61 Comments

1. John Moore:

Does this disqualifying him from being a PJM correspondent in the future?

May 5, 2009 - 5:19 pm 2. heathermc:

I have a grandson who is 15 years old. and I agree with Joe the Plumber: I don’t want gay men hanging around him either.

May 5, 2009 - 5:47 pm 3. Ellsworth:

Hanging around him? What does that even mean? How would you feel about heterosexual men being near your 15 year old granddaughter? The ignorance and intolerance of your comment is staggering.

May 5, 2009 - 5:51 pm 4. Hanoi Paris Hilton:

Sad to say it but Joe the Plumber equals Chance the Gardener.

His fifteen minutes of fame was regrettably extended when he was elevated to the role of PJTV’s man in Sderot, in advance of, rather than subsequent to being coached out of his verbal tics.

Not that the whack job the left ran on him after his initial bizarre encounter with the Obamatron was in any way justified.

May 5, 2009 - 6:30 pm 5. David Thomson:

Joe the Plumber should be wary of any adult, male or female, that has an inordinate interest in his children. Other than that, he is jumping to an invalid conclusion.

May 5, 2009 - 6:34 pm 6. Minerva:

Okay, he’s banned from the U.K. too.

May 5, 2009 - 6:55 pm 7. john m e:

A parent makes a statement of policy regards the safety of his son..who the hell are you guys, the thought police. apparently the loitering by adult males about your daughter appeals to you. too many too eager to intercede in anothers family to suit me.remember parental rights….when the absence of fathers in so many families seems a national disgrace…..perhaps all of us should applaud his concern while disagreeing with the decision in a quietly respectful manner if we must.

May 5, 2009 - 7:08 pm 8. Carla:

David Thomson above is completely correct.

What’s fascinating about J the P is how out of it he seems. Gay people have been around his children all his life and he probably didn’t realize it. Most of them doing nothing evil, of course. It’s the modern world. I haven’t seen him on PJM for a while, so I suspect they had a sense of his cluelessness. Didn’t he also make some dumb remarks about women at some public gathering a month or two ago? Can’t recall where. Ohio?

May 5, 2009 - 7:19 pm 9. 11B40:

Greetings:

Sounds like Joe the Plumber is not only into Freedom of Speech but also Freedom of Association. Didn’t some court or other say that this was okay for the Boy Scouts?

May 5, 2009 - 8:02 pm 10. Anita Hope:

David & Carla, You are both right, more children are in danger from family members and usually sexual prediters are after children of the opposit sex.
Why we put value on those that show such intolerence is why this country is in such trouble.
heathermc, you need to have a better understanding and confidence in your grandson. He will not be influenced if he is genetically straight. I am a 76 yr. old women that had many friends of gay and lesbian gender and in truth found and find them more intelligent and enjoyable to associate with than many
of my ” straight ” friends and was happily married for over 44 years.
If you want to fear others, fear those that intend to destroy our freedom of choice, our country and right of religous beliefs.

Have a good week & happy Mothers Day.

May 5, 2009 - 8:10 pm 11. Ronald Hayden:

Like gays or not, Joe’s children (and everyone else’s) are going to be around many gay people of all ages throughout their lives. It’s hard to imagine how this approach to parenting will prepare them for dealing with such apparently awful people. As one of those awful people, I’ll state for the record: I have no interest in being around your children for any extended period of time, and I certainly have no interest in what he is presumably worried about. As has been known for a long time now, there’s no unusual correlation between being gay and being improperly interested in children; if anything, it’s statistically more likely to be a straight person who molests a child.

May 5, 2009 - 8:10 pm 12. Allyson Rowen Taylor:

I am more afraid of Joe the Plumber than any gay person. As the mother of a gay son, who had to deal with his issues in pain until he could come out and tell his father and I what is sexual preference was, I cannot understand the fear of gays. It is not a disease, it is not learned, you are born that way. It is just insane that in today’s world we have to still worry about this issue, when it is the Islamists and anti Democracy groups that are creeping in with Shariah law and hate, while we worry about who goes to bed with whom. BFD, sleep with the person you love, man or woman. If you cannot handle this, then it is YOU who has the problem.

May 5, 2009 - 8:23 pm 13. A. N. Pierson:

Like Carla #8, I was wondering what had happened to Joe the Plumber on PJ. I can see now why they would not want him. There is no reason to associate the right with bigotry of any sort. I agree with #12 there are too many important matters before us.

May 5, 2009 - 8:43 pm 14. Peg:

J the P is woefully ignorant. Gay people are no more – or less – likely to harm children than heterosexual people.

Good post, Roger, to disassociate PJ with biased statements like this based upon prejudice rather than fact.

May 5, 2009 - 9:00 pm 15. Ed:

I’ve known guys I definitely would NOT want anywhere near my daughters, based on their behavior and talk around me and others. Maybe we need to know a bit more about Joe’s “homosexual friends” before we chop his head off for gross intolerance. Could it at least be possible that his remark may have been based on something he knows about them, specifically, that makes him not want his son around them?

Granted, he was unwise to make a statement open to such broad-brush interpretation, but I don’t think it’s time yet for the torches and pitchforks.

Just send him to re-education camp with Carrie Prejean and hope they come out saying the right things…

May 5, 2009 - 9:16 pm 16. John Moore:

Statistically, gays are more likely to engage in statutory rape than heteros. The Catholic Church “pedophelia” scandal was 95% gay statutory rape by gay priests.

Not a nice fact, and very, very politically incorrect, but true.

And to be sure, it says absolutely nothing about any particular gay person.

May 5, 2009 - 9:43 pm 17. Monica:

I didn’t even know that Joe had left or had been asked to leave? Does anyone know what happened prior to him making this contraversial statement? This is all news to me…thanks to twitter.

May 5, 2009 - 10:26 pm 18. heathermc:

reality is: gay men are more likely to engage in statutory raped than are heteros.

It is also true that children living with a step father are 400 TIMES more likely to be abused physically and/or mentally than are children living with their natural parents.

The trouble with ‘gay’ people is that – on the one hand – they are defining themselves, their friends and their LIVES, according to their sexual preference – and on the other hand – complaining when the rest of us see them primarily in terms of that sexual identity.

CS Lewis and others of the British upper middle class, who attended their public schools, make it clear to all of us that homosexual attachments do not necessarily imply written-in-stone sexual identity (ie, Nicholas Moseley, for example…)

However. I know where Joe the Plumber is coming from. I love my grandson. He is 15 years old. The thought of older predatory people sliming around him makes me very angry.

And… gays are more likely to engage in statutory rape than are heteros. Unless the latter are step parents in one of our ‘modern’ blended families.

May 5, 2009 - 10:37 pm 19. heathermc:

as an addendum: it seems simple to me that if I were a lesbian, I would be wise to avoid teaching Physical Education, and engaging in other professions that require ongoing relations with underage girls.

If I were a homosexual, it seems it should be simple to avoid activities and professions in which I would spend a lot of time with young boys.

Is this so hard to understand? Forget the legalisms, folks, and remember we are talking about underage children. And their parents. Joe the Plumber has at least one son. He is very protective of that son. Good for him.

May 5, 2009 - 10:42 pm 20. Professor Guvinoff:

In a free society it is a father’s duty to protect his children as he sees fit, not in response to any pressure from any quarter. It is in fact unjust to burden children with topics above their pay grade. Later in their adult life, they will come to their own judgment about various adult behaviors.

If you have to be accused of homophobia for being a thoughtful parent, so be it!

May 5, 2009 - 10:47 pm 21. heathermc:

Back in the day, my young brothers and their friends were befriended by a single man. That man took a special interest in boys whose parents were alcoholics. My parents took a long look at this older man, and finally realized that he was a really kind fellow, harmless to young children, and an excellent friend to a lot of people in our town (including our family).

On the other hand, much of the evil visited upon the Indians in the Residential Schools were done by adult homosexuals… and then there have been the men who befriend young Indian boys through their role as Boy Scout leaders, etc… (the latter, an actual reality Up Here.) And the writer, Leslie Thomas, who was orphaned and lived in an institution in post war England, remembered teachers who were ‘odd’ to say the least.

Notice: close interest on the part of parents. Relatively small community. Unprofessional but human ties. And the only people who really care about a child are that child’s parents. They are the ONLY people who will risk their lives for that child.

Joe the Plumber is interested in his children. He doesn’t want them to be homosexual. He surely doesn’t want ANY adult messing with his kids’ sexuality. The question was in particular: how about a homosexual adult? Well???

What parent wants their children to be homosexual? Yes, we don’t stop loving them if that is the way they go as adults, however, that life places an extra burden on any person. And who wants that for their children?

Also, we in our culture seem to believe that homosexuality is a genetic thing, immutable. However, there is plenty of evidence from other cultures (especially the British upper classes) that this is not necessarily so. I am not sure what is correct here.

But: I would be very upset if my 15 year old grandson were to be in a situation in which adult homosexual men were around. There. Hang me.

May 5, 2009 - 11:12 pm 22. frank:

Joe the Plumber and the Octomom. They would look so cute together.

May 5, 2009 - 11:39 pm 23. Elaine:

There is a great deal of evidence and more coming all the time, that homosexuality is determined not at birth, but BEFORE, in utero. If you are talking about British public schools, you are talking about a cultural phenomenon, created by the boys in those schools. It’s a product of a bunch of young adolescent males living together with no opportunity for involvement with the opposite sex and no parental supervision. Most of these boys DO NOT become homosexuals as adults or the entire British upper class would no longer exist, so in fact, the evidence provided would suggest that homosexuality is not something one learns or chooses. Adolescent experimentation is just that, experimentation.
As for your comment about gym teachers, nearly every single one I had at an all girls’ school was a lesbian. Nothing inappropriate ever happened between any of them and any students and they were great beloved teachers, because they loved athletics and were able to impart that enthusiasm to girls. On the other hand, there were a number of sexual scandals involving male teachers and female students. So what should we do, only have straight women as teachers at girls schools and straight women as teachers at boys schools? How idiotic.

May 6, 2009 - 6:58 am 24. Mike_K:

Joe the P needs to know when to keep his mouth shut. On the other hand, there is an attraction on the part of many older homosexual men toward adolescent boys. It isn’t pedophilia and that is not related to homosexuality but the attraction to young men is another matter. I agree that a lot of the priest scandals were of the adolescent boy variety but that was suppressed because of the extreme sensitivity of the gay activist movement about this subject. Still, Joe needs to know better.

If you dispute my comments about the priest scandals, read this book.

May 6, 2009 - 7:52 am 25. john m e:

Political correctness,perhaps an important tool used to stifle free speech, is indeed intended to inform us of when ” to keep our mouths shut”, and fear is an ugly burden that may curb badly needed public discourse.

the zealous are the extremist collective, should they dictate my behavior or your right to speak without ridicule or threat of retribution?

May 6, 2009 - 8:47 am 26. heathermc:

ok, Brit upper classes: I get your point that all one sex schools led to homosexual/lesbian relationships among the young.

But the fact is that many upper class all-their-lives certified homosexuals ALSO managed to father several children. eg, Harold Nicholson and Vita Sackville West: at least 2 children; King James I of England, lots of kids, and many long term male lovers; and as it happens, one of my high school friends who married a homosexual; they have had a couple of children, they split and now at least she is in a very long term lesbian relationship. And then, there are the very famous paedophilic relationships fostered and admired in ancient Greece, not to speak of, in today’s Afghanistan.

Life, and people and sexuality is a lot more complicated than we would want.

And, since being homosexual is not a ‘good thing’ as an option for a young man, then I understand Joe the Plumber’s attitude.

Another thing: at this point in our civilization, our culture is hyper sexualized, and that has bled into the lives of our very young people. Children are much more likely to act out sexually than they did even a couple of generations ago (when families were intact.) Children spend a lot of time with, say, lesbian gym teachers, than they would have half a century ago. Their lives revolve around the desires and beliefs of professionals in their schools, and (more and more) their recreational pursuits. And now, one hears about TEENAGERS announcing that they are ‘homosexual’….

You cannot blow this off with an, “oh well, what will be will be.” And, “it’s all in the amniotic fluid anyway.” Not when you are talking about a person’s child (or grandchild.)

May 6, 2009 - 11:10 am 27. A. N. Pierson:

“Life, and people and sexuality is a lot more complicated than we would want.”

Obviously to any grownup. And that in a nutshell is why Joe the Plumber is no longer worth listening to. He is simplistic and boring.

May 6, 2009 - 11:18 am 28. Tina:

I’m saddened by Joe’s beliefs, of course, but am hardly surprised by them. There are many people who hold the same unfortunate beliefs.

Even though I couldn’t disagree with him more, it’s certainly his right to think as he thinks and speak out about those thoughts. As I have the right to think as I think and speak out against him and those who hold the same beliefs.

So, other than that and ceasing to pay him much attention from here on out, there’s little else that can or should be done with him.

I figure there are bigger fish to fry and more pertinent issues out there at the moment than Joe’s beliefs or gays in general.

May 6, 2009 - 12:09 pm 29. Ronald Hayden:

On the question of gays being more likely to be pedophiles, here is research from 1989 referenced by the Family Research Council (unfortunately for them, the research goes against their claim):

Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3813052

From the abstract:

“Homosexual males who preferred physically mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred physically mature partners responded to female children.”

People will believe or disbelieve whatever study confirms their beliefs, of course (we all do it), but there’s my reference.

May 6, 2009 - 1:44 pm 30. Crusader:

heathermc – stop the hate.

May 6, 2009 - 3:20 pm 31. John Moore:

“Homosexual males who preferred physically mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred physically mature partners responded to female children.”

Duh. Note the qualification (“who preferred physically mature partners”) – that’s called inherent selection bias.

How does one explain the fact that, of the Catholic priest “pedophilia” scandal, the vast majority of the cases were male statutory rape (i.e. not pedophilia, but with adolescents under the age of consent)? Why not an equivalent number of females suffering the same predation?

May 6, 2009 - 5:12 pm 32. A. N. Pierson:

I am puzzled by the comment of John Moore about selection bias, when he is using the group “priests” to make his point. Certainly that group constitutes selection bias par excellence since they have selected a life of celibacy. But perhaps I don’t understand what he means. In any case, as I read the original post, our host wishes to clarify that his company is not associated with clearly intemperate and tasteless comments of someone who worked with them. Almost all companies would do the same – and for good reason.

May 6, 2009 - 7:16 pm 33. Elaine:

John Moore, you can’t be serious.

May 6, 2009 - 7:47 pm 34. John Moore:

I am puzzled by the comment of John Moore about selection bias, when he is using the group “priests” to make his point. Certainly that group constitutes selection bias par excellence since they have selected a life of celibacy

Ah yes, but which direction selection bias? Does their self selection make them more or less likely to be predators?

OTOH, the referenced article specifically selected for homosexuals who “who preferred physically mature partners” – which is almost a perfect selection criteria for avoiding those who would have tendencies towards predation.

Also, within the American church, a number of homosexual seminarians convinced themselves that they didn’t need to be celibate, which complicates the matters more.

May 6, 2009 - 8:03 pm 35. John Moore:

On closer reading, I see that the whole thing is about a different problem.

The study shows that homosexuals who prefer non-children (adolescent and above) don’t get excited by children.

Whoopeee

Since almost anyone concerned about homosexual predation is concerned about it with adolescents, not 4 year olds. Homosexuality is not pedophaelia. Big surprise.

May 6, 2009 - 8:12 pm 36. qwfwq:

I don’t know, Roger. If Joe doesn’t express the views of PJM, then just a simple disclaimer will do. You sound way too politically correct. Let’s be a little ballsy and let some air into the room.

May 6, 2009 - 9:42 pm 37. Colette:

It’s not politically correct to denounce a statement that is ignorant and hateful. We are not talking about gay marriage which can be debated reasonably. Joe the Plumber remarked that he had gay friends whom he informed he wouldn’t let near his children. Who in their right mind maintains friendships with people they think are sexual predators/pedophiles, gay or straight? Joe the Plumber was obviously talking a load of cr%p plain and simple. If he really believes gay men can’t be trusted around children, then there’s no way he’s friends with them. His statement was blatantly untrue.

May 6, 2009 - 10:37 pm 38. Nancy Lopez:

I assume you’re joking, qwfwq. What in tarnation does this have to do with political correctness? The more Joe the Plumber hangs around the more apparent it is the man is an absolute dumbbell with no sense of when to keep his yap shut and the knowledge base of a newt. As a conservative, I want to duck every time I see him. He’s also a pig to women. Enough of this embarrassment.

May 6, 2009 - 10:47 pm 39. Paul:

Like divorce and drugs, wealthy people can afford to do things that destroy, working families. See Black Americans, the pet and experimental fodder of upper class lefty social experiments. Walk around Detroit, Newark, Oakland, Gary, East St. Louis or any other of fifty cities for the fruits of lefty notions.

Yeah, Joe should of gone to Berkley and become a Volvo driving shrink to trust fund adults and sent his kids to summer tennis camp. But, he didn’t.

May 7, 2009 - 3:40 am 40. Rick:

Well I see that Mr. Simon is not a believer in free speech since he deleted my post which, while derogatory toward homosexuals, did not call for violence or even for laws against such behavior. I do not believe in regulating personal morality. Remember Mr. Simon, free speech allows that which is offensive. So don’t pretend to be for free speech when you are not.

[THIS IS MY BLOG AND I HAVE DELETED OCCASIONAL POSTS THAT ARE RACIST, SEXIST AND SO FORTH. YOUR LAST ONE WAS SELF-ADMITTEDLY "DEROGATORY TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS." THIS ONE PASSED THE CUT. CONGRATULATIONS ON BEING A BIGOT IN THE NAME OF FREE SPEECH. NOW PLEASE REFRAIN FROM POSTING HERE. THERE ARE PLENTY OF PLACES THAT WILL WELCOME YOU.]

May 7, 2009 - 4:28 am 41. Mambo Bananapatch:

I thought Joe the Plumber went away a long time ago. Do we still give a sh*t about what he says or thinks? How boring.

May 7, 2009 - 5:18 am 42. Elaine:

Paul, in your off topic rant, you sound as foolish as the partisan idiots on Daily Kos. Get a grip if you want to get this country on track. Or you can continue to mouth off simplistic sarcastic partisan screeds. Your call. But it would be nice if you were part of the solution and not part of the problem.

May 7, 2009 - 6:36 am 43. Elaine:

It’s a PERSONAL blog, Ric, hosted by Mr. Simon. It has nothing to do with free speech. You are free to start your own blog and post whatever you wish and allow or delete any comments you care to. Posting on someone’s blog is the same as being a guest in someone’s home. You are there at the discretion of the host. If someone came into your house and started saying things that you found vile and offensive, you would be quite within your rights to evict that person from your house. And they would be free to make thier comments outside in the public space or in the privacy of their own home.

May 7, 2009 - 7:32 am 44. Paul:

Eline,

Yeah, some class values are more equal than others.

The Left is the problem, not the solution, and there are fifty once productive cities to prove it, that would love to have neighborhoods filled with Archie Bunker type Joe The Plumbers, but they’ve left, leaving overpaid lefty ’social-ist’ profiteers and neo-slaves.

May 7, 2009 - 7:48 am 45. steveaz:

In Joe’s defense, consider the context of his remarks, coming on the heels of Perez Hilton’s intentionally offensive PR stunt as they do.

My own opinion is, Joe’s gonna take a hit from “establishment” thinkers on this. Many of us who graduated from academe, or who navigate large, urban offices have been acculturated to performing a pernicious, daily self-censorship on themselves concerning bread-and-butter, moral issues (ie. politics and religion), while according undeserved care to others’ frivolous and usually momentary hurts, piques, and emotions.

I think that us independent-minded Americans, who are free of the post modern “hate” halter many of us unknowingly wear, will give him another chance…just as we offer forgiveness everyday to everyone in our extended, national family.

May 7, 2009 - 9:18 am 46. frank:

Have you heard? Joe the Plumber quit the GOP.

Don’t let the door hit you on your plumber’s crack, Joe.

May 7, 2009 - 9:25 am 47. tehag:

Are Joe’s beliefs about homosexuals any different from Obama-Wright’s beliefs about Jews, Americans, Whites; than the writers of feministing about men, than…., well why bother to go on. Obviously raw hatred is rewarded in our society, so I can’t see fit to condemn Joe when all around us unchecked, raging hatreds are being enacted into law.

May 7, 2009 - 1:17 pm 48. Elaine:

You miss the point, tehag. Our host, and many commenters here, have repeatedly and vehemently condemned Rev. Wright’s views and Bill Ayers’ views and Obama’s association with them. And we continue to do so very loudly. We believe it’s important to speak out against reactionary beliefs wherever they come from: right, left or center. Don’t you? If not, you won’t find this a very sympatico site.

May 7, 2009 - 1:28 pm 49. DW:

The real concern in my opinion isn’t J the P’s views one way or another, but that he could actually be adopted or promoted as a mouthpiece in the first place. Are republicans or conservatives now so desperate to gain traction that they elevate someone with actually very little to say, in hopes that it will gain traction? Although Wurzelbacher is (hopefully) less deranged, this reeks to me of the shameless promotion of Cindy Sheehan over the past several years. From what little I’d seen of him on television since the election, he had little if anything of substance to contribute beyond the one “gotcha” moment in October.

Republicans should be calling the democrats on this kind of B.S. instead of imitating them.

May 7, 2009 - 5:04 pm 50. texastickled:

Wow! You guys are quick to hate on Joe TP. Are you sure that you are not taking his comments out of context? He doesn’t appear to be as hateful as most of ya’ll are being!

“…..little if anything of substance to contribute…”, DW? Jeez that’s harsh! That’s not a true statement at all.

Pretty soon no one will speak their mind about ANYTHING and we will go around whispering so as to be so absolutely PC. Is THAT the World ya’ll want to live in? It would be like citizens had to do in Iraq under Saddam.

I say.. To hell with it all, to each his own.

May 7, 2009 - 6:44 pm 51. Colette:

No texastickled, it’s the opposite of what citizens in Iraq suffered under Saddam Hussein. Joe is free to say what he wants and others are free to agree, disagree, praise, revile, ignore. One person thinks Joe’s comments are hateful, another thinks those who criticize him are hateful. No one has silenced Joe, and no one has silenced his detractors. As it should be.

May 7, 2009 - 7:08 pm 52. KyTraveler:

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.]

May 8, 2009 - 5:51 am 53. DW:

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.

May 8, 2009 - 8:04 am 54. texastickled:

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.

May 8, 2009 - 9:04 am 55. kytraveler:

“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.

May 8, 2009 - 2:05 pm 56. Colette:

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?

May 8, 2009 - 6:06 pm 57. kytraveler:

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.

May 9, 2009 - 3:41 am 58. PC14:

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.

May 9, 2009 - 10:40 am 59. kytraveler:

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.

May 9, 2009 - 6:41 pm 60. Colette:

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

May 9, 2009 - 11:01 pm 61. California Dreamer:

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?

May 10, 2009 - 12:51 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: