Audio: “I hate gay people”
posted at 10:27 am on February 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
Barnett e-mails to say he’s on official Sullivan heart-ache watch. With good reason, but you can’t knock Sully for objecting to this; it’s ugly stuff and shocking to hear how casual Hardaway is in admitting to his prejudice. People wondered, rightly, how that crack about hanging someone upside down with a fork in him seemed to come so easily to Michael Richards’s lips. The same might be asked of TH vis-a-vis his nonchalance.
And it will be asked, although not too insistently. Hardaway may be a homophobe but he’s a minority homophobe, so his moral authority at this point is highly “nuanced.” On the other hand, Isaiah Washington’s moral authority didn’t shield him from mandatory deprogramming when he dropped the (other) F-bomb. The question is whether the double standard Ace writes about is diminishing or whether blacks have simply slipped a bit in the hierarchy of persecuted groups and Washington/Hardaway made the mistake of hating on people above them in the totem pole.
Note: the clip has been slightly edited.
He’s already apologized, although I’ll leave you to wonder whether that has to do with the NBA allegedly having suspended him from league events.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
You sound as if you actually WANT everything that ANS had. Is that the case?
Perhaps you do not truly qualify as “famous” (let the the HotAir participants decide), but I, for one, think that you are infamous, honora. Does that help?
CyberCipher on February 15, 2007 at 4:03 PM
So that’s a yes apparently.
NRA4Freedom on February 15, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Your missing my point. It seems that you’re trying to prove that he’s a hypocrit, though that’s really not possible since none of us has a connection with the man, so none of us can tell you if he was offended.
He shouldn’t have made the statement. Everyone here agrees. You asking a question that cannot be answered does not change this.
And yes, you could take this to another level, but the real answer is that it doesn’t matter what we think other than our ability to buy stuff.
Esthier on February 15, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Except that Hardaway’s race is not a lifestyle choice. “I hate gays” is no different than “I hate hippies” or “I hate neo-cons.” Anyone who says it is worse has no moral, ethical, or logical grounds to condemn the former any more than the latter. Hate of another human is a waste of energy and immoral on its face; it is only hate based upon racial, ethnic or religious criteria that has the historical precedent to warrant substantive (read legal) societal consideration.
Beyond that, it is the prerogative of the people to do what they will on the issue. But, no matter what they do, there simply is not sufficient historical precedent to warrant the kind of attention sexual orientation has received in the past 15 years. Homosexuals have held and still continue to hold the highest positions in a variety of fields, far overrepresented in the upper echelons of society. They simply have not been oppressed.
They aren’t fighting for equal pay for equal work. They aren’t fighting to sit at lunch counters. They aren’t fighting against job discrimination. They have jobs. They’re paid well, and they own more lunch counters than those from which they’ve been thrown. What they want, are demanding actually, is a full societal embrace of their lifestyle as moral, legitimate, healthy and constructive. Anyone that does not hold to this demand, does not lock step with this orthodoxy, is a bigot. Is a homophobe.
Hardaway is a tool, and his hate is his business. Besides, his hate is not the same kind of hate that cops in Oxford, MS c. 1949 had for his “uppity black” forbears. That kind of hate cripples a society, stunts its growth. It is cancerous. Yes, his hate is wrong. It is immoral. It is not in any way analogous to the Jim Crow south. You should be ashamed of yourself to even make the comparison.
spmat on February 15, 2007 at 4:15 PM
I agree (about puppies, anyhow). But are gays born gay, such that they have no choice in the matter? Or are they like Jihadis (a lifestyle choice). IMHO, this is the crux of the matter. It is at least one of the principal reasons why we struggle to come to anything resembling a consensus on gay related issues (like this one).
BTW, I SERIOUSLY hope that you were kidding about the Jihadis.
CyberCipher on February 15, 2007 at 4:20 PM
This definition in some form or other applies to about 99.99% of the world’s population.
Since we’re apparently all hatful intollerant bigots, then what’s the big deal?
Lawrence on February 15, 2007 at 4:21 PM
I’ve got his rookie card somewhere…. That’s all from me.
RightWinged on February 15, 2007 at 4:30 PM
I dont see a problem with Hardaway having an opinion. This has nothing to do with racism. It is about choice. Until proved it is not a choice, then I might even agree with Hardaway. If it was genetic then homosexuals would be extinct. I have a right to not like a Jihadi because he choses that self destructive behavior. BTW who doesn’t like puppies? (Maybe a jihadi, but I am an infidel)
infidel on February 15, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Indeed, that’s exactly what you have in Canada.
steveegg on February 15, 2007 at 4:32 PM
That’s a good point. I really think people toss around the word hate all the time, without fully embracing it’s meaning. It’s like saying, “I’m starving” when you’re hungry.
Intolerance is a funny word, too. So, all I have to do is tolerate someone? That’s what people are striving for, being tolerated? Funny.
There are plenty of people I “tolerate”, even though I can’t stand them, I don’t respect them, I have to use for them.
What if he said, “I don’t like gay people”? Would there still be the outrage?
reaganaut on February 15, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Another objective journalist that doesn’t inject his own personal views into the interview.
Rick on February 15, 2007 at 5:00 PM
The issue is trying to apply the racism card to anti-homosexuality. Homosexuality isn’t a race, and it isn’t even a gender. But, if we apply the racism card hard enough and long enough, it becomes politically correct to think of it in those terms. But this isn’t really working to well on the average American populace.
So, instead of racism, we now have hate-crime. With hate crime, anything can become a crime depending on how vociferously someone disgarees with you.
Lawrence on February 15, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Nowhere in my remarks do I equate Hardaway’s statement to the racism in “the Jim Crow south.” So don’t chastise me for something I didn’t say. Perhaps you need to read just a little bit more carefully before spewing on and on.
Again, you’re ranting on something that I didn’t talk about. I even agree with some of the things you’re saying in the blockquote I highlighted. The outrage over the Tim Hardaway quote is his blatant anti-gay bigotry. If Tim Hardaway had talked about the things you said in your paragraph, we’re talking about a completely different situation.
Are you able to see the difference?
asc85 on February 15, 2007 at 5:25 PM
asc85, I don’t see where spmat is “ranting” as you say.
Can you point out where he uses terms like “bigoted”, “blatant”, “chastise” or “spewing”?
faraway on February 15, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Oh really.
If this is not a direct connection of Hardaway’s anti-gay comments to racial bigotry (which is epitomized by the Jim Crow South), then we’re speaking two separate languages. To make that connections stretches logic and common decency beyond all reason.
spmat on February 15, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Yeah…right.
asc85 on February 15, 2007 at 7:22 PM
No Esthier, it seems the point did in fact go over your head. I simply stated:
I did not state what it was, I wondered what it was. Nothing more nothing less.
Pam on February 15, 2007 at 7:29 PM
I found what Marcotte said incredibly offensive and bigoted as well.
I believe in the 1st Amendment to the core and hate PC crap, as well as the idea of “hate crimes”, simply because crime is crime, no matter what the motive.
I suppose if you feel the same way Hardaway does towards homosexuals, you wouldn’t be offended.
But to have gone off the rails about Marcotte’s bigotry and to defend Hardaway’s bigotry is beyond the pail.
Yes, it does, if you wanna go by Webster’s. Even if you hate me, although I don’t consider myself a liberal, I won’t reciprocate.
SouthernDem on February 15, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Whew! Good thing I was speaking hypothetically, huh?
CyberCipher on February 15, 2007 at 8:07 PM
I find it ironic that no one wants to address the legitimate points the guy made about having homosexuals … in the locker room.
it’s “bigotry” this and “tolerance” that.
The conversation is rather predictable, and frankly boring. The guy made several interesting points, and ended it with one massively stupid and hateful statement. Why didn’t anyone … notice the first part?
One Angry Christian on February 15, 2007 at 8:16 PM
Are you really that threatened by a person of the same sex being in the locker room with you?
Do you make passes at every person of the opposite sex?
Pam on February 15, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Because this is neither about understanding nor is it about tolerance. It’s about control. Control over the debate and control over society. Those that would take this statement and attempt to destroy the man (as they will if he doesn’t do precisely what Isaiah Washington did and grovel, even if that will work) want power to carve for themselves the same grievance industry that Jesse Jackson et al. have. Anyone that does not publicly pull the line on the orthodoxy will be punished.
It’s identity politics, and there are few minorities with as fervent a sense of identity as the homosexual community. They don’t call it “family” by accident. They’ve got a chip on their shoulder the size of Texas and have more than enough wealth to shove it in everyone else’s face.
spmat on February 15, 2007 at 9:21 PM
A lot of you are completely missing the point here. This has nothing to do with free speech. Let’s drop that stupid meme right now. Calling someone out on their bigotry isn’t tantamount to censorship. It’s just more free speech. No one is saying he shouldn’t be able to voice his hatred.
Hardaway’s comments before he plopped his bigotry on the table were hardly innocuous.
Considering all the yammering about objection to his comments being “thought policing,” the support of his point about discomfort in the locker room is a bit strange. After all, the reasoning behind this is that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed in locker rooms because of sexual urges that are being projected on them. “We think you’re having sexual thoughts about the other men in here, so we’re kicking you out.” Second degree thought police. It would be one thing if there were actual sexual harassment going on, but without that there is only the paranoid fantasy that all homosexuals are a few strands of self control away from starting a dropped soap party with a bunch of big strong unwilling heterosexual men.
And I don’t think we should brush over the hypocrisy of a black American so wholeheartedly embracing bigotry against another group of Americans. It wasn’t long ago that we had “whites only” locker rooms in America. “Pay it forward” bigotry hardly behooves someone who has personally benefited from the evaporation of similar bigotry.
Mark Jaquith on February 16, 2007 at 2:10 AM
Be careful using the word “articulate”.
hadsil on February 16, 2007 at 2:21 AM
I don’t think you’re getting it.
He doesn’t think homosexuality is right. Neither do the vast majority of humans, past and present. You think that’s bigotry.
You’re wrong.
Being a homosexual is not the same as being black. Disliking someone for their sexual proclivities is no different from disliking them for their tendency to drink, smoke or their politics. That is not bigotry. Hating someone for any of those reasons is immoral, because hating anyone for any reason is immoral, but hating them for their sexual orientation does not rise to the level of social significance that racial hatred does. To suggest that it does shows a lack of historical perspective and an obvious bent towards rank identity politics.
This statement by Hardaway is immoral, to be sure, but its use as a blunt object to beat him and others into the party line orthodoxy on homosexuality is pure politics.
spmat on February 16, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Well, his career is over, which I suppose is the optimal outcome for our nation and the NBA. Don’t mess with the multi-million dollar GLAAD destruction machine.
spmat on February 16, 2007 at 2:38 PM
And the only bearing the answer here would have is to show whether or not he is a hypocrit. That is the only thing that could possibly be gained out of that information.
Either way, even if you are just wondering, just to wonder, it still changes nothing in this story.
That’s like saying of the Bosnian shooter: “I wonder how he felt when there was shooting going on in Bosnia.”
Esthier on February 16, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Because of where he ended it. Had he simply left it about the locker room, then sure there could be a legitimate discussion there.
But he didn’t. And no one wants to take the side of a bigot.
Phelps and his crew are agaisnt homosexuality and abortions. They probably make a decent point every now and then, but how can you tell when they open their mouths and spew such bile.
If you associate or defend bigots, then you may as well be one yourself. Isn’t that what we claimed with Edwards’ decision to keep the bloggers? We didn’t try to argue the points she was trying to make about Plan B. Her bigotry made that impossible.
Esthier on February 16, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Does that mean you’re comfortable showering with members of the opposite sex at your gym (or wherever you might publically shower)?
By your reasoning we should move them all to unisex and stop with separating showers and bathrooms by gender.
Esthier on February 16, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Being a Christian is not the same as being black. Disliking someone for their religion is no different from disliking them for their tendency to drink, smoke or their politics. That is not bigotry. Hating someone for any of those reasons is immoral, because hating anyone for any reason is immoral, but hating them for their religion does not rise to the level of social significance that racial hatred does. To suggest that it does shows a lack of historical perspective and an obvious bent towards rank identity politics.
This statement by Marcotte is immoral, to be sure, but its use as a blunt object to beat her and others into the party line orthodoxy on Christianity is pure politics.
SouthernDem on February 16, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Meant to quote that. How’s that spmat? Still sound ok?
SouthernDem on February 16, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Again, no one assumes all men find all women attractive, but we still have separate facilities. In fact, if a woman were to somehow make into into the NBA, she’d have to shower in her own locker room. Why should the rules change when it comes to homosexuals?
Esthier on February 16, 2007 at 3:11 PM
No, I think that him hating homosexuals and wanting to kick them off his team is bigotry. His opinion was very much about homosexuals, not homosexual activity. He was hating the “sinner,” not the “sin.”
Drinking, maybe. That’s strongly genetic. Smoking and politics are decisions, not genetic proclivities. He didn’t say he hated homosexuals because of their actions. He said he hated homosexuals (i.e. for simply being homosexuals, something they can’t control). Why do you insist on muting his words? He said hate. Not dislike. Hate.
Mark Jaquith on February 16, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Sure, sounds fine if you think that discrimination based upon sexual orientation has the history that discrimination based on religion, ethnicity or race has. Which it hasn’t. Its history of systematic discrimination is perhaps more significant than that of fondness for drink, but certainly isn’t any more significant than that of one’s fondness for communism. It doesn’t even come close to the history of blood and oppression based on religious preference. Good of you to trivialize the suffering of religious minorities throughout the world’s history though.. very sporting of you.
My point is that the same political forces that brought about Hardaway’s destruction under the justifiable pretense of open hatefulness would like nothing better than to do the same to anyone that might simply believe that homosexuality is wrong. And hey, they have psychotics like Fred Phelps out there to prove their point for them. In short, this is a political action meant to assert dominance. He apologized out of fear, not out of contrition, because his press agents knew that he had just fired a bb-gun at a mad bull. His fear was justified, and it’s the reaction the homosexual lobby wants to inspire in anyone that does not agree with them.
Eventually, they will get what they want.
spmat on February 16, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Alcoholics are not born alcoholics. They are born with a proclivity to addiction. The nature of the addiction depends on their choice of drug. They are also able to break that cycle and choose not to be controlled by that addiction, thus AA, NA, etc.
But your point in drawing the distinction between hating the person and the action is well made, and well taken.
Very true, which I did not mute at all. I called his hatred what it is: irrational, immoral and shameful. I just have a problem with the shock! and outrage! over the comment, as it smacks of calculated political posturing meant to control the debate over the subject.
spmat on February 16, 2007 at 5:10 PM
So something has to have a long documented history of discrimination, hatred and violence to count as bigotry?
You’re talking about Marcotte, right? Bigot was bandied about as the description for what she stated.
Look, I’m not trivializing anything, so don’t get all high and mighty for the minority religions, cuz brother, everyone has an ancestor whose been oppressed. I’m saying that what you define as bigotry depends on whether or not you agree with what was said. A lot of folks here don’t like homosexuals, thus they have no real problem with Hardaway’s statement.
SouthernDem on February 16, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Read what I wrote, please.
I never said the man wasn’t a bigot. I even said his punishment was just. I said that bigotry against homosexuals is no better or no worse than bigotry based on political preference. They’re both wrong and for exactly the same reasons. I also made the point that the hue and cry this has received isn’t proportional to its significance.
Homophobia does not warrant the level of societal attention it has gotten. It’s only gotten that attention because of the positions of those seeking to garner it. They already have power and influence, and they are cashing in on that influence to change the society in which they live.
How many parts in television shows and movies, how many articles have been written to portray homosexuals as the cream of the crop of society, funny, sensitive, artistic and cultured? How many times in a sitcom has the moral music piped up at the end to teach us all how homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships, and anyone who thinks differently is a bigot? Why is it that every single Real World season during its first 6 years invariably had at least one homosexual member in it, and that person is almost always portrayed as the conscience of the group?
The past 15-20 years have seen a powerful undercurrent in the arts and letters to legitimate homosexuality and make of it almost a holy institution. Academy awards nominated and given to movies designed specifically to normalize homosexuality and highlight every perceived inequality between homosexuals and heterosexuals. A constant stream of legal action by GLAAD et al. to punish anything that could be construed as homophobia, as defined by them, to wit anything that does not fit their agenda.
Now, tell me the last movie you watched about the violence and oppression suffered by Korean shop-keepers working in America’s ghettos. Heck, I’ll take a haiku.
But hey, you’ll probably just search and replace the word homosexual with Jew in the above paragraphs and have scored a killing blow. Meh.
If you think that putative discrimination against homosexuals is equivalent to this world’s long history of oppression of religious minorities, then yes, you are trivializing it.
For every person here that you want to claim is a gay-bashing bigot, I’ll bet if you asked them if they have homosexuals in their lives that they love or care deeply about, they’ll tell you yes. Now who’s the bigot?
spmat on February 16, 2007 at 8:13 PM
Thanks for the even handed arguments. Let’s say we’ll agree it was wrong, we’ll just disagree on the bigot part. I can live with that.
How many of them will tell you they know a Korean shop keeper working in the ghetto? Point being, homosexuals are a significan portion of the population.
Online dictionary definition. You’re right, the word is thrown around as a weapon. But it’s appropriate for people like Hardaway and Marcotte.
By the way, I never once stated anyone in here was a bigot.
SouthernDem on February 16, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2