Comments on: Joe the Plumber’s views on gays

By: California Dreamer

California Dreamer — Sun, 10 May 2009 07:51:17 +0000

Not to change the subject, but when Roger acknowledged deleting a post due to its content that caused me to read the Terms of Use below. The TOU appear to be standard PJM boilerplate (and quite well-constructed boilerplate I might add). No where in there do I see mentioned the racist, sexist or derogatory towards any particular host’s protected class conditions. Did I miss them? Are there further TOU for particular hosts?

I also don’t recall Roger limiting discussion of religion as one commenter seemed to believe, but then again unless he acknowledges it here, how would I know?

By: Colette

Colette — Sun, 10 May 2009 06:01:25 +0000

kytraveler, I agree with you re. wishing people would refrain from personal attacks and stick to critiques of substance. Calling people names because you don’t agree with them is boorish. But I also think our host tries to allow as much freedom in the comments as possible, only deleting those he thinks cross the line into hate speech. Of course, it’s subjective, and he, like all of us, is more sensitive about some subjects, and less about others. I suspect he’d be the first to admit that. I do think the internet, with its anonymity, encourages many people to be far ruder online than they ever would be in their daily lives, but I still believe the less censorship the better. I always prefer to see other commenters deal with offensive posts, just as you have been doing… even though I don’t necessarily agree with you that Joe’s been unfairly attacked

By: kytraveler

kytraveler — Sun, 10 May 2009 01:41:11 +0000

I agree with PC14, and something people need to remember is the original appeal of Joe the Plumber to begin with – a plain, down to earth “common man” speaking his mind. Joe was an articulate person who worked with his hands (not of the intellectual elite) who simply spoke his mind as he saw it using common sense and was a person that the common every day person watching Joe on TV could identify with. He spoke our thoughts without the obvious need to clean them up to make them politically correct before speaking them like the professional news people do who fear for their careers. I thought that was the unique perspective of Joe when he reported from Israel during the recent conflict there. You got a completely different take than you would get from a professional news reporter and one that in my view was fresh and interesting, because Joe was obviously not being controlled by handlers.

By: PC14

PC14 — Sat, 09 May 2009 17:40:56 +0000

I’d sure as hell prefer Joe to be around my children than Perez Hilton. And Joe is far from stupid. I’m just happy that there are people like Joe and Carrie Prejean around who speak their minds without regard to political correctness.

By: kytraveler

kytraveler — Sat, 09 May 2009 10:41:21 +0000

Yes, Colette, I can see the difference that you point out. My problem with the derogatory comments about Joe are not with the fact that some disagree with Joe but with those that simply call him stupid (There are many ways to do this without using the term “stupid” such as “little if anything of substance to contribute”, “do we still give a sh*t about what he says or thinks”, “Joe the Plumber is no longer worth listening to”, or to sadly comment about how Joe should no longer be listened to, etc, etc all of which comments may be true in themselves (a matter of personal opinion) but, in the absence of valid argument, are used for the purpose of punishing someone who the commenter dislikes simply because he disagrees with him. I can read through the comments and most of them seem to be of this nature. However, a few of the comments actually make valid points such as the one above by yourself questioning how Joe could be “friends” with people he wouldn’t let near his children. You essentially call him a liar and I would have to agree with you on that point and even though it could be classified as “derogatory” it is a perfectly valid point in the argument.
To your second point, while I do believe that some may find themselves with a predisposition toward homosexuality, whether by genetics or by outside influences, I strongly disagree with the idea that homosexuality is thereby correct and acceptable. Many tendencies we have as moral creatures are judged improper and should be denied. For example, some people are addicted to gambling even though they know it is destructive. Another example would be heterosexuals who are obsessed with sex to the point of letting it cause them to be unfaithful to their marriage. In my opinion, homosexuality falls in this category of sexual deviancy. (To get into why I believe this would require me to introduce religion and I sense Roger frowns on religion being discussed here.) You obviously disagree. I would say from Joe’s comments that he agrees. So? This is America. We should all have the right to form our own opinion and to state them as such. To say, as some seem to say, that we have no right to state such opinions because such opinions are deemed derogatory toward certain groups of people is the classic meaning of “politically correctness”. Years ago, such statements as Joe made would have been accepted as the norm since most people would have agreed with him. Today, since more people disagree with Joe, the statement is “politically incorrect”. And you would surely admit that many people are “politically correct” and try to force others to be such. And that, in my opinion, is dangerous. It is group think which destroys freedom of thought which I believe is one of the things that has made America unique and the greatest.

By: Colette

Colette — Sat, 09 May 2009 01:06:44 +0000

kytraveler, can you not see the difference between comments that criticize a broad group of people (men, women, homosexuals, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Italians, Poles, Japanese, blondes, brunettes, the obese, bald people, etc. etc.) simply for having characteristics that make them part of that group, versus comments that criticize an individual for actions or sentiments which he or she chose?

You’ll probably say that homosexuals chose their sexual orientation, and I say they didn’t. Can’t prove it either way. But you could have the same argument about obese people, and Roger would be right to remove any comments that denigrate them as a group, don’t you agree?

By: kytraveler

kytraveler — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:05:13 +0000

“RACIST AND SEXIST COMMENTS ARE DELETED HERE, ALSO EXTREME PROFANITY.” Sorry, I must have missed something – I thought the reason you said you deleted the post was because it was “DEROGATORY TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS”. Maybe someone changed the definitions of racist and sexist when I wasn’t paying attention.
Now certainly you have the right to add or take away from the rules of your blog – like they say it is your blog after all – my only point was that Joe the Plumber has been allowed to suffer quite a few “derogatory” and hateful statements in this comment section without the comments being deleted. I assume the reason those comments made it through was because you share the authors’ disdain of anyone who believes that homosexuality is immoral. And if that is the reason those derogatory posts are allowed when they normally would not be allowed then I am disappointed. I have read this blog for some time and did not think you were one of the thought police. And I saw nothing in your blog comments that was disrespectful of Joe but the comments of your readers are very much so. Why people cannot debate the issues without resorting to personal attacks against those they disagree with I do not know.

By: texastickled

texastickled — Fri, 08 May 2009 16:04:39 +0000

Agreed, Collette and DW. Maybe JTP should stick to being a spokeman at the Tea Party. It WAS only a matter of time before the MSM brought poor Joe down. (We are not all professionals.) Sigh.

“…….it’s the opposite of what citizens in Iraq suffered under Saddam Hussein.” Yes, for now. Let’s hope and pray that it remains that way.

By: DW

DW — Fri, 08 May 2009 15:04:54 +0000

Of course he has the right to speak his mind. It has nothing to do with whether he has the right to share his opinions. I imagine that he and I agree in more areas politically than not. But elevating him to the point that, half a year after his Obama moment, people in the media are still seeking to feature him in interviews or on their “news” programs, is just over the top. And in such circumstances it’s only a matter of time before he implodes – as most of us probably would do.

By: KyTraveler

KyTraveler — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:51:31 +0000

Strange. I see Roger inviting someone to go somewhere else to post because they evidently posted a comment that was “DEROGATORY TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS”. Yet I notice numerous comments that are very derogatory toward Joe the Plumber without being deleted. Was the deleted post exceptionally derogatory or is it that just certain persons or groups of persons are protected from derogatory statements while others go unprotected?

[CORRECTOMUNDO, KYTRAVELER. RACIST AND SEXIST COMMENTS ARE DELETED HERE, ALSO EXTREME PROFANITY. HOUSE RULES FOR A LONG TIME. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM, YOU'RE FREE TO GO ELSEWHERE. IT'S A BIG INTERNET.]