civilization will be inflicting on gays. And for a great reason, because the western world is quickly becoming intolerant of bigots against gay people and their families, at a stunningly fast rate; which is why conservative Christians are going bonkers over the issue since it paints them into a dogmatic corner. Therefore Feguson’s quote-mine of Keynes is the worst part of Ferguson’s diatribe; where it goes virtually unnoticed. In spite of what we observe across economies given how each reacted to the financial crisis and great recession that began six years ago. Observations that once again compelling validate Keynesian economic theory as its argued today by credible economists (read: mainstream).

  27. raven says

    wikipedia NF:

    Krugman argued that Ferguson’s view is “resurrecting 75-year old fallacies” and full of “basic errors”.

    He also stated that Ferguson is a “poseur” who “hasn’t bothered to understand the basics, relying on snide comments and surface cleverness to convey the impression of wisdom. It’s all style, no comprehension of substance.”[70][71][72][73]

    In 2012, Jonathan Portes, the director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said that subsequent events had shown Ferguson to be wrong: “As we all know, since then both the US and UK have had deficits running at historically extremely high levels, and long-term interest rates at historic lows: as Krugman has repeatedly pointed out, the (IS-LM) textbook has been spot on.”[74]

    Later in 2012, after Ferguson wrote a cover story for Newsweek arguing that Mitt Romney should be elected in the upcoming US presidential election, Krugman wrote that there were multiple errors and misrepresentations in the story, concluding

    Paul Krugman, a Nobel laureate and neoKeynesian economist called Niall a “poseur”. I suppose it is more elegant than me calling him a fraud and quack but not necessarily more accurate.

    Ferguson has been wrong a lot, plays fast and lose with facts and the truth, and seems to think that writing well is the same as writing correctly. He’s also a typical right winger who admires the Iraq war, Romney, McCain, and colonialism.

  28. says

    “and inadvertently phrased it in such a way that suggested all gay, childless people share Keynes’ perspectives rather than the more reasonable suggestion that being gay and childless had a specific, individualized influence on Keynes’ outlook that shaped his beliefs in certain identifiable ways.”

    That would make it less of a completely bullshit hypothesis?

    “Being childless is really irrelevant to what a person is, does, or accomplishes.”

    I struggled with this, really, I did; but, at the end of the day, when we call in the fire and piss on the dogs, we have to admit that someone else was childless. I’ll give you a few hints…

    HITLER!

  29. laurentweppe says

    supply side economics which is fake pseudoscience, just wrong, and doesn’t work when people try it.

    I’m sorry to say, but supply-sides works very well: it allows an enormous trasfer of wealth from the plebs toward the upper-class, thus resurecting in the western world the inept, parasitic, hereditary aristocracy which had been reduced to irrelevance by the aftermatch of the 1929 crisis.
    And once the economy ended up fucked by said inept, parasitic, hereditary aristocracy, the suply-siders switched to an austerity fetichism which posits that the plebs have to suffer as penance for the sins of their betters.
    Since after 30 years of constant bullshiting and obvious contempt of the rich kids toward the rest of mankind as yet to led to the systematic slaughter of the resurected inept, parasitic, hereditary aristocracy, I’d say that the supply-side system has so far worked exactly as intended

  30. ambulocetacean says

    Ferguson is pathetic. Did anyone see his stupid TV series Civilization: Is the West History?

    It was based on his pulled-out-of-his-arse notion that Europe conquered the rest of the world because it had six “killer apps” that the rest of the world didn’t: competition, science, democracy, medicine, consumerism and the Protestant work ethic.

    Never mind that there wasn’t much democracy or Protestant work ethic involved in the Catholic monarchies of Spain, Portugal and France establishing their empires. Or much medicine, given that germ theory didn’t arise until the late 19th century.

    Ferguson has turned himself into a small industry by being a pseudo-intellectual cheerleader for the American right and providing fawning hagiography services to the likes of Kissinger.

  31. says

    It was based on his pulled-out-of-his-arse notion that Europe conquered the rest of the world because it had six “killer apps” that the rest of the world didn’t: competition, science, democracy, medicine, consumerism and the Protestant work ethic.

    Yeah, those pagan Greeks and Ay-Rab savages never did any science or medicine. Or algebra. And they never created jobs by building cool buildings and making nice food and clothes and decorative stuff either. And we tried to teach ‘em how to count using Roman numerals, but they never got the hang of it. Must be ’cause they’re heathen savages…can’t think of any other reason…

  32. Quantum Mechanic says

    Modus:

    “gayKeynesianeconomists” is quite a mouthful. Can we shorten it to “Gaynesian” instead?

  33. lofgren says

    Seriously, do you really think Ferguson’s bullshit is ANYTHING like an honest attempt to understand or explain anything?

    That’s not what I said. I was only making a conjecture that would square what Ferguson said with the type of person his behavior demonstrates him to be. What he said wasn’t just the subtle prejudice that even the most enlightened person might find themselves accidentally uttering. It was rank, unvarnished bigotry of the most blatant and vile order. It strains credulity that he could have meant it in just the way he said it. That doesn’t mean that what he meant was actually correct or defensible. At best it would be highly controversial. But it’s the difference between behavior that is wildly out-of-character and indefensible, and behavior that is consistent with his character. I make no claim as to the correctness of the claims that I am only guessing he actually intended to make.

    Being childless is really irrelevant to what a person is, does, or accomplishes.

    That’s just as absurd as saying that being gay, or black, or Christian, or female, or poor is irrelevant to what a person is, does, or accomplishes. Of course raising a child is relevant to what a person is, does, or accomplishes. Being a parent is as much a part of a person’s identity as any of those others. Unless you embrace some kind of pure duality where no aspect of a person’s life actually has any influence on their personality, beliefs, or outlook, there is no way you can actually believe this.

  34. raven says

    That’s just as absurd as saying that being gay, or black, or Christian, or female, or poor is irrelevant to what a person is, does, or accomplishes. Of course raising a child is relevant to what a person is, does, or accomplishes. Being a parent is as much a part of a person’s identity as any of those others. Unless you embrace some kind of pure duality where no aspect of a person’s life actually has any influence on their personality, beliefs, or outlook, there is no way you can actually believe this.

    Not a whole lot of data there.

    In fact you just listed a bunch of assertions without proof. This is known as babbling idiocy. Even Niall Ferguson can do better. He makes stuff up to support his assertions i.e. lies a lot.

    Hitchens rule. Assertions without proof or data may be dismiised without proof or data. You are just wrong.

  35. =8)-DX says

    how anyone who is not a bigot could have thought what he thought and said what he said.

    It happens to the best of us. Sometimes when mouth opens, turd comes out.

  36. lofgren says

    Hitchens rule. Assertions without proof or data may be dismiised without proof or data. You are just wrong.

    Just to be clear, you are denying that any aspect of a person’s life has any effect whatsoever on any other aspect of a person’s life?

  37. says

    No, lofgren, we’re denying that Ferguson was making an honest attempt to explain Keynes’ life or activities. And I, for one, am further pointing out that NOTHING about Keynes’ life affects the VALIDITY of Keynes’ ideas. When someone’s ideas are demonstrably right, do you really need to mention his private life to “explain” them?

    Is that clear enough for you?

  38. says

    I was only making a conjecture that would square what Ferguson said with the type of person his behavior demonstrates him to be.

    And we were pointing out that your “conjecture” is just plain wrong, as shown by Ferguson’s longer-term track-record. Get over it already.

    It strains credulity that he could have meant it in just the way he said it.

    Not when you compare it with what he’s said before. Seriously, lofgren, the only person here who seems to have a problem facing reality is you.

    I make no claim as to the correctness of the claims that I am only guessing he actually intended to make.

    Why are you even bothering to discuss what he may (or may not) have “really” meant, if you have to guess at it? If Ferguson can’t express his ideas clearly, are they even worth discussing?

  39. thumper1990 says

    Given Sullivan’s testimony, I confess to being completely and utterly confused by Ferguson. His actions towards Sullivan and his partner are clearly not those of a homophobe, but that being the case why on Earth would he say what he did? I can only assume he was trying to get some point across and just fucked up royally, but… gah! X-/

  40. iknklast says

    So now men can be flawed for being childless? I thought that was only leveled at women – oh, wait, he’s gay, so the same rules don’t apply. Sounds like the classic ad hominem to me – I usually use the example in my class of some people who thought Sandra Day O’Connor was unqualified to be on SCOTUS because she was childless.

  41. Michael Heath says

    thumper1990 writes:

    Given Sullivan’s testimony, I confess to being completely and utterly confused by Ferguson. His actions towards Sullivan and his partner are clearly not those of a homophobe, but that being the case why on Earth would he say what he did? I can only assume he was trying to get some point across and just fucked up royally, but… gah! X-/

    This is not rare behavior. Some bigots can accept some individuals in the despised class for who they are, while still being a bigot who acts in a bigoted manner towards the larger group.

Leave a Reply