Rand Paul

Buzzfeed Engages in Self-Reflexive Media Malpractice with Headline 'Rand Paul Doesn't Believe in the Concept of Gay Rights'

Paul Speaks of Basic Individual Rights, Slammed for Allegedly Not Believing in "Behavioral Rights."

|

Buzzfeed goes for a very weak and misleading attack on Rand Paul today, completely distorting his meaning to any typical reader in both headline and text: "Rand Paul Doesn't Believe in the Concept of Gay Rights."

They got this scoop, no less, in "a videotaped interview that has received little attention since it was recorded in 2013!" (YouTubers seeking to up your channel's hits, start larding it with old Rand Paul video, since an army of oppo journalists and candidates will be watching til their eyes fall out.)

Paul, naturally, went on to say how of course there should be no legal punishment for beating and murdering gays and stealing their property, right? I mean, he doesn't believe in gay rights!

Here's what Paul started the interview clip with:

"I'm for rights for individuals, but I'm not for judging individuals based on their behavior" before later on stumbling into the gotcha phrase the article quotes: "I don't think I've ever used the word gay rights, because I don't really believe in rights based on your behavior."

That can't be understood outside of both the context of his initial statement, and the general context of libertarian-ish thinking in which we all as humans have an equal set of rights, and no particular special ones based on status or on the specifics of what we choose to do.

To the libertarian minded—and this certainly provided no proof Rand Paul isn't libertarian-minded in this respect—part of individual rights is the legal right to indulge in any behavior that isn't directly damaging others rights or property, so the Buzzfeed writer disingenuously stumbling on to wonder what other behaviors have no rights protection is barking up the wrong tree and deliberately misunderstanding Paul:

But it's unclear how far—and to whom—Paul extends the argument that rights cannot be defined by behavior.

Practicing religion, for example, is a behavior enshrined as a primary American right. Free speech is behavior protected by the Bill of Rights…

Ironically, this headline that is sweeping the globe, "Rand Paul Doesn't Believe in the Concept of Gay Rights," is meta-criticized in the very clip the article is based on, in which Paul muses that "the problem of bad journalism sometimes…is actually the titles to stories" in which "men and women putting headlines on sometimes put inflammatory stuff on there."

Here's the video, you can listen for yourself, though Buzzfeed is certainly counting on most readers not bothering to do so:

Advertisement

NEXT: When may jury no-death-penalty decisions be trumped by the judge?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. First rule of Buzzfeed?

    That’s right.

    1. First rule of what?

    2. I think that’s the first rule of living a sane life.

  2. Shouldn’t this be some sort of GIF filled list?

  3. And it’s just going to get stupider. I’m actually both dreading yet fascinated at how stupid everything is going to be, oh, around mid-2016.

    1. *crawls under desk and repetitively mumbles “moonbase” while in fetal position*

    2. I knew this was coming, but it’s extra pathetic to actually see it in practice. Really, why don’t these leftist nutjobs just move all the way to pure emotion and have their cerebral cortices completely removed?

      1. Can it be done holistically? Can we force insurance companies and/or the 1% to pay for it? Ha! that would stick in those tea-baggers craw… Let’s do it!

    1. But where do they get all their renovation, fashion, and clubbing money?

      1. They appropriate it from women of color I hear.

      2. They get it from all the money they save not having to pay for a wife and kids, child support, alimony, excessive liquor, and finally, a pistol with one round in the chamber.

        Fun fact: in Britain, they call the savings accrued through homosexuality “the pink pound.”

    2. Discrimination! Quick pass a law against it.

    3. “gay men lag in wages”

      They do what…. in where?!

      1. *Triggered*

      2. Wages of sin and all that jazz…

  4. My audio wasn’t fantastic but my worry is at the very end he starts to go down the road of “our Founding Fathers’ concept of marriage being very different.” I may have misheard or misinterpreted but it’s probably better to just say, “government should stay the hell out of it.” Either way, taken in context with his previous comment, the Buzzfeed headline is a pretty gross distortion.

    1. That would be nice, but 1) what he said may be more in line with what he believes, and 2) the libertarian “get the state out of marriage” line probably doesn’t get many people excited. Paeans to “traditional marriage” gets asses out of seats.

  5. A Buzzfeed writer doesn’t understand what is meant by individual rights? Or doesn’t care so long as he can smear Paul? Bojack Horseman was mentioned earlier, so to take a line from that show:

    They found something that will get them a shit ton of hearts, or digs, or smileys, or whatever the hell it is they measure their journalism with.

    1. They measure it in Batin units.

      1. I’m pretty sure it’s BTUs, to measure the hatred their readers exude.

      1. Banana stickers…

        1. *twinkles up*

    2. a shit ton of hearts, or digs, or smileys, or whatever the hell it is they measure their journalism with.

      Maeby they use a crocodile.

      1. They should be using a croco something else…

  6. Is there even a *clearly stated* concept of Gay Rights out there?

    1. Gay People Have Rights.

      There, I said it. WOT M8!

      1. I think people really don’t understand that gays? have MORE rights than even regular people! I mean, because oppression. Also, religion. I mean seriously if you don’t vote for Hillary its like you might as well just be saying “Murder all the gays”, which is pretty much what Rand Paul said anyway.

        1. regular people?

          Listen, cis shitlord.

          1. he mean cis normative heterosexuals, ok.

    2. They want to be added as a protected class.

      1. That’s wrong! they just want cake. and cab rides.

        1. Don’t forget firefightersmen at the parades!

    3. This is as clear as I think it might get

  7. Gee, it is almost as if left wing journalists are deliberately finding quotes they can twist out of proportion into a stupid gaffe.

    Avoiding saying something “stupid” is easier said than done, is it not?

    1. Well, is it a twisting, or are they just not capable of seeing rights as always on an individual level?

      Since this has been framed as, “This group of people can’t do something they want, the proper response is to ensure that group has the right after all”, they are pretty much conditioned to see it in the collective.

      Oh, I do believe that some are mendacious twats, but it seems likely that most just go with the flow, and don’t analyze the fundamentals.

      1. I’m sure that they would have been just as outraged if he had said “I think gays have equal rights to straights.”

        Doesn’t he know that since gays have had it tough in the past, that now they have extra rights to make up for that? Why would you limit them to having the same rights as anyone else?

        1. Doesn’t he know that since gays have had it tough in the past, that now they have extra rights to make up for that?

          Yup! It never even occurs to them what they’re proposing. I guess it’s too much to hope that they someday get the idea that, if all those shtity laws were just repealed/not enacted to begin with, people would have been enjoying those rights all along.

          Hey news people, I know were social creatures and all, but has it ever entered your feeble minds to not think in collectivist terms??? Is it really too difficult for you to conceive that were individuals first?

          1. I have a suspicion that in order to graduate journalism school you have to be thoroughly indoctrinated with the works of Erving Goffman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erving_Goffman). I don’t know how to make links.

            Basically, Goffman believes that an individual is really nothing more than the totality of all the social roles they fulfill. Similar to the way leftists think: there are no individuals; a person is merely the sum of their ‘relevant’ features, i.e., race, gender, orientation, and class.

          2. I have a suspicion that in order to graduate journalism school you have to be thoroughly indoctrinated with the works of Erving Goffman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erving_Goffman). I don’t know how to make links.

            Basically, Goffman believes that an individual is really nothing more than the totality of all the social roles they fulfill. Similar to the way leftists think: there are no individuals; a person is merely the sum of their ‘relevant’ features, i.e., race, gender, orientation, and class.

  8. I don’t know anyone in real life who checks Buzzfeed. I know 2 who check reason, and at least 3 or 4 who read HuffPo.

  9. WELL I LOVE GAYS SO MUCH THAT I AM REMOVING INDIANA FROM ALL THE MAPS IN MY HOUSE

    *And Kentucky!! (shakes fist) You’re getting a haircut too!! (because cutting those squiggly lines is a pain, right?), and also this “Rand” Paul fellow is such a gay-hater OMG

    1. Why don’t you just cover up the affected area with a sign that says “here be monsters”?

      1. Uh, well, DUH?! that would be monsterphobic

        1. So the Monsters and Trans-Monster groups would boycott you for comparing them to Hoosiers?

          Fuck, the more you know…

        2. Monsterphobic?

          Or monsterphilic?

          One man’s warning is another man’s advertisement, after all.

          1. uhm, look, I don’t know how you people didnt get the Message? but like, No One has called them “Monsters” for like ages… i mean, if you have to be like, culturally-specific and stuff, “Kaiju” shows some sensitivity? But i mean just because someone has a genetic connection to both “Dinosaurs” and “Giant Insects”? and Maybe was over-exposed to radiation at the bottom of the ocean at some point*…

            (**which BTW is like A SERIOUS PROBLEM!! which we need to hashtag more about #FUK-U-FUKOSHIMA)

            …i mean, its totally showing your Homosapien privilege and stuff to be like, biased against People of Extraordinarily Large Fire Breathing Dimensions.

  10. Buzzfeed? The media aggregator that made its fortune by producing almost 150 videos of millennial hipsters acting like finicky, obnoxious toddlers when presented with any food more exotic than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?

    That Buzzfeed?

    That’s the Buzzfeed you’re expecting us to take seriously?

    That’s the Buzzfeed you felt necessary to respond to with an article?

    1. Listen, patriarchal oppressor, Don’t other them with your micro-aggressions…

    2. OMG HE SAID “MADE BY A THAI JEW” ++ LOL!!
      But seriously, like, that’s totally not Ok. uhm, you know.

      1. But seriously, like, that’s totally not Ok. uhm, you know.

        Why not? That phrase accurately describes 2/3rds of my kid, at least.

        1. Well then duh it was othering at least half of his heritage

          I mean, please. Snacks are serious and should not be used to make disparaging ethnic remarks. They should be celebrated for their diversity

          1. Well then duh it was othering at least half of his heritage

            “Her,” you othering monster.

            1. “it”

              all children are “it” to me.

              1. That was my nickname in grade school.

    3. 1st time seeing it. I wouldn’t describe its subjects that way. They’re sex-segregated pairs asked to evaluate foods, like focus group panelists, edited to bare essentials with non-intrusive yet cute mood music. No masterpiece, but gently entertaining, slightly educational. It’d be lotsa work for most people to find such an assortment of unusual foods & try them on that many friends, so there’s novelty to the vid. Almost 150? I’m sure it’d be boring after a few, but who’s expected to watch more than a small fraction? I’m sure they produced many to increase chance of being hit in searches or YouTube recommend’ns, but the marginal cost of #100 must’ve been small, so why not?

      I like the YouTube series of Crazy Russian Hacker & Meanwhile In Russia, instructionals & results of fireworks construction & for American football, & cute wild & domesticated animal footage.

      Contrast w the vanity YouTubes by families working to an apparent formula about life w children, preteen girls showing how they mix their own toiletries (from commercial toiletries), women & girls showing how they take all day to wash their face w successive procedures, bot-made scrolling plagiarized texts, token vids as place-holders for unrelated “explanatory” texts, some short-clip concept called “Vines” I don’t get, instructionals widely available as text that don’t need demonstr’n, & slides as place-holders for audio programs (Uh, SoundCloud?), & you can see there’s a use for a Buzzfeed to cut thru the clutter.

      1. “slightly educational”

        And what did you learn.

        1. I learned about several kinds of prepared food I had no idea existed, let alone that they were Thai. I got several opinions about each of them as well. Makes me interested in eating some of them.

          Oh, OK, any mention of food makes me want to eat it. I’m a Nielsen panelist, and a stock answer I give when they survey me about particular foods when asked what I’d like about them is, “It’s food.” I’m over 300#.

            1. You must be the curly lady.

      2. Let me guess, you’re a “picky” eater.

  11. Simple answer:

    “I believe in human rights. I don’t believe some people have more rights than others. If by “gay rights” you mean some people having more rights than others, then no, I don’t believe in gay rights, any more than I believe in white rights, male rights, or anything else that assigns special rights to members of certain groups. Why? Do you believe in equal rights like me, or do you believe some people should have more rights than others?”

    1. And…

      What Buzzfeed will actually print…

      I believe in human rights. I don’t believe some people have more rights than others. If by “gay rights” you mean some people having more rights than others, then no, I don’t believe in gay rights, any more than I believe in white rights, male rights, or anything else that assigns special rights to members of certain groups. Why? Do you believe in equal rights like me, or do you believe some people should have more rights than others?”

    2. What RP said:

      If by “gay rights” you mean some people having more rights than others, then no, I don’t believe in gay rights, any more than I believe in white rights, male rights, or anything else that assigns special rights to members of certain groups.

      What Buzzfeed will quote RP as saying:

      I don’t believe in gay rights

      It’s hardly worth worrying about.

      1. Correction:

        They’ll also quote him as saying:

        I [?] believe in white rights, male rights

    3. Yeah, good point. Gave ’em a freebie sound bite.

      If by “gay rights” you mean some people having more rights than others, then no, I don’t believe in gay rights, any more than I believe in white rights, male rights, or anything else that assigns special rights to members of certain groups.

    4. “I believe…some people…like me…. Do you believe some people…?”

  12. Celebrity Troll Match: Michael Hihn vs. Bo Cara Esq. Who wins and why?

  13. Any thread that mentions a Paul will get the Hihnbeast to appear. It’s painful to watch and I’m embarrassed for him.

  14. Correct me if I’m wrong (I don’t read buzzfeed… It’s possibly the first place on the internet I consciously boycott), but if it’s a buzzfeed article, doesn’t that mean it was written by some random millennial that registered on the site the day before?

  15. And this is like the worst chat room ever.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.