Is it okay to bully Santorum?

[Mogget]

One of Shakesville's bloggers (I'm guessing Melissa McEwan, but it doesn't say) argues that the Santorum redefinition campaign is bullying, ineffective, and homophobic.

The truth is, bullying begets bullying. And Dan Savage's campaign to make Santorum's family name synonymous with something "gross" is some real bullying shit.

And then there's this: Dan Savage does not speak for all gay men—and among that diverse community, there are gay men (and their allies) who consider it objectionable, and deeply counterproductive, to treat as "gross" something that is central to gay male sexuality.

(Which is not to suggest that gay men are the only people who have anal sex, or that all gay men have anal sex, but the campaign was designed by a gay man specifically to embarrass Rick Santorum for saying something homophobic about gay men, so the context here is pretty evident.)

Suffice it to say I am unconvinced that responding to a homophobic bully with homophobic bullying is an efficacious strategy to reduce homophobia or bullying.

[Shevanel]

I pretty much agree with the blogger. I think there are far better things to do to Rick Santorum, like not vote for him and debate victoriously against him.

[Chip]

I can see that argument. And there's the whole "kill 'em with kindness" mantra, which I see, and which is definitely the higher road.

I can also see the frustration in people with somebody who very clearly doesn't have both oars in the water. Santorum is not only ignorant, he's hateful. He's openly contemptuous. So while it would still be the right thing to do to take the high road, and look past his transgressions with compassion... I don't think that's realistic given where most people's thinking is today.

And (gotta say it) Dan Savage's campaign is simply genius. Evil genius, bullying, hitting below the belt, but genius nonetheless. If Karl Rove can lie, cheat, steal and do all of the most shady stuff in the world against Democrats, then Dan Savage can redefine Santorum's name as a sex waste byproduct

[Kidd]

Ok, Santorum is basically a sweatervest with aspirations of global domination. He is less electable than Sarah Palin. He was voted out of his own district by the biggest margin of defeat ever, 20%. I don't think we should debate him or pay any attention to him at all. It only gives him a platform and makes his position look like a legitimate one when we all know it isn't.

[Robert]

Poor Rick Santorum All he can do is use the whole American national media and part of the worlds media to express his opinions and prejudices Why cant the internet leave poor Santorum alone!?

I FEEL SO BAD FOR HIM I THINK IM GOING TO CRY.

































Either that or hes a twisted evil joke of a candidate and deserves to be treated as such.

[Fugs]

If he has no respect for us then why should we have any respect for him? You don't kick a bully out of power with kindness and respect, you make everyone around them see how much of an asshole they are and spartan-kick down the circle of support they're standing on.

[Chip]

Well... that's sort of an eye-for-an-eye argument, resulting in, as Gandhi says, "pretty soon the whole world is blind"

I agree that kindness probably won't do shit with someone with his head that far up his ass, but I'm still a bit torn. I see Shevanel's point, but at the same time, something that's sort of underhanded as Dan Savage has done sort of draws some attention to the ridiculousness of Santorum's positions. And yet I agree that's not the high road.

I don't feel like much of anything will change Santorum. But vigorous debate on the issues, rather than the character (or a made-up definition of Santorum's name) will certainly reveal what an asshat the guy is. And last night's town hall meeting, where he was openly booed in New Hampshire for his bigoted views, probably sends a more meaningful message.

[Emberstone]

the difference between santorum and savage is savage is reactionary, reacting to the discriminatory hatred of others, and santorum is the opposate of that, actively pushing discriminatory hatred, often for his personal gain.

the redefinition is actually a fairly accurate definition of his hatefilled rhetoric: nothing but overly frothy shit.

[RedState]

Well, I've actually met Sen. Santorum a couple of times. Both when I was an employee of The Senate and, more recently, at a fundraiser several weeks ago. Issues aside, I think he's a personable guy. He's actually done (and continues to) a TON of work for the poor and disadvantaged. When I talked to him I found him well versed on a number of things...I'm not supporting him, but I don't think he is ignorant. He is simply an strong social conservative...and while I think he is misguided on some of his stances, he is very passionate and vocal about those issues.

One of Santourm's biggest problems (other than lack of organization and money) is that he tends to fixate and lash out when he is backed into a corner. For example, he became obsessed with the media and their "unfair treatment" of him (so he says) during his re-election fight against Bob Casey. He started getting into snarky fights with the press, which is never a good thing...being a far-right conservative in a mostly blue state, one doesn't need to inflict wounds on themselves--which he did time and time again.

I mean, this whole "Santorum" thing is fun and good for internet chatter...but I don't think it is a very effective--or mature for that matter--strategy. Sounds more like a campaign plan someone would come up with on a 4th grade playground..the great "Yo' Mamma" strategy.

If you truly want to beat people like Santorum on their social stances, you first have to understand WHY they think that way...and you start building your argument from there.

[Mogget]

One argument made in the comments that I found especially persuasive is that this campaign doesn't just hurt Rick Santorum, it hurts everyone with the last name Santorum. His kids at the very least are of an age where their peers will know the redefinition and probably get bullied, or at least teased, mercilessly by them. As I would imagine happens to every other middle schooler with the last name. As one of the commenters put it, "It gets better...if you legally change your name."

[Meropspusillus]

As much as I hate Santorum, if you don't like a politician, attacking them based of their crazy policies seems a better alternative than attacking them personally.

[Kidd]

Originally Posted by Mogget

One argument made in the comments that I found especially persuasive is that this campaign doesn't just hurt Rick Santorum, it hurts everyone with the last name Santorum. His kids at the very least are of an age where their peers will know the redefinition and probably get bullied, or at least teased, mercilessly by them. As I would imagine happens to every other middle schooler with the last name. As one of the commenters put it, "It gets better...if you legally change your name."

In most cases that would be true and I would agree but in Santorum's case I really wonder if he even cares. One of his daughters is literally dying and he's been campaigning for the last two years. She could be dead by tomorrow morning and he's pandering for votes. I don't want to sound ridiculous, but I think that's a pretty severe torpedo to his 'family values' position. Let's keep in mind by the way that Savage offered to take down the website in exchange for $4,000,000 dollars for a LGBT charity and Santorum refused.

[Aeon Magus]

Weird question as the thread title... Is Bullying ever 'okay'?

[WeirdnessMagnet]

Originally Posted by RedState

If you truly want to beat people like Santorum on their social stances, you first have to understand WHY they think that way...

Because it gains them popularity within certain circles one must appease to get nominations and stuff. So, the only way to persuade them is to lessen the influence of said circles. And public ridicule may be a valid means to that end. If an up-and-coming politician (or anyone) would know that their laundry list of "immoral" acts would be met with guffaws, finger-pointing and suggestions to just find a <same-gender>friend and get over it... Then they may reconsider if pandering to all those ultra-reactionary groups is really worth it.

[Emberstone]

Originally Posted by WeirdnessMagnet

Because it gains them popularity within certain circles one must appease to get nominations and stuff. So, the only way to persuade them is to lessen the influence of said circles. And public ridicule may be a valid means to that end. If an up-and-coming politician (or anyone) would know that their laundry list of "immoral" acts would be met with guffaws, finger-pointing and suggestions to just find a <same-gender>friend and get over it... Then they may reconsider if pandering to all those ultra-reactionary groups is really worth it.

also because without fundiementalist false christanity, republicans are screwed. They play to the fears of anti-christian fundie christians because thats the only sure fire way for them to get elected.

[malachite]

I believe you need to know when to fight fire with fire and a taste of your own medicine is often effective. However once the point is made it does need to stop, lest you become what you were fighting against all along.

[FJ Cruiser]

I heard about the new "Santorum" definition last night from my friends, and it seems to me that the disgusting imagery only helps serve to stigmatize gay sex. Frankly, it made me disgusted at my own sexuality for a little. You don't gain support for war by inventing a word that describes someone's entrails being torn out by shrapnel. You don't gain support for the death penalty by conjuring up images of their suffering. In the same capacity, you don't gain support for LGBT people by describing the "frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." SERIOUSLY! WTF!

I don't care what a desperate politician says because the tide is turning in our direction. We don't need a childish and anti-productive campaign against a rather irrelevant presidential candidate because an Internet blogger's feelings were hurt by his comments.

[steel03]

Originally Posted by FJ Cruiser

I heard about the new "Santorum" definition last night from my friends, and it seems to me that the disgusting imagery only helps serve to stigmatize gay sex. Frankly, it made me disgusted at my own sexuality for a little. You don't gain support for war by inventing a word that describes someone's entrails being torn out by shrapnel. You don't gain support for the death penalty by conjuring up images of their suffering. In the same capacity, you don't gain support for LGBT people by describing the "frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." SERIOUSLY! WTF!

I don't care what a desperate politician says because the tide is turning in our direction. We don't need a childish and anti-productive campaign against a rather irrelevant presidential candidate because an Internet blogger's feelings were hurt by his comments.

Yeah, what he said.
I hate Santorum, but I also sort of hate Dan Savage...

[Harve]

He's a joke and should be treated as such.

[EM68]

I don't think it's bullying as such. Its more like Dan Savage being Dan Savage. He can be a bit bitchy some times. Also there is some history between them. They were roommates in college. Dan Savage in his podcasts refuses to say why he hates Santorum. For the record I hate Santorum. He wants to annul all same sex marriages.