Liberals attack donut shop's good deed

Sometimes I really hate social media - Librarything excluded, of course!

From what I can tell, the LGBT community thinks the Salvation Army discriminates against them and they object to this doughnut shop for working with them. For one thing, Fox News is over-generalizing from the LGBT community to all liberals, and for another, what's wrong with fighting back against an organization that you believe hates you?

>4 jjwilson61: I suppose the problem is likewise generalising from one organisation that you believe hates you, to another organisation, with whom they are co-operating in a single venture, when the content of that specific venture should give offence to nobody.

Possibly, but the second organization has the choice of either ignoring the criticism and continuing their project, or apologizing and telling the offended people that they'll use a different partner in the future, depending on how they feel about the people criticizing them. In either case, I don't see any reason to go all hyperbolic about "liberals".

>6 jjwilson61: I was answering your question:
what's wrong with fighting back against an organization that you believe hates you?

I don't disagree with you that the over-generalization is wrong.

But neither do I believe that the 'donut' business has anything to apologise for.
The business was not funding, or otherwise enabling, the activities of the Salvation Army. It was working with them to help a blameless third party. I have no knowledge of how justified these people's opposition is to the SA (which is an organization that I have my own issues with), but they are entitled to express their opinion - that is fair "fighting back".

However, I agree with the principle that holds that secondary picketing (i.e. attempting to harm business B in order to force them to harm A, your real target) is immoral.

Whether they have anything to apologize for is beside the point. If they want to appease this group (their customers?) then they'll apologize.

>8 jjwilson61: True. Unfortunately, appeasing a mob is often commercially necessary. But it's not pretty.

Here's a link to the original story (as opposed to the inflammatory op ed piece):

http://www.pressherald.com/2017/12/05/holy-donut-comes-fire-charity-drive/

Targeting a donut shop seems a little petty, unless it's part of some larger protest against the Salvation Army. Are the shopping mall Santas getting flack, I wonder?

But boycotting businesses to protest their policies and/or affiliations is a common tactic -- one I'm in favor of, actually. In a capitalist society where we spend our money is a "vote" for that business. But we shouldn't lose sight of original intentions and motivations. If there's a family in trouble, I'd hope that aside from boycotting donuts, folks are also donating to whatever charity besides SA that can help them.

It reminds me of the Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood controversy, where the foundation pulled all of its grants ostensibly because Planned Parenthood provides abortion services, when in reality the funds from the Komen foundation were always earmarked for breast cancer screening. Komen caught a huge amount of flack for that.

I'm basically on the same page with respect to the secondary picketing (certainly in this unfortunate instance!)

For any interested, here's a summary of the basic case people have against the SA: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/zinnia-jones/the-salvation-armys-histo_b_4422938....

(originally from this site, which has subsequently been retired: https://web.archive.org/web/20140117212650/http://noredkettles.com:80/ )

Also, it seems the Downeasters are a little behind the curve given that the major organized groups seem to have forged an uneasy truce.
https://www.advocate.com/religion/2015/12/23/salvation-army-insists-its-our-side...
(Or at any rate, the organized protest/boycott has mostly died down compared to past years).

>6 jjwilson61:

"Possibly, but the second organization has the choice of either ignoring the criticism and continuing their project, or apologizing and telling the offended people that they'll use a different partner in the future, depending on how they feel about the people criticizing them. In either case, I don't see any reason to go all hyperbolic about "liberals."

You mean the reaction in defense of the donut-shop's management and against the critics of the donut-shop is "hyperbolic" while the prior social-networked protests by critics of the donut-shop aren't "hyperbolic"? LO Fucking L!

"In either case, I don't see any reason to go all hyperbolic about 'liberals.' "

You don't? Let me explain it to you:

ONLY "liberals" are making a load of hyperbolic bullshit out the donut-shop-management's resort to the Salvation Army for help in finding a needy family which they'd give aid.

Do you suppose the shop chose the S.A. because they figured that that way, they'd be sure that they were not giving help to any L.,G.,B, or T. people? Seriously?

Do you suppose that, had the donut-shop's management appealed to the local (or nearest) L.,G.,B, or T. people's organization for help identifying a needy family, then these same "liberals" in this case would have still organized a networked protest? in that case, over the fact that, in so doing, Christians and other "people of faith" were suffering unfair discrimination? Seriously?

____________

>12 Collectorator: Bingo!

>13 proximity1: I'm not saying that the critics weren't hyperbolic, but that's what you get with social media, on both sides. I can't see blaming all liberals for that.

>10 southernbooklady: You seem to be conflating boycotting a business to oppose its policies, which I agree is a legitimate protest tactic, with secondary picketing.

If you consider that donating to children in poverty is an offensive policy (!), then boycotting the 'donut' shop is a legitimate tactic.
If there is any evidence that the 'donut' shop has the same policies that you believe the SA has, then boycotting the 'donut' shop is a legitimate tactic.
If there is any evidence that the 'donut' shop is supporting the policies that you believe the SA has, then boycotting the 'donut' shop is a legitimate tactic.

But boycotting B, simply because you find A offensive, and you are attempting to bully the innocent party into acting against a guilty one, i.e. secondary picketing, is quite a different kettle of fish.

I'm waiting for Dr. Chomsky to weigh in before commenting.

The Holy Donut is near my house. It's technically in the next neighborhood over--an area called Parkside.

The Holy Donut is in any case the semi-official donut-providers for the LibraryThing office. Their donuts are weird--they're all potato donuts--but interesting and occasionally wonderful. They're the kind of donuts you cut into little pieces so everyone can have a bit of many different types. I hope that buying donuts from there is still okay, but I'm not the only decider.

The shop is closer to my church—about a block away. My church and the neighborhood is full of African asylees because Parkside is one of the few cheap neighborhoods left in town. For context, about a year ago I delivered a crib to a family living in the building next to the the Holy Donut--Burundians, I think. They had two mattresses on the floor for the whole family together. They had no furniture whatsoever, maybe three forks, two plates. There are a lot of homeless on the streets outside.

Whatever the politics of the issue, it's somewhat weird that they had to go to the Salvation Army. Their neighbors are needy. There are people at my church who have LISTS of needy families, helped by the church but also by any number of secular charities in the area. It's a measure of their disconnect, I think, that they aren't connected to this reality. But it's not surprising. They're gentrifying the neighborhood with expensive artisinal food. While all my upscale white friends love the Holy Donut, and make it a party regular, it would be a little weird to meet one of my Burundian church friends there, although they live right there.

Anyway, it's good they're thinking of the needy.

They have now removed all the posts in question. I'll check tomorrow, walking in, but the fundraising is surely therefore discontinued. That's a shitty end to this. I predict ordering from them--for PTA and so forth--will be controversial in the future. My social set is definitely the boycott set.

My specific opinion is that this is a donut shop—a donut shop run by a father and his daughter, not internet-rage connoisseurs. Every exchange I've had with them was pleasant. Not that actual people matter, but the father died of cancer two months ago. They didn't "partner" with the Salvation Army in any significant way. They tried to raise a little money for poor people. And they got chopped up for it like they were human trash or a big, evil corporation.

My more general opinion that large numbers of people are preoccupied with trivialities of politics and opinions and unconcerned with poverty and misery, except in the abstract. They're full of righteous anger but the effect is mostly masturbatory. There is a lot that's wrong with this country, and of how we think of poverty and need, difference and respect. There's a lot wrong with how we talk to each other too. But they are not on the right side.

Targeting a donut shop seems a little petty, unless it's part of some larger protest against the Salvation Army. Are the shopping mall Santas getting flack, I wonder?

Yes. Try mentioning the Salvation Army on your feed some time. I've seen people do it. It's the third rail. Of course, the Holy Donut didn't know this.

>15 Guanhumara: If there is any evidence that the 'donut' shop is supporting the policies that you believe the SA has, then boycotting the 'donut' shop is a legitimate tactic.

Presumably, a partnership between the shop and the charity is evidence that they support each other's policies. Every business owner understands that to some degree. Especially small business owners, who have limited time and resources and have to pick and choose where they place both with care. So agreeing to work with SA could well be interpreted as support for SA's policies. Hence the secondary picketing.

Although, as I said, I find this particular case, as reported by the Press Herald, to be off base. As far as homophobic bete noirs go, I can think of worse dragons than the Salvation Army. SA strikes me as in a similar position to, say, the Boy Scouts -- what used to be their common, "universal" Christian-based appeal is now having to contend criticism for not explicitly acknowledging and embracing the LGBTQ community. Honestly, I think groups like SA and the Boy Scouts suffer from the rhetoric of the more virulent evangelical religious groups and movements in the US -- such fundamentalist Christian rhetoric tends to make everyone associate the word "Christian" with "homophobic."

Presumably, a partnership between the shop and the charity is evidence that they support each other's policies.
I disagree. This is not a partnership in a the business sense; this is a cooperation towards a common goal. I have frequently had to work with people I disagree with, and sometimes heartily dislike. And I would continue to do so, providing the goal is worth the hassle.

FWIW, my own personal position on the SA is this: (unlike the Boy Scouts, which is simply an organisation with a Christian ethos), the Salvation Army is both a church denomination and a charity.
As a charity, it does a lot of much-needed good work in supporting the homeless, and In my country, at least, there is no evidence that they discriminate in who they support, on grounds of either faith, gender, or sexual orientation.

As a Christian denomination, their version of Christianity includes tenets that I believe to be wrong and find offensive.
However, I accept that, as a religious organisation, they are entitled to only admit as members those who share their beliefs - that is the defining characteristic of a religious organisation.

Following the links @davidgn supplied, it seems that the SA have made a clear statement of policy welcoming the LGBT community as recipients of the services they provide. This surely satisfies your criterion?

Religious toleration demands that we accept that other people can have beliefs that we believe are wrong.
If (like me), they don't agree with SA beliefs, why would anyone want to join their organisation? (I don't.)

>19 Guanhumara: I disagree. This is not a partnership in a the business sense; this is a cooperation towards a common goal.

You may, but public perception often does not. In fact, "guilt by association" is a common reaction in our spectacle-driven culture. A couple years ago a local bookstore found itself on the wrong side of public opinion when they offered their space for a university talk series about controversial issues. One of the first speakers scheduled was from the coal industry -- ei, a "pro-fracking" perspective. The bookstore got angry phones calls and letters and a even couple nasty notes taped to their door, I think. The talk series was eventually canceled, although not by the bookstore, who stuck to their guns, but by the university.

The fact of the matter is, we all must learn to work with people we don't agree with or like. That's just life. No two people are ever going to agree completely (or even mostly) about everything. But we all also have a few principles that we feel strongly enough about they become lines we don't cross, for anyone. I respect people's right to take their stand, as long as they aren't actively endangering anyone. So I'm not against secondary picketing even when I completely repudiate what they are waving their signs about --Westboro Baptist Church, anyone?

Incidentally, I find it all a little less drastic since this dust up is apparently limited to the comments on a couple facebook posts. Social media eruption, what a shocker.

they don't agree with SA beliefs, why would anyone want to join their organisation?

As for the groups and churches we join, I suspect its a little more complicated than you suggest. But even if we agree with the beliefs of our church, we don't leave our brains at the door. There's probably something we think should be interpreted differently, something we'd like to see changed. That's just being human.

>17 timspalding: Thanks, Tim, for providing that background.

You said: My more general opinion that large numbers of people are preoccupied with trivialities of politics and opinions and unconcerned with poverty and misery, except in the abstract. They're full of righteous anger but the effect is mostly masturbatory.

I pick up on the righteous anger and the focus on the trivialities of politics. I wonder to what extent those responses arise because the problems that society confronts, and particularly in this case yours, are so colossal and seem so deeply rooted as to be unresolvable by any means available to ordinary people. The Holy Donut is local and can be resolved locally; global warming and the gerrymandered Congress are not.

Something I see often in my own humanitarian work is that ordinary people, often with generous and sincere hearts, have little understanding of the complexity and interconnectedness of many humanitarian, human rights, political and economic issues.

A small family business wants to help the poor people that they see in their neighbourhood. They turn to the closest and most well-known local charity - I don't know about the USA, but in UK the Sally Army has that reputation, and in the lead up to Christmas they are particularly visible with their uniformed brass bands playing carols in the streets. It never occurs to the family to check the Sally Army's credentials on a range of other issues. Everybody knows they're good at helping the poor, and that is the issue this family is focused on at this particular moment. There is no ill intention.

Within parts of the humanitarian and human rights community, a great deal of effort is invested into educating people about the complexity and interconnectedness, but it's a long slow struggle. While boycotts and various forms of direct action are often legitimate and good tools against intransigent offenders such as governments and corporations, I somehow doubt whether this apparent storm of protest is the best way to educate a well-meaning family who were just trying to help. There are subtler, more charitable and ultimately more effective methods.

I really do not dispute that there is much about the Salvation Army which is rightly disgusting. Personally, I have for a long time had nothing to do with them. When I was able to--in the past--I gave whatever aid I could afford to give--when the spirit moved me--directly into the hands of an obviously needy person.

Since living on the street myself. my view of these things is much more one based on personal experience. I still want nothing to do with the S.A. but it happens that, with the all-pervasive Catholic Church here, the S.A. have no role at all. But I also have as little to do with the Catholic church as possible--and for the same reasons I wouldn't use a S.A. shelter. The preaching disgusts me.

But what infuriates me about this protest is the way some spoiled assholes took it upon themselves to make the Holy Donut their target and actually victimized this business for their own petty fucking narrow interests when, it is clear, the H.D.'s only interest here was to raise and give aid to a needy family.

There are some rather good reasons why they might have preferred to go through an intermediary like the S.A. For one thing, it allows them to keep their aid gesture at one remove from their hands-on work as a donut-shop. Why isn't the shop crowded with refugees seeking free donuts and coffee? It would probably seriously harm the business ambiance if that were the case and, for that reason, the shop has a legitimate right to prefer not to make it apparent that they are there to give away daily free coffee and donuts to the homeless-- though others, in a similar business, could decide that they'd like to operate a donut-and-coffee truck for just such a purpose. It would be thronged by grateful homeless people. The point is, this protest demonstrates in spades what is so ugly and stupid about so much of the idiotically sanctimonious Left--which lives very fucking comfortably, though one wouldn't know that by the way they bitch and moan.

>14 jjwilson61: "I'm not saying that the critics weren't hyperbolic"...

LOL! Right. You didn't say they weren't. As it happens, while you _did_ call their critics "hyperbolic," you _didn't_ bother to mention anything similar about them.

That, uh, was, after all, my point.

Your record in missing-the-point has to be some kind of all-time world-record for all of human history.

>22 Collectorator: That deliberate misreading ("poo-pooed") of my post illustrates why I do not interact with you.

>23 John5918:

Awareness of complexity and interconnectedness should not produce a morality of remote contagion and intolerance, enforced by tribalism and internet attack culture.

>27 timspalding:

Of course. I thought that's what I'd said. Maybe I overdid the British art of understatement.

>28 John5918:

No, just trying to sum up my feelings concisely.

>29 timspalding:

Ah, thanks. We're on the same page.

>20 southernbooklady: Like @timspalding, I agree that this a very depressing trend in modern culture. When I was at university, certain societies made a point of inviting controversial speakers, with the purpose of having their obnoxious views publicly eviscerated in open debate. It is a far more effective way of opposing those views than simply bullying them into silence - at which point their perceived "martyrdom" garners them new supporters.

I'm not sure how the Westboro Baptist Church is relevant to your example. They are notorious for picketing those they dislike, even at the most inhumane opportunities, but I have never heard of them practising secondary picketing. Can you give any examples?

if we agree with the beliefs of our church, we don't leave our brains at the door. There's probably something we think should be interpreted differently, something we'd like to see changed. That's just being human.
Very true. I suppose the distinction is between things we disagree with, or even find annoying, and things that we find offensive. I don't agree 100% with everything my church teaches, to be sure. But neither are any of my beliefs forbidden by that church. I certainly cannot see myself every wishing to join a denomination whose tenets (rather than simply the attitudes of certain of its members) I find offensive.

>31 Guanhumara: I'm not sure how the Westboro Baptist Church is relevant to your example. They are notorious for picketing those they dislike, even at the most inhumane opportunities, but I have never heard of them practising secondary picketing. Can you give any examples?

From wiki, the first in a long line:

While being filmed by documentary maker Louis Theroux, they picketed a local appliance store because it sold Swedish vacuum cleaners, which the church viewed as being supportive of gay people because of Swedish prosecution of Åke Green, a pastor critical of homosexuality

By the time they were making the news regularly though, I think the modus operandi was simply to picket high profile tragedies because those gave them the most media attention.

>32 southernbooklady: Thanks. Remember, as a denomination they are fairly irrelevant over here, so it is the unchristian cruelty of those pickets that make our newspapers.

Here targeted picketing is a civil right, hard won and staunchly defended, but secondary picketing is a criminal offence. It is a position that I, on the whole, agree with.

By the time they were making the news regularly though, I think the modus operandi was simply to picket high profile tragedies because those gave them the most media attention.

Yeah. They also said they'd picket many more thinks than they picketed. They announced they were going to picket a local high-school play about homosexuality, for example, and through that caused all sorts of complaints and got into the Maine news. But, as I knew then, the chance that they would actually drive up to Maine was zilch. We are, after all, talking about a single family and a half-dozen hangers on.

secondary picketing

I don't find the term a useful one. There are all sorts of occasions when boycotting one organization for how they interact with another is moral. I would, for example, gladly boycott not only a Nazi organization, and an organization that made custom swastika t-shirts for them. It depends on the nature of the two organizations, the sort of ties they have, and, of course, the level of knowledge involved. I also think boycotts should be the last resort for all but the worst cases--after charitable and reasonable discussion.

>34 timspalding: But is your example secondary picketing? You are boycotting the organization for the production of Nazi emblems, rather than for having a Nazi organization as a customer. (The fact that customer exists might be their motivation, rather than a belief in Nazi ideology, but one can only respond to actions, since one can't read their minds.) Would you also boycott the company that provided (non-themed) catering for the Nazi organization?

>34 timspalding:

How about the "telephone company" which provides the N.O. service? or the bank where it has an account? The grocery where the Nazi org's leadership shops? Do you boycott them, too? If the org's members have kids and aren't home-schooled, do you boycott their kids' school(s)?

Kind of reminded of the Wisconsin protests a few years back where the incoming governor worked to pass decertification legislation on public sector unions. He had the support of certain banking institutions. A lot of people having their unions decertified took it out on those banks supporting Gov. Walker withdrawing their entire accounts---the run on those withdrawn accounts forcing them to shut down business in many cases and there's nothing wrong with that at all in my eyes.

If I think there's even tacit support for something I don't like then I think I'm well within my rights to shut those entities off to the best of my ability.

>37 lriley: That's clearly of a different order and something I would like to see a lot more of.

But this thread is all too typical of a type of non-threatening infectious discourse of a frustrated populace. How many stories, threads, posts do we get that are generalized, at times almost against the will of the person sharing the post and at others despite a mind that knows better but hates too much to prevent himself--generalized from one-off oddities, as in this case it seems to me. The LGBT community, blacks, women, over-react and the news is then a further exaggeration and those it serves to do so attach a meaning that doesn't exist. In this case, the opposite meaning exists from that intended to be the moral of the story. Such is the long-suffering circumstance of the LGBT community, they can indeed lose their footing now and then. To me the story there is still the injustice suffered by that community. The story of the donut shop and Sal's is a one time thing. The one person here who is familiar with the case, in delineating it, provides more meaningful and important braoder concerns to be drawn from the general circumstances that gave rise to the incident: gentrification and the plight of refugees/the homeless.

#38--which is to say someone like the thread starter here finding an example of a collateral backlash and running on and on with it ad nauseam?--sucking whoever he can into a maelstrom of argument about something that most everyone here could quite rightly not give a crap about unless maybe they lived in Portland Maine.

...but talking about collateral damage makes me think of our preemptive strike of Iraq and our imprisoning of numerous innocents in Gitmo just on the off chance they might be real terrorists and maybe even know something and other associated bits and pieces of our 'war on terror' like drone strikes etc. or wiping out small villages in the search for 'bad guys'. The ripples out of those events pretty much have had a global impact....much more impactful than just some hurt feelings and lost revenue at some donut emporium.

>39 lriley: Right, but I'll take your second example. One Guantanamo prisoner released commits a crime and the thought processes evaporate for those not initially outraged at the system that put them there in the first place. It gets so that the posited Cheney-clone is drooling in anticipation of an exception to distract from the truth. So, sure, this thread was started in that vein, threads about black crime, posts about women who err, Democrats who grab asses.
One shame in all this as you well know is that the government used to have to lie to get away with shit like Guantanamo, but no longer. The active, intellectual, engaged public is no more--at least not enough so that the US needs to at least pretend to behave by international norms.
You have a president who is not spanked by his own people when he calls Elizabeth Warren Pocahantas--so even the facade at that level is no longer necessary.

#40--yeah people like #1 need their exceptions to the rule and then want to lead the rest of us on a merry chase to the land of their moral outrage. We need convincing or so they think.The media does this all the time too....whether it's Fox or even MSNBC or CNN or the Washington Post or the Wall St. Journal. They want us to fixate on a lot of shit that don't matter when they're not manipulating points of view on the shit that does matter.....and so now we have a clown of a TV personality/'businessman' scam artist as the guy who controls the nuclear missile codes. A guy who really doesn't know politics at all if we're talking about policy anyway and not buying off politicians.

#42--Oh well--Trump with his 30% approval rating. Bit of buyer's remorse wouldn't you think? Notwithstanding the fact he ran against a centrist who is pretty much loathed 'almost' as much as he is but still managed to get almost 3 million more votes than he did in the general election.

As far as the LGBT community I was reading about Kristin Beck just the other day--the transgendered former Navy Seal who I suspect has done a hell of a lot more to serve this country than you or the entirety of your friends/family combined. You'd marginalize the gay community and then cry a bunch of crocodile tears when they organize and fight back--to which I say tough shit to you. I'm glad they organize and the donut shop owner would be smarter to make peace with them.

Your donut shop example in any case is a fucking joke and I don't give a fuck apart from the fact that now in solidarity with the LGBT community any money that I would have dropped into the Salvation Army pot this year is going to the food bank instead. All that just because of you and your dimwitted thread.

>38 RickHarsch:

Thanks, Rick. A good insight.

>42 Collectorator: The fact remains that the liberal lgbt community did an awful thing, and liberals all over are rightfully ashamed of that

Is it really worth my while looking at that statement word for word?

Not "the liberal lbgt community" but a fairly localised group of some of the aforementioned community.

"did an awful thing". "Awful" is a very strong word with emotive and judgemental overtones, and also implies that some "awful" consequences took place. "Over-reacted slightly" is rather different from "awful". And as others have pointed out, it's understandable when people who have suffered so long and consistently occasionally over-react.

"liberals all over are rightfully ashamed". No, not "ashamed". I think one can hold a different opinion about the level of response on a particular local issue without being "ashamed" of others who took a different view. The word "ashamed" had never occurred to me until you conjured it out of thin air.

And of course we could once again enter the quagmire of the label "liberal", but I won't.

.

>48 Collectorator:

Again, a great many assumptions. Entitled? Your opinion, sweeping generalisation, not evidence based, etc. "Liberal"? Yes, of course there are dictionary definitions, but I specifically referred to the use of the label liberal, which often tends to be a pejorative used by certain political classes against those who disagree with them, and rarely has much real meaning in this type of conversation.

>50 Collectorator:

Another unproven assumption - that I don't expect to read opinions here (including my own). It's pretty easy to knock down straw men, you know, whether they are "liberal", lgbt, "entitled", "awful", not expecting to hear opinions, or whatever.

>52 Collectorator:

Who can remember? You and some of your ilk are very good at cultivating red herrings, and in some ways the whole thread is a red herring, as >38 RickHarsch: pointed out. I think I was just challenging the straw men you were raising in >42 Collectorator:.

As you have said, all of this is just opinion, whether mine or yours. I like to think that my opinion is a little more evidence-based than yours and relies a little less on straw men, but naturally we have different opinions on that too.

>54 Collectorator:

More assumptions. Why do you assume that I think your opinion can hurt me? I would certainly prefer to deal with evidence-based opinions, but not much I can do about that. Stuck in the 90s? Sainthood? Not sure what those two of your opinions are about.

Attacked? See >38 RickHarsch:

>54 Collectorator: 'Red herring' and 'straw men' are not generational idiosycracies, high school lingo; they are common terms in debate representative of logical fallacies.

The LGBT community, a more modern label, is quite the opposite of an entitled group. You cannot get state aid by, for instance, being gay. You cannot get a job by virtue of being gay. You can, however, still lose a job if your bosses find out you are of that community. Currently, though, thanks to a great number of courageous members of that community, more of the members of the general community are accepting of the LGBT community and their rights are more likely to be upheld. Those of us who have never been discriminated against for being white males have to make an imaginative leap to understand the pain of being discriminated against, but it's really not a hard one--refusing to do so tends to limit our understanding of the social and political spheres. Those of you who delight in errors made by people of such groups choose to make your intellectual universe a tiny one.

The question ought to be asked of Collectorator whether those who voted for Trump because of these 'entitled' groups have done themselves a disservice. Which of Trump's policies benefit the average Trump voter? Surely not the tax 'reform'.

>57 Collectorator:

Actually I'm deep in a boring meeting, which is why I'm continuing to engage with you on this at this moment. Almost anything is more exciting than going in detail through a 2018 implementation plan most of which doesn't affect me directly. But next week I hope to be home, not in the forest but the savannah, and not seeing squirrels but zebra, Thomson's gazelle, dikdik and baboon.

>56 RickHarsch:

Thanks, Rick.

>57 Collectorator: That would be akin to what we called back in the 90s the old ad hominem. Because I mention that my son has brown skin and I 'complain that others keep talking about race' my ideas about everything are not worth reading.

Well, I have spent many decades talking about race, so I would not complain that others talk about race. I might object to what they say about race. I find it very odd, though, that someone whose contributions here are of so little importance to me that all I can say is that he is someone, apparently, of the right wing somewhere, remembers such detail about my own postings. It's a compliment that means nothing to me. I speak freely of race and of my son, a 14 year old whose temperament is such that if he read the above exchange between jtf and Collectorator he would ask why jtf is wasting his time talking to someone who either lacks sincerity or the ability to think at the level he apparently aspires to, or, more likely, both.

>59 RickHarsch: why jtf is wasting his time talking to {Collectorator}

It really was a very boring meeting...

I'm sure my son would assume that.

>39 lriley: just some hurt feelings and lost revenue at some donut emporium

Is that who you see as the real losers here? I don't. The people who lost out are the ones that the shop was trying to raise money for. Because the 'donut' shop's response was to make peace with the protestors by closing the charity drive.

This is the story of a small business who tried to give something back to the local community. To do this, they contacted a charity well-known for helping the poor and homeless, apparently unaware that it also has a bad reputation with the LGBT community.

By pressuring them to drop the connection, and halt their charity drive, what has been gained?
They haven't learnt "to be less intolerant" or "more open to the LGBT community" (which would be worthy aims, if they were needed), because there is no evidence that they were intolerant or unwelcoming in the first place.

What they have learned is that - unless they have the time and inclination to fully investigate all possible links, Internet rumours, and flashpoints - it is better not to get involved.

There was no alternative charitable endeavour replacing theirs - so the intended recipients are the losers.

The only thing gained is (presumably) a sense of smug self-satisfaction by those who campaigned against a perceived slight they have no reason to suspect of being intentional.

That is why, in my opinion, this incident matters. Because not just this shop, but other small businesses, see the furore created by an attempted act of charity, and decide that in future it is safest not to get involved.

I wish we lived in a world where the State supported its poorest adequately, and there was no need for charity. But I don't live in such a country, and there is enough poverty visible in the US that it seems safe to say that Americans do not either.

So we need for those who can to be involved with their local communities. It is fear of disproportionate responses like this that make people decide to keep their heads down, and do nothing.

If we value campaigning in the abstract on generalities (which is easy to do, but produces no tangible results), above real, local, practical action designed to help others, then we are heading down the wrong path.

>62 Guanhumara: You missed the point of his post, which is that threads like these are misused as fodder against people like the LGBT community.

It's okay with me if you want to spend a great deal of time on a story that means absolutely nothing beyond its own simple facts. But you should know you are the pawn of some guy who uses the apparent mistakes of a few to condemn the many.

>63 RickHarsch: As I see it, both sides of this debate are equally guilty of that - both those who blame "liberals" or "the LGBT community" for the actions of a specific group of protesters and ANY protestors who work on the principle of presuming guilt by association.

Guilt by association is an evil methodology, whether practised by those of the left or of the right.

And to object only when the identity being slandered is a category that you support neutralises the effectiveness of your protest.

>64 Guanhumara:

I think methodology is also important. I said above somewhere that boycotts and direct action can be legitimate and effective last-resort tools when dealing with intransigence, for example governments and corporations.

In this case I wonder whether any regular customer wandered in to the shop and, in a friendly manner, congratulated them on their initiative but pointed out that some customers had reservations about the Sally Army? Might that not have led to a constructive conversation in which the shop owners had their awareness raised, the poor people still got assisted, and perhaps it could be agreed that next year the shop would raise these concerns with the Sally Army, or identify an alternative more acceptable partner?

>64 Guanhumara: You continue to miss the point. But that could only mean that you are interested in this little story.

'Guilt by association is an evil methodology, whether practised by those of the left or of the right.'

1. It is not a methodology.
2. It is inevitable. If you are a member of a white nationalist organisation that perpetuates racial hatred, you are a racist.
3. You use of the word evil related to this very minor incident that was posted, as I noted, for an insidious reason. For me, that word is reserved for the likes of Kissinger and Globocnik, for incidents like mass murder, bombing the presumed guilty and the inevitable civilians by drone, destroying Yemen by proxy, that kind of thing.

>67 Collectorator: I also find it disgusting that people are more concerned about politics

I think we should be clear that assisting people to obtain their basic human rights is not "politics", whether those people are a marginalised and often victimised minority or an impoverished family.

>69 Collectorator:

Yes, of course almost everything is politics. One can be dismissive of "politics", as the piece you quoted was, but I hope nobody will be dismissive of assisting people to obtain their basic human rights.

>71 Collectorator:

I have no idea what you are talking about.

>67 Collectorator: Look, a list of people who saw a Fox piece of propaganda and weren't interested enough to dig down to the real story.

It's nice that in a time when we should all be hellbent on congratulating ourselves on the republicans giving huge tax breaks to corporations and our wealthiest in their endless war against all things socialist (who needs health care? or a living wage? really--who needs it? Unemployment? Welfare? Food stamps for kids? Social Security or medicare for the elderly? who needs that shit? or even public schools for that matter?) that we can take a moment to give a bit of credit to a gormless donut shop owner teaming up with the Salvation Army whose main worry it seems is to get just one single family to the other side of Xmas. Just warms the cockles of the heart.

Don't you think though that instead of talking about homelessness and poverty though--we could kind of like just keep on ignoring all that seamier side of things and put 99.9% of our attention back where it belongs to the successful and the wealthy.....like Jeff Bezos just went over $100 billion. I mean--wow!--and look how many billions of dollars the Koch brothers have? And Bill Gates? The Walton family?--and they're going to have more!!!!--because the Trump tax breaks to the corporations and the wealthy are going to make them even richer! Of course they'll share all that largesse with the rest of us in drips and drops keeping in mind the game is to always have more and more but yeah trickle down economics?--wonderful economic idea!...for sure. And the stock market is doing great too. Go into any major retailer like Wal-mart you know their workers all have stock portfolios and 3/4'ers of the customers in the place are shareholders too--they just have their downtrodden looks for show...like it's a fad...most of them are millionaires....really they have all kinds of money to throw around.

Has it never occurred to Collectorator that safety net programs were meant to help people in need?--and not just one little group of 4 or 5--but everyone in need. And that these programs have been under attack from one administration to the next since Ronald Reagan? But he/she has what could be a nice little Christmas story where one little family could be saved and it's just these mean LGBT people making it hard on everybody. The mean people in actuality are the republican party and all the dickheads supporting it--who think they have the right to discriminate against gay people, black people, hispanics, women etc. etc. etc. and who are fighting tooth and nail to roll back our safety net programs whilst at the same time trying to impose their religious, nationalistic and economic beliefs on people who have other beliefs, other cultures, other lifestyles.

>76 Collectorator:

I would suggest that many people understand that there is a solid block of people who voted for Trump because they feel entitled but now perceive their longstanding privileged position is being chipped away at as marginalised groups, including both the poor and the LGBT community, try to claim their own basic rights.

>78 Collectorator:

Methinks you're avoiding the main point (that the people you mentioned who voted for Trump feel entitled but are worried that their privilege and entitlement is being eroded).

I don't know what the law is in the USA about secondary picketing and boycotting, so I have no idea whether it is a basic right of a US citizen or not. In some countries it is, in others it probably isn't.

>80 Collectorator: There are many people who are sick and tired of the entitled attitudes of others

I agree entirely. That's exactly why people such as the LGBT community and the poor and even the much-maligned "liberals" are challenging the privileged and entitled classes.

Example: John thinks a facebook attack on a donut shop is part of the basic human rights that should be afforded to all

I specifically said to you in >79 John5918: that I have no idea what the rights of a US citizen are when it comes to boycotts and secondary picketing, so clearly your statement is false.

right up there with food and clean water.

Where on earth do you get that idea? Those of us who work in international humanitarian issues are well aware of the ladder of human needs. Many of the higher needs/rights only become priorities once basic needs/rights such as water, food, shelter and security are met to an adequate standard. However that doesn't mean that higher level needs/rights disappear, and neither does it mean that it always has to be either/or; there are many situations where it can be both/and. In many cases, for example, improving women's right to act as equal human beings with men is very much connected with access to water and food. In the richest nation in the world one tends to concentrate on the higher level needs/rights as many of the more basic needs have generally been met, although as >75 lriley: points out, it is a scandal that so many people in the USA are lacking basic needs.

>80 Collectorator: someone has groin issues

The situation of LGBT people is more complicated than that, whatever one thinks of this particular mess in Portland.

>82 Collectorator:

I'm trying to interrogate the broader issues raised and to have a constructive conversation, not to score debating points. My apologies when I fall short of that aim.

My use of the word "entitled" is because you introduced "entitlement" (>42 Collectorator:) as an explanation of why people voted for Trump. I wished to point out that a large block of Trump voters actually have a sense of entitlement in that they wish to maintain their privilege.

I think I have explained my position on this particular case (eg >23 John5918:).

On the "politics" red herring where you have taken such careful note of the exact times when various posts were made, I assumed that the fact that I used inverted commas ("") would have alerted you to the fact that I was thinking beyond semantic word play, but again my apologies for making an assumption about you which turned out to be erroneous.

The utter vacuity of Collectorator's points reminds me of the problem many US Americans have with race, and have had since the 1970s. There was civil unrest, there were riots, there were peaceful protests, and then there was THe Civil Rights Act. So since then, whenever black people point out that racism is still a serious problem the racists have the attitude that 'they' have solved the problem; they whine about blacks 'What do they want NOW?', refusing to take the energy to examine the underlying problems such as the systematised racism that ed to ghettoization and perpetual poverty. The level of thought here, a very low level, is akin to a racist saying after a black person commits a crime, saying 'See?'
Collectorator clearly doesn't like the LGBT community and is happy that they may have, in one specific place at one specific time, over-reacted, and he would have you believe it is indicative of the community as a whole.

This portion of #80 says it all: ' You are missing the main and original point of this topic/thread. (pretending to anyway) There are many people who are sick and tired of the entitled attitudes of others. The very idea that because someone has groin issues they have the right to attack an American business is beyond disgusting. We're sick of liberals and that's a fact.' There is no reason to take this poster seriously.

ETA: examing the word entitlement: Roy Moore's entitlement was a bit much for the women of Alabama? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/12/roy-moore-defeat-trump-future-re...

>84 John5918: Collectorator seems (or purports) to think that the "basic rights" the LGBT community (again, as an imagined organized bloc, rather than a specific group of individuals in a specific time and place) is trying to claim consist, in this instance, of the right to protest against this coffee shop (presumably for lack of imagination as to what other rights could possibly be in serious question). I won't presume to say whether this is a tactic on Collectorator's part or a genuine misunderstanding, but I do doubt that's what anybody else in this thread had in mind per se. So there's an ongoing genuine failure to communicate based on each side's differing perspectives and preoccupations going into this argument. Whether there could be any other outcome, I will further refrain from speculating.

>85 RickHarsch:

Reminds me a bit of when I lived in South Africa and quite a few of the white community were complaining about the injustice of what was then called "affirmative action" to try to give the previously disadvantaged community a leg up onto a level playing field. From time to time I pointed out that the white community had just had 400 years of what was effectively affirmative action, so it was a bit rich them now complaining how unjust it was.

>86 davidgn:

Thanks, David.

(Forbes Magazine) : "Meet The World's LGBT Billionaires"

"LGBT Household Wealth (LGBT-Wealth) estimated at US$16 trillion globally, with US$5+ trillion in the US alone;"

"The LGBT rich are a fast-growing market"

Gill Foundation annual reports and financials data: Note: 16m USD disbursed on programs in 2016; with Total Assets of $198,911,288

Compare that with the Salvation Army (U.S.) annual reports' (2016) financial data.

>88 Collectorator:

So you feel you have scored a debating point? Personally I disagree with you on that, but it doesn't matter. Have either your post >88 Collectorator: or my >89 proximity1: moved this conversation forward in any constructive manner? I doubt it. Why do we bother?

Re: 89

87 is JTF's post.

and there are _two_ # "89" posts on the board:

89proximity1
Edited: Today, 4:24am Top
(Forbes Magazine) : "Meet The World's LGBT Billionaires"

"LGBT Household Wealth (LGBT-Wealth) estimated at US$16 trillion globally, with US$5+ trillion in the US alone;"

"The LGBT rich are a fast-growing market"

Gill Foundation annual reports and financials data: Note: 16m USD disbursed on programs in 2016; with Total Assets of $198,911,288

Compare that with the Salvation Army (U.S.) annual reports' (2016) financial data.
Edit | More

89johnthefireman
Today, 4:21am Top
>88 Collectorator: Collectorator:

So you feel you have scored a debating point? Personally I disagree with you on that, but it doesn't matter. Have either your post >88 Collectorator: Collectorator: or my >89 proximity1: proximity1: moved this conversation forward in any constructive manner? I doubt it. Why do we bother?

I suppose you mean "or my (i.e. your) : moved this conversation forward in any constructive manner?"

>89 proximity1: supports Collectorator's point of view here: the wealthy privileged include _many_ LGBT people. Why they require the Salvation Army's help is a mystery. Their collective wealth could buy-out the S.A.

>91 Collectorator:

Yes, I mentioned basic rights in >77 John5918:, and no, I was not referring to secondary picketing and boycotts - I have pointed out in later posts that I have no idea whether US citizens have those rights or not. I confess I don't really know how to explain basic rights to someone who thinks it's about "groin issues".

>93 Collectorator: It might be easier if you would decide whether you're bothering because you're bored at a meeting, or because you're suffering under the impossible delusion that you'll ever change my mind about a single, solitary thing

The boring meeting gives me the opportunity to sit in front of my computer for a long period and keep replying.

I always hope that conversations (unlike debates), particularly with people with whom I disagree, will lead to greater understanding on both sides. Not necessarily to change one's mind, but to explore the issue more deeply through different lenses. Sadly that rarely happens on LT's Pro and Con group.

It seems to me that there's a certain paradox which apparently Collectorator's posted critiques suggest he recognizes and understands since such a recognition seems to inform his her arguments:

when it comes to LGBT people, we find that they're perfectly capable of asserting their particular civil-rights claims on one hand--out of a quite reasonably-held view of what is just and fair--while also at the same time, as an aggregate group, presenting their fully-integrated part in the scandalously inequitable distribution of wealth, income-"earnings" and social privilege, on the other hand.

If we examine the class of people who contribute most to the general unfairness and inequity--not to mention iniquity--of the contemporary world, we find that LGBT people are more than proportionally "represented" in these VIP-groups.

How about that?!!

To cut to the chase: indeed, LGBT people are, after all, "just like everybody else" : they suffer from indviduous discrimination--just like everybody else; they seek to obtain not only "their fair share" but as much privilege and protection, due or not, as they can manage to get--just like everybody else; they comprise parts of the segement of society which enjoys the most wealth and privilege--just like everybody else except the class of society which is, irrespective of superficial "sexual orientation," defined as itself poor and unprivileged.

Physicians, heal thyself. Clearly, LGBT wealthy people, judging from the links I posted above, have well understood the meaning of "charity begins at home"-- so why do some of them need to picket a little Maine town's donut-shop?

>98 Collectorator:

"(Collectorator is a she.) :D"

Pshaa-a-a-a-a-aw-w-w-w-w!!! ;^)

God, I love this! It just gets better and better. You do recognize that you are now "officially" fire-proof, right?

;^) Thanks for the correction, ma'am.

>96 Collectorator: But what is there to disagree about, really?

A large part of my work is involved with peacebuilding. One step in the process is recognising that there are almost always different ways of looking at the same issue, different angles, different lenses.

"A large part of my work is involved with peacebuilding."

Right. So you tell yourself.

"One step in the process is recognising that there are almost always different ways of looking at the same issue, different angles, different lenses."

Here's a "lens", for example:

Jackie Mason: Frank Sinatra saved my life. One night at The Sands, four guys started beating and kicking me within an inch of my life. Just when I thought I was going to die, Frank walks by and says, That’s enough, boys.'

There you go. "Two sides" to every story.

DONUTS, A ZERO SUM GAME by >97 proximity1: and >83 krolik:. No wait: there are three 85s, so 97 can't be 97, but there is no guarantee any longer that 83 is 83 if >52 Collectorator: was written before >42 Collectorator:, a repeat, a double post, which makes of this whole effort a boondoggle at best, a boned doggie at worst. I'm officially pulling out of this meeting. John! To the gazelles!

>101 proximity1: Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in.

I flagged 101 because in it the poster is essentially calling jtf a liar:

"A large part of my work is involved with peacebuilding."

Right. So you tell yourself.

ETA: The thread about Korea (North), begun in August, has garnered 89 posts. This relative trifle, essentially a call to bigotry answered, is a week old.

>103 RickHarsch: , quoting above:
"A large part of my work is involved with peacebuilding."

Right. So you tell yourself.

And so everyone who knows him in real life would say. In the years I've known him on these fora, John has been actively involved in mediating among hostile factions and working for peace in some pretty dangerous and dire situations in Africa -- in Uganda, specifically, I believe. And regularly dealing with people who would scare the pants off me. Which no doubt explains his relativity equanimity when he's amusing himself on an internet forum.

>103 RickHarsch:, >104 southernbooklady:

Thanks, both of you. I myself haven't actually read the offending post and probably won't.

Back to the gazelles!

>104 southernbooklady: Absolutely. So the suggestion that he merely tells himself--and us--this, can range from he is simply lying--his work is not involved with peacebuilding (he does not claim to have built peace as far as I know)--or is insanely lying: he is up in his bedroom in his parents' house in Liverpool making things up. It would be like you mentioning you're from South Carolina (it is South, right?) and responding So you tell yourself.

>106 RickHarsch:

Hang on a moment, I just have to deal with these chaps in white coats carrying a funny looking jacket with leather straps who have just knocked on my bedroom door and are shouting at me in a Scouse accent...

No wait, that was only a dream - I've just finished a workshop with South Sudanese church leaders where I was briefing them on the current state of the church's peacebuilding initiatives...

Or was that the dream...

Back to the gazelles!

>106 RickHarsch: It would be like you mentioning you're from South Carolina (it is South, right?) and responding So you tell yourself.

Close! I live North Carolina, but only a couple hours to Myrtle Beach. But I am from Buffalo, NY, in the sense that I grew up there. Which basically means that when folks down here panic about snow, I laugh.

"From No 10 to the Middle East: Blair gets a new job" | Support from Bush leads to role as international envoy helping Palestinians


Tony Blair at Heathrow last month. He will work out of offices in Jerusalem.
(Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA)

by Patrick Wintour and Ian Black
Tuesday 26 June 2007 03.14 BST
First published on Tuesday 26 June 2007 03.14 BST

"Tony Blair has landed a major diplomatic job as the international Middle East peace envoy, responsible for preparing the Palestinians for negotiations with Israel. His role, to be announced today, will be largely to work with the Palestinians over security, economy and governance.

"Working from an office in Jerusalem, and possibly another in the West Bank, Mr Blair will become the special representative for the Middle East quartet of UN, EU, US and Russia. The announcement comes on the eve of his departure from Downing Street tomorrow and is privately welcomed by Gordon Brown."

Oh, yes, and Barack Obama has a Nobel peace-prize.

No wonder the world is in such great shape that LGBT people can enjoy the luxury of targeting a "Mom-&-Pop" donut-shop for having the unmitigated nerve to treat with the Salvation Army in an effort to give aid to a needy family. The world really is a beautiful, beautiful place--and that is mainly thanks to the intrepid peace-keepers and their solidarity with the LGBT "community." It wams mah wittle wibberal heart, it does.

>109 Collectorator:

I honestly don't think I have anything new to say beyond what I have already said in various posts. Sorry.

>111 John5918: How about that SBL who can't decide which Carolina she lives in! Care to comment? (Hint: the one without gazelles).

>109 Collectorator: Are you asking if he stole your Obtuserator?

>113 RickHarsch:

Now you're all ganging up on me! I swear I never touched his Obtuserator - the gazelles are my witnesses! And anyway, how could I with my arms strapped up in this strange jacket which the Scousers put on me?

>115 Collectorator: Your approval of the donut shop outcome

Have you actually read any of my posts, just as a matter of interest? >23 John5918:, for example, or >65 John5918:.

Obtuserator and obtuserator

Curiouser and curiouser

........and yet.........in the extremely conservative and deep south state of Alabama enough of them wouldn't vote for Roy Moore. Go figure. I guess voters can be fickle.

People voted for Trump because--let's face it--gay men, not Ls, not Bs and a very very few Ts, have taken out their frustrations on donut shops. There, I said it. I feel a lot better.

I just saw an interesting graphic about voters in Alabama. 96% of black voters voted against the Predator of the Mall and 68% of whites voted FOR the Predator of the Mall. Judging by the argument that this thread was predicated on, we are surely to believe that the problem of Predation against youth is enabled by white people. Or were them white folk voting for tax hikes and war in the Middle East?

Everyone falls short of the glory of me, har har, but all this is distracting from the real problem which is the republican party, specifically elected public officials. They are evil incarnate. Something must be done one day about getting rid of them, as a necessity in order for civilization to endure.

All this other crap - about donuts, hysterical gays and trans, governmental entanglement with religion, atheists and liberals and their various shortcomings, etc. - is of much lesser importance to the preservation of common human decency and the promotion of a mentally healthy and educated population - necessary for maintaining a working democracy and avoiding both authoritarianism or anarchy.