So what s more important?

[Gore1FL]

Poll question: So what s more important?

When there are limited resources available, we need to allocate them in a meaningful an useful way.

So where do you want my efforts?

[Solon]

1. Your assuming there are limited resources, unless our activism is powered solely by oil...

this isn't a zero sum game, so its a false choice.

[Gore1FL]

2. So where do you want my limited resources? n/t

[Solon]

5. What? Do you not have time for one and the other, or is it that you simply aren't motivated enough?

Seriously, this is silly.

[Gore1FL]

7. am asking what is more important. n/t

[Solon]

9. Yeah, but your second line is incorrect, so its push polling. n/t

[Gore1FL]

11. It's not push polling. It's reality. What is more important? n/t

[Solon]

13. Our resources aren't limited in this regard...

Because the simple fact is we could dedicate all the money and as much time as we want to Marriage Equality, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, trying to make sure Warren doesn't give the invocation at the Inauguration. Because, since it involves letters that take minutes to write, and possibly protest, that would take what, at most a few weeks worth of protests, doesn't take away from advocacy for Marriage Equality. Indeed, it helps it, Warren was one of the big pushers for Proposition 8, attempts to marginalize him can actually help the cause for Same Sex Marriage.

[Gore1FL]

16. Educate me, please

If Warren doesn't say a prayer to a God who may or may not exist and may or may not be listening, how does this effect the GLBT community?

[Solon]

23. That's actually easy to answer, when Mr. Obama(and others) say that they disagree with Mr. Warren...

on a specific issue, and honor him based on other issues. They put his opinions, his views, on the same ethical level as their own. This also sends a signal to those who share Warrens views that those views are valid, and empowers them, such as the Baptist group that came out and claimed something to the effect of, "See, we aren't bigots!" over this fiasco.

This is very dangerous, especially in a time when millions of GLBT people are having their rights decided by a court of law, and the court of public opinion.

[Gore1FL]

25. I don't see that as any more valid than...

...the argument that meeting with leaders of "enemy" nations validates their views.

Granted Warren was a bad choice. In the overall scheme of things it is still a forgettable fragment of a meaningless ceremony, where as civil rights fore the GLBT community lasts forever.

[Solon]

29. How forgettable is it now, and how meaningless is the ceremony now...

Look, we have the director of Equality California refusing to go to the Inauguration now.

People For The American Way is protesting this, loudly.

PFLAG is as well

and so is the HRC.

Not to mention a Bishop in Washington D.C. Several other religious leaders around the nation, and who knows who else will join in as the inauguration gets closer. This is no longer a meaningless ceremony that's going to be forgotten easily. Obama has a problem and its beginning to grow.

[Gore1FL]

43. Good.--because as i said Warren is an offensive choice

In the big scheme of things, what is important is the policies that go into place after the ceremonies and parties end. And the whole point of this thread is to point out that The Devil and Osama bin Laden could do interpretive dance as part of the inauguration, and it wouldn't change anyone's mind about either,nor would it effect policy.

[girl gone mad]

32. A closed door meeting with Ahmadinejad would be a bit different..

than having him on stage to pray for the President and offer his blessing in front of hundreds of millions of people around the world, wouldn't you agree?

[Gore1FL]

42. I would be offended by Ahmadinejad as much as Warren

But would consider neither an endorsement nor expect a change in policy to result from it. Would it have occurred,I would think Iran not nuking Israel would take priority over my offense.

[Liberal_in_LA]

3. Are the 2 mutually exclusive? You need an "other' in your poll

[Gore1FL]

4. It isn't either or necessarily

it is which is more important.

And where would my personal resources best be spent.

[Political Heretic]

6. This probably isn't an either/or thing.

[Gore1FL]

8. It doesn't have to be either or. What is more important?

[Political Heretic]

34. That is either / or. They may be both important

That's a possibility. They man be inseparably linked - also a possibility. You might be implying a dichotomy where none exists.

[Gore1FL]

55. Prioritization is not either or

If I gave you a list of words and asked you to alphabetize them, would you reject the concept because I did not include every word in the unabridged dictionary?

As the thread title asks (albeit with a typo) Which is more important?

[Political Heretic]

74. Yes, it actually is.

They may both be equally important, OR they may not be separable, i.e. working on one may necessarily imply address the other.

There may be no "first, than this."

The either or is your assumption that it is EITHER I work on this first, OR I work on this first. While it may possibly be both/and, or it may really be a false division in the first plcae.

BTW alphabetizing doesn't work as an example, because you're not asking someone to categorize anything, your asking someone to priority and assuming that the things you are describing are actually different, or of different priorities, or separable - and ignoring the possibility that they are the same, inseparable, or of equal priority, or some other alternative altogether.

[Gore1FL]

84. then explain how they are the same

rights beig taken away is not the same as someone standing behind a podium and talking about somehing different.

[Political Heretic]

96. But that wasn't your poll question.

Ensuring True equal rights for the GLBT(re: LGBTQ) community could possibly be inseparable from vociferously opposing the national honoring and legitimization of one of the nations biggest bigots. There's actually no reason to separate the two because B is a part of A, and therefore B does not impede A.

I understand what your trying to do, and how sure you are than you've got a winning idea. Message received loud and clear, you don't think Warren matters and attention would be better focused elsewhere.

That's fine, but I wish you'd just get that your logic with this particular poll is weak.

So when you ask which is more important ad nausem, I keep telling you that its a false dichotomy, i.e. not an either/or between two different things. Loudly and boldly opposing the national honoring and legitimization of one of the nations largest biggest IS PART of how you work to ensure true equal rights for the LGBTQ community - maybe they cannot be separated.

[Jamastiene]

10. Oranges

I don't like apples.

[Gore1FL]

14. I guess now is the wrong time for a fruit joke!!!

:)

You know, warren is a wrong and offensive choice. I personally see more important issues for the GLBT community than this. Realistically, prop 8 sucks more. Those who wish the undoing of existing gay marriages sucks more. The fact that no states offer true equal rights for the GLBT community sucks more than all of these combined.

The GLBT community is being forces to eat a plate of shit. It sucks that it is this way. It needs to change. To complain there is a fly on it, seems to distract from the point that the plate is filled with shit.


If I am wrong, educate me as to why an innocuous prayer that takes a fragment of a meaningless ceremony matters when compared to the nationwide discrimination we are witnessing nation wide for a lot longer in a very meaningful way.

One of my brothers is Gay. My ex-wife is a Lesbian. I care about both very much, and it affects me directly despite being straight.

I look at this, and I understand the outrage. But Warren saying a soon-forgotten prayer pales in comparison, IMHO.

[jgraz]

12. Can't help but notice you used your limited resources to post this lame-ass poll

:eyes:

[Gore1FL]

15. The point hit home, did it?

[jgraz]

17. yes, that's exactly what I meant by "lame-ass"

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Gore1FL]

18. So how did you vote?

[jgraz]

19. I didn't

[Gore1FL]

20. Ok, well I'll go ahead and worry about the cvil rights aspect then

[enigmatic]

21. I have less time than most

I can do both.

[Gore1FL]

22. But which is more important?

[enigmatic]

24. If I'm able to do both, it doesn't matter what's more important

And it doesn't take a finite amount of time to do both. It's ongoing.

[Gore1FL]

26. exactly

so which which is more important? a trival 90 seconds, or a meaningful equality?

[enigmatic]

31. I tell you what

If you're unable or unwilling to do both, I'll do it for both of us. Because standing on the side of our GLBT brothers and sisters on this matter is the right thing to do.

I've got big enough shoulders.

[Gore1FL]

46. I can be offended by Warren

Yippie.

Now what?

[uppityperson]

58. You lost me at this post. "a trival 90 seconds" lost me.

You can post a poll giving 2 choices and no one has to vote or reply. Any who complain that the choices are limited can do their own poll, or do not have to participate. I was with you for that.

But "a trival 90 seconds" lost me. By putting that subjectiveness into this, you are showing you do not understand, have no thought of trying to understand, and now change the original choices.

"Stopping some idiot from taking 90 seconds of a meaningless ceremony" is different from "a trival 90 seconds".

[Gore1FL]

83. fair enough.

I withdraw that phrasing.

[Swamp Rat]

27. Ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans, starting with uninviting Rick Warren from the Inauguration

I would be a great symbolic gesture to let all the bigots in America know that change is really coming.

[Gore1FL]

30. That's a great concept

but which is more important in the long run?

[Swamp Rat]

33. I voted, "Stopping some idiot..." because we have to start somewhere.

:)

[Gore1FL]

47. Starting somewhere is great

but shouldn't we start somewhere that actually impacts policy?

[uppityperson]

59. Challenging the President-Elect on this can impact policy. eom

[Gore1FL]

64. How?

And if it can, what is to say it doesn't impact it in a manner contrary to what we as progressives want?

[uppityperson]

68. Oh good lord. Guess no one should contact or protest anything then

Since the outcome is unknown, why ever do anything. If you don't see how challenging president-elect on a policy can change things, I feel very sorry for you.

[Gore1FL]

79. Forgive me

So how are you doing this, and what do you expect of me?

[Swamp Rat]

71. Well, if I were a member of Congress I would.

Meanwhile, I will salt the slugs. :D

[Gore1FL]

28. I am going to bed

If anyone doesn't understand the point of this poll, please feel free topost and 'll try to respond later

[mitchtv]

76. I understood

that's why I didn't vote

[Truth2Tell]

35. Choice B is part and parcel of choice A.

A great way to work for true equal rights is to try and influence the content of major symbolic public expressions. Working to derail the Warren invocation is as legitimate an effort for true equal rights as any other. The eyes of the world are on this. How it plays out will affect how many people think and act on this issue.

The premise of your poll suggests that you don't get it.

[Gore1FL]

41. I don't see what Obama Policy this will effect in a menaingful way.

I do see, however, real and substantial attacks on the GLBT community.

I am not sure how 100,000 threads on the issue makes a difference.

[Truth2Tell]

75. 100,000 threads on DU

won't do much. Posting on DU rarely does much, and when it does it's usually one good thread that does it.

But your poll doesn't mention threads on DU. It asks about "stopping" Warren from doing his invocation. That's different from doing anything at DU.

And as to what Obama policy this will affect... GLBT rights are a bigger picture issue than just specific Obama policies. Long term changes in public sentiment are eventually translated into political gains or losses, and this particular inauguration controversy - and how Obama handles it - has the potential to have a real effect on public sentiment.

[Gore1FL]

89. that is the best answer so far.

I thank you.

[ColbertWatcher]

36. C: removing false choices from meaningful debates. n/t

[Gore1FL]

40. So I shouldn't get involved in helpng the GLBT community?

[uppityperson]

60. This is helpful? hahahahahahahaha.

[Gore1FL]

66. No less helpful than ranting on internet about it

At least I am asking the questions.

And, I might note, no one has been able to give me a solid answer as to who Warren gets credibility from by this.

I understand why it is offensive and a bad choice. I question the concentration of outrage on a trivial matter of no logically definable consequence when compared to the actual struggle.

[uppityperson]

67. try this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4694780&mesg_id=4696797

[ColbertWatcher]

72. If you don't understand my post, you should just say so.

See, a false choice is a common tactic used by FOX and the GOP.

They try to confuse genuinely undecided people that there is only one opinion to take (theirs) by raising a false choice as the only other option.

For instance: the choice they've presented in the bridge loan for 2 of the 3 American automakers. Instead of presenting the information and honestly discussing all the options, they've tried to push the idea that it's between the unions and the future of American cars (the false choice).

By presenting the false choice, they're forcing people to think in black and white terms instead of gathering all the information available, asking questions to determine unknown information allowing for a more measured approach and complete solution.

Naturally, the answer they want is their preferred choice: to destroy the union, which in their scenario is the better of the two (false) choices.

This is similar to what you're doing. You are trying to ridicule the protests against the bigot Warren by dismissing his lifetime of hatred into "90 seconds," while hoping no one will see the connection between Warren's lifetime of bigotry and hatred as the largest impediment to equality for all American citizens (your preferred choice).

If you want a real discussion, try not to frame the issue as a false choice.

[ColbertWatcher]

73. In addition, Truth2Tell's post #35 says it best. Read it again with an open mind. n/t

[saltpoint]

37. If Betty Lou can take Fluffy to the vets, there'll be time to clean the garage.

Unless Betty Lou is allergic to animals, and unless Fluffy is a giraffe and Betty Lou only has a Nissan.

And unless the garage is more than a 1-day project because Chip and Sally found a wasp's next in the northeast corner.

Chip and Sally are good kids, granted, but that wasp nest is problematic.

- - - -

Obama becomes president at his Inaugural. His choice of Warren to share the spotlight, even in a minor role, has major implications. There's hot debate on DU and elsewhere on whether Obama is long-seeing and has this under control in ways we don't immediately see, or whether his all-inclusive theme means a blurring of civil rights-based governance.

I think it's a pretty legitimate debate and am still very impressed with Skinner's summary post here yesterday. For my part, I find Warren acutely worrisome on a long list of issues. I'm not known for my love of fundamentalist mega-church celebrities to begin with.

Had I been asked, I would have recommended an ecumenical council for the Inaugural -- a rabbi, a Catholic priest, a UU pastor, a local Methodist circuit preacher from the Great Plains, a Lutheran, plus other denominational folks. Seat them off to the side of the stage and literally draw straws to see who gives the invocation. I'd include a pagan or two and an agnostic or two. I'd include straight and gay, trans-spectrum ethnic groups, and a wide variety of zip codes.

This would be largely a symbolic Greek chorus, with members chosen with a view toward All the People. If specific ministers and rabbis and priests did not feel it was in their interests to go to DC for the Inaugural, representative elders or someone else from their flocks could go in their stead.

IMO it would be no real extra fuss and would round the edges of the debate.

It would also allow Obama to pursue his inclusional message but without the controversy of a Rick Warren, whose public record, after all, is not inclusional.

[Gore1FL]

49. I don't have aproblem with that.

I don't have a problem with no prayers at all.

I don't have a problem with being offended by the choice. I am offended by the choice.

I have a hard time seeing this as the lynch-pin of the GLBT community's rightful claim to equal rights--especially in light of threats that are impacting it now.

I am not defending the Warren Choice. I think it is wrong. In the overall scheme of the movement, it's generating more outage than the actual attacks.

[saltpoint]

78. Invokers of prayer are liminal figures in all cultures' histories.

The objection to Warren on DU and elsewhere involves his positions on any number of concerns, including stem cell research, reproductive freedom, gay marriage, whether Jews and other groups can be "saved," and not least, the endorsement of political assassination of other nations' leaders.

Warren's selection for the invoction confers dignity and honor to a man who has been damned stingy with either to the above-mentioned populations.

[Gore1FL]

87. I agree

that is why it is objectionable, offensive, etc. that he is giving it.

However, going back to the flies on a plate of shit analogy, I'd rather my GLBT brothers and sisters be given a new plate.

[saltpoint]

94. It remains possible that Obama will uninvite Warren, or that Warren

will step aside.

I believe neither of those scenarios is likely.

Warren's presence in the Inaugural ceremony may prompt an especially memorable passage about inclusion from Obama in his Inaugural Address.

[chascarrillo]

38. If it's a meaningless ceremony, then why defend it?

[Gore1FL]

39. Who is defending it?

[kenny blankenship]

57. And I don't think Obama thinks it's meaningless- he's a believing Christian, we're told!

Don't we remember how important it was to assert and defend Obama's status as a Christian when it came under attack?

And if Obama truly is who we say he is, then he believes that this Invocation is going to be a direct appeal to God, on behalf of himself as the new incoming President and on behalf of the entire nation.

MEANINGLESS?

And fundamentalist bigot Rick Warren is the one whom Obama has chosen to speak on his behalf and on behalf of America to GOD.

It's appalling that a Democrat would chose Rick Warren, who has nasty plans for several Democratic constituencies and no respect for secular government; but it's no less stunning to see many people hereabouts, many calling themselves Christians, treat this as an empty inconsequential ceremony that should be used for crass politics. You folks talk to God with that mouth?

[mondo joe]

44. False choice. NT

[Gore1FL]

50. Which is more important?

[mondo joe]

61. I'm sorry but it's still a false choice. One doesn't preclude the other. One may, in

fact, hinder the other.

[Gore1FL]

63. I have yet to see how Warren get's credibility from this

Who worships him because of this?

[mondo joe]

65. I don't know how credibility now = worship. Thanks. NT

[Gore1FL]

80. Fill in what ever word you want.

Whose mind will be changed one way or another if he says "Yay God" on the 20th of JAn?

[mondo joe]

86. You may be confused, but his benefit is not limited the the 20th.

He's on TV and in the news much more than he ever was before.

People who have never heard of him know who he is now, hear his message, and know that Obama thought his message was good enough.

[saltpoint]

45. Did I mention that for all we know Fluffy could be a giraffe?

[Gore1FL]

54. Fluffly being a giraffe or not probably ranks less in importance

than either of the two things given to prioritize.

[saltpoint]

77. I'm stickin' wth Fluffie, giraffe or no, because the poll is skewed and

skewed bad.

I'm sorry that it is, but it is.

[Gore1FL]

85. skewed how?

I am asking which is more important. Unless the two are equal in importance then one is of more importance.


GLBT rights vs A guy talking for 90 seconds about something else

[saltpoint]

95. O fer cryin' out loud.

The poll's hinge depends on your respondents' agreeing with your conclusion.

That's no poll to start with.

[ThomWV]

48. The ability to reject bigotry is not a limited resource, we can all do it all the time

it is an unlimited resource.

[Gore1FL]

52. I have said I rejected Warren repeatedly on this thread

But the impact of it is significantly less severe than prop 8, or for that matter the lack of equal rights in the vast majority of other states.

Looking back to the sixties, I liken this debate as being more upset about the use of the N-word than the burning of churches. Neither were good things to have happen, but the latter is clearly more important than the former.

That's the whole damn point.

[gollygee]

51. Giving a bigot that level of credibility weakens option #1

It isn't an either/or thing.

[Gore1FL]

53. How does it give him credibilty?

He isn't giving a speech on Gay rights. He is saying grace.

Did Trent Lott going to Wellstone's Memorial give him credibility?

Did Bush going to Iraq with a plastic turkey give him credibility?

You'll also otice the question was not either or, but a request to prioritize. The thread is "which is more important" .

[gollygee]

56. As to your two questions:

Did Trent Lott going to Wellstone's Memorial give him credibility? Did he just show up or was he given a platform to speak?

Did Bush going to Iraq with a plastic turkey give him credibility? Irrelevant and silly question.

The two are related, so neither is more or less important. They stand together. If he gives bigots that platform, that gives them credibility. It shows he isn't a nutjob in the eyes of this administration (which = "he gets credibility"). It does not help the cause of gay rights, or women's rights for that matter as he's also a misogynist, to have him given any credibility. It would be like having a KKK Grand Wizard speak. Someone like that would not be allowed to speak, no matter what he was going to say, because no one would want to give him that level of credibility.

[Gore1FL]

62. Where does the credibility come from?

Whose mind does it change?

[gollygee]

69. It makes him appear credible - it presents him as a person to be believed

I have no idea whose mind it will change. I never said anything about him changing minds. Being raised to the level of providing an invocation at an inaugural event makes him appear credible, though. It sends a message that his beliefs are OK.

[Gore1FL]

82. It might also give Obaa a platform to rebuke those beliefs

I don;t know. I am speculating about that too.

Again, the point the thread makes is not that Warren is somehow inoffensive, but that in the grand scheme of things, we have more important battles than this. I mean look at this board for example. I honestly think there was less discussion of prop 8 than this.

That's pretty damn scary when you think about it.

[mondo joe]

70. When a popular, respected figure selects someone for an honor it rubs some

of that respect on the honoree, among many people. "If Obama thinks he's okay, he must not be too bad," it goes, for many.

[Gore1FL]

81. I respect your view. I really do

I just have a hard time believing if people aren't following the news enough to know the facts to make their own decisions, that who says a prayer is even going to be on their radar, much less that person's background.

As I have said. I don't think he should be their. I don't really think there should be a prayer at all, for that matter. I don;t want him there because of what I feel of his views, not because I think he has the power of influence over others he hasn;t managed to influence already.

[RetroLounge]

88. What's the matter? You can't do both?

:eyes:

RL

[Gore1FL]

90. I want to know the priority. n/t

[RetroLounge]

92. Does there need to be one?

or are you just too fucking lazy to care about both?

RL

[Gore1FL]

91. You know what?

Nevermind. No one understands the point of this thread, and it is just turning into the same crap that I was trying to make the point about in the first place.

[gollygee]

93. Oh, I get the point

You're trying to say that if we really care about gay rights, we'd stop complaining about Warren and worry more about what you think we should be worrying about, and if we don't then maybe same-sex marriage isn't our priority.

It isn't a case of not getting it. We just think that's garbage.

[Political Heretic]

97. Actually everyone understands the point - and had concluded that its lame, and based on weak logic

as well as a false dichotomy.