Addendum to 'Hate Card'

This post consists of a few notes, prompted by discussion over at First Things Blog, for this post. 


The biggest thing I want to emphasize is that the problem with the Washington Post article is not a lack of examples, but the fact that individual events make for a very weak argument.

If the editorial was criticizing the people involved in the events, it wouldn't have merited the kind of analysis I gave it: the events certainly happened. However, both authors asserted not only that this is a) typical behavior of liberals, but b) that it indicates an inherent weakness in their position. This is a very strong claim and is vulnerable to counter-example, e.g. the website I suggested as a resource for learning about the pro-gay marriage position.

One commenter noted that some of the arguments listed are not really arguments for same sex marriage and he seems to be correct. The articles "Sexism and Gay Marriage" and "Racism and Gay Marriage" both assume agreement on the issue. Nonetheless, Arguing Equality is a good primer for that side of the debate.

I'm not sure I would have tackled this argument again, because I could do little besides note that the evidence is weak. I cannot really provide evidence the claim is false. There really isn't any way to provide proof liberals do not rely on "irritable mental gestures." For that matter, there really isn't any way to provide proof conservatives don't rely on "irritable mental gestures." I can tell you that, from my experience, there are people who present good arguments for both sides and people who present bad arguments.

I'd like to thank everyone who brought up these points and I welcome responses here or under the article I originally responded to.