LETTERS

We try to print as many letters from our readers as possible, as long as they're responding to something they read in CityBeat. That's why there's often a lag period of a few weeks between the date a story is published and the date we publish a response.

But this week is an exception. The passion expressed in these letters in response to columnist Edwin Decker's last “Sordid Tales” piece, March 7's “A message to gays,” compels us to allow them to cut in line. For those of you who've responded to stories published earlier, we'll get back on schedule next week. Thanks for understanding.

Ed's audacity
Edwin Decker's column, “A message to gays,” expresses all the obligatory angst of a misdirected provocateur. Unfortunately, mounting a logical argument finishes a distant second to self-promotion through a sensational viewpoint. I suppose his peers are duly titillated with his audacity.

Of course, it is a sad fact that political correctness has run amok. Children command their parents in public, minorities are sometimes unaccountable for losing their way on their own and electable politicians are now dopey prom kings in lieu of awkward valedictorians. The pendulum has swung too far. However, your dim rant fails to pass the bullshit test. By claiming that “oppression” and “discrimination” have been unfairly interchanged, you hinge your crumbling case on a canard.

Tim Hardaway made flagrantly homophobic remarks. The NBA made a sensible decision in dissociating itself from his indigestible bile. Flatly, it did not wish to reward bigotry in a league hypersensitive about its image. Hardaway has every right to voice his opinion. To applaud ignorance is another matter.

The backlash wasn't appropriate? You were “impressed” and felt “a little glee” that he made a slew of asinine remarks? Is all defiance symbolic and therefore deemed worthwhile? Do we not have an equal right, in an open society, to discredit an ugly iteration of free speech when exercised by an imbecile? Homophobia wins the majority vote among Americans. Opinion polls have borne this out. Your veiled attempt at nonconformity is quite ironic.

One more thing: Did you actually compare Tim Hardaway to Copernicus? Even your Neanderthal is scratching his head on that one.

Richard Darvas,
Rancho San Diego

CityBeat's über-whiners
Edwin Decker said he “was troubled by the way the public, the media, the NBA and the homosexual community all pounced on [athlete] Tim Hardaway” after Hardaway famously said, “I hate gay people. I let it be known.... I don't like homosexuality. It shouldn't be in the world, or in the United States.”

According to Decker, in the last paragraph of his piece, people's adverse verbal reactions to Hardaway's gay-bashing comments constituted a case of the “Political Correctness Police” who wanted to “oppress [Hardaway] in return.”

Oppression? I'll grant Decker that the only remotely arguable “oppression” I could imagine was the NBA's decision to not allow Hardaway to take part in all-star game festivities the weekend of his comments. So Decker should direct his “oppression” whine to the NBA only. Otherwise, I don't give a shit if über-whiner Decker is ”troubled” by the purely verbal responses of other people-in this case, a whole lot of them-who would equally have a right to their opinions to denounce Hardaway with a similar sentiment: ”I hate homophobes. I let it be known.... I don't like homophobia. It shouldn't be in the world, or in the United States.”

In Decker's ideal world, people who have been truly, historically, institutionally and systematically oppressed (like homosexuals) should just shut the hell up when people with power and influence fuel continuation of that genuine oppression. Did I get that right, Decker? What a miserable hypocrite and a weakling you are, favoring the privilege of the powerful. And Hardaway? Shame on your loser parents who taught you “It's all about me.” You won't be missed.

Decker's sentiment echoed fellow CityBeat über-whiner Tony Phillips' piece [“Because I Said So”] dated Nov. 29, 2006. Phillips got bent out of shape over the widespread public denunciation of comedian Michael “Kramer” Richards as a “racist” due to the obviously intentionally exclusionary tone of his “nigger” rant at a Hollywood comedy club. So what if people think Kramer's a racist? They have just as equal a right to their opinions as Richards does to his unfortunate ones.

So, Phillips, should historically oppressed people just shut the hell up in situations like that, as well? Yeah, I agree with you that the people attempting to sue the comedy club were greedy opportunists.

But Decker and Phillips, when the intent of your writings is to discourage dissent from the voices of the systematically marginalized while championing the freedom of speech of exclusionary assholes, what the hell are you both doing writing for a supposedly progressive newspaper like CityBeat? Shouldn't you be writing for Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter? Defending George W. Bush's precious right to freedom of speech while simultaneously discouraging dissent of his “politically correct” critics who are “oppressing” him?

Clarito T. Aradanas,
Ocean Beach

The anti-PCers
Edwin Decker's rhetoric courts a “we” that is obviously not woman, not black and not gay. He refers to “our” fears of “our women” being raped as a problem painful for “us” as having “our” cable stolen (wow, that bad?). He also forces a specious analogy between a black male ball player and a knuckle-dragging subhuman.

Lurking beneath the poorly constructed, almost drunkenly ignorant argument is a common fear that seems debilitating for those who experience it from time to time. And because I've become so well-trained in accepting fear as a normal background hum, I am surprised every time I learn that being told to keep one's hateful opinions to oneself feels so overwhelmingly threatening. These tender creatures would be rendered catatonic were they to experience the threat of violence lots of us experience every day.

Decker's opinion piece underscores this fear, but it avoids direct reference to it. The argument displaces the real issue of masculine heterosexual fragility and vulnerability. His fear of systematic, institutionalized oppression toward those who voice ugly but popularly supported opinions is based in delusion and paranoia. In order to hold sway, such ingrained oppressive practices would have to be enforced by both threats and acts of physical and psychological torture, murder and other kinds of violence over the course of hundreds of years. Only after those people expressing hatred toward popularly despised, disenfranchised groups are regularly disowned, raped, maimed and killed (in addition to being fired) for saying they hate the despised group, will they have a case for the protection of hate-speech.

People who rail against what they call “political correctness” (if they don't self-identify with the radical right, which created the magnificently empty term) may inadvertently creep toward wisdom. Perhaps without meaning to, they point out the hypocrisy of a shallow liberalism that in some venues purports to promote a curious, just and equitable society but that in many more high-stakes arenas, such as the law or education, promotes no such social ethos.

Arguments falter when these critics of “political correctness” rest their case before reaching the conclusion that the real problem is not social speech-coercion. Instead of digging out the rotten root of socially supported bigotry and uprooting it, anti-PCers shake their fists and demand that their speech be “allowed” to mirror their culture's degradation of specific populations. Maybe they stop short in examination of the problem in order to take a bow. Hate-speech is more frequently applauded than merely allowed.

Anna Joy Springer,
South San Diego

No lie
In his column, Edwin Decker writes, “Political correctness is nothing more than your run-of-the-mill lie. When you're being politically correct, you are telling a lie, and you are telling it for the same reason that most lies are told: to protect yourself.”

I support political correctness. Our culture insidiously reinforces its bias and beliefs thru language, visual images, etc.

Some may do so unconsciously-PC presents an opportunity for us to create awareness of those subliminal messages. A chance for me to confront my own prejudice. Reexamine my values.

Protection becomes unnecessary when folks feel safe.

N. Sahar,
Spring Valley

CityBeat was wrong
I am not going to go into extensive detail about how wrong Tim Hardaway's statements were. I think that was effectively taken care of when he was fired. I am going to go into detail as to why Edwin Decker is wrong for criticizing that action, and, in addition, why you were wrong for not catching it and allowing it to go to print.

Decker states that it took “nads” to say what Hardaway said “at a time when it is highly dangerous to criticize minority groups publicly.” It didn't take “nads”; it took ignorance. Perhaps they are one and the same to Decker, though I doubt it. By voicing an opinion that actually runs fairly rampant in American society, Hardaway was not telling the political-correctness police to go jump in the lake; he was simply reaffirming that homophobia still runs as rampant as ever. My hope is that this society is not simply becoming more “PC” and less “ballsy,” but, rather, more educated and less ignorant.

Hardaway voiced an opinion that, according to the law, he is totally allowed to have; as offensive as it is, yes, people are allowed to hate. It is not against the law to hate. But Hardaway was not fired for expressing his hate; he was fired for going against what his employer states in its mission statement: “It is our fervent belief that any person should be allowed to participate in our league, regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, political preference or sexual orientation, without fear of reprisal or discrimination.” Hardaway expressed that he would discriminate against his fellow ballplayers because of their sexual orientation. That is why he was fired.

People go into “attack mode,” as Decker states, because it is necessary to show the world that we will no longer tolerate bigotry which leads to hate crimes, beatings, slurs, insults, discrimination in job choice and education, killings and suicides. Other examples of “attack dog” mode the masses go into: The Million Man March, Stonewall and the Suffragists. These are not mobs. These are examples of community standing up for their rights to be treated as equals on this planet.

What upsets me the most is that by printing this article, you stand behind the statements made by Decker and, ultimately, Hardaway. I understand that CityBeat is very fond of the basic principles of journalism, freedom of press and freedom of speech, and in addition to that, also very fond of stirring things up, but if your paid opinion writer were a closeted member of the KKK, and slowly but surely the articles became filled with pro-white rhetoric, racial slurs, anti-gay commentary and sexist remarks, I don't believe you would keep that staff member on payroll. If you did, you would very quickly lose the business of people who fit into those categories being targeted. I believe it would be up to us, the community that supports your free publication, through readership and advertising, to show you how wrong it is to “speak freely” when that speech is hateful and offensive to the very people who keep your publication alive.

I understand that an editor should not follow the money, but really provide a great media source whether the commentary is popular or not, but if you alienate your base by allowing offensive and ignorant articles to run, you will find yourself and your publication ostracized by the very people you need.

Lea Caughlan,
North Park

Appalling and shameful
I am 19 years old and openly gay. I am working towards becoming the first openly gay United States Senator. I am a youth activist for Gay Youth. I feel that what was written in your magazine is absolutely outrageous. It teaches that hate is OK. Shame on you!

You have never gone to a school to be picked on or have things thrown at you for being who you are or have you family disown you. We are still teenagers and we are the ones who have to put up with all the discrimination, not the full grown adults. I am absolutely appalled.

I was a very loyal reader of CityBeat magazine, as I know many other members of the LGBT community were. You should be promoting peace and unity, not teaching hate!

Shame on CityBeat!

Raymond A. Portillos-Leon,
Downtown