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:
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
First rule of Buzzfeed?
That's right.
First rule of what?
I think that's the first rule of living a sane life.
Shouldn't this be some sort of GIF filled list?
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.
*crawls under desk and repetitively mumbles "moonbase" while in fetal position*
Did someone say moonbase?
Mooooooonbase
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvD7Mqw1Qqk
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?
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!
Slightly OT:
Lesbians earn more than heterosexual women while gay men lag in wages
Jezebel hardest hit.
But where do they get all their renovation, fashion, and clubbing money?
They appropriate it from women of color I hear.
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."
Discrimination! Quick pass a law against it.
"gay men lag in wages"
They do what.... in where?!
*Triggered*
Wages of sin and all that jazz...
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.
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.
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.
They measure it in Batin units.
I'm pretty sure it's BTUs, to measure the hatred their readers exude.
Gold stars.
Banana stickers...
*twinkles up*
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.
They should be using a croco something else...
Is there even a *clearly stated* concept of Gay Rights out there?
Gay People Have Rights.
There, I said it. WOT M8!
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.
regular people?
Listen, cis shitlord.
he mean cis normative heterosexuals, ok.
They want to be added as a protected class.
That's wrong! they just want cake. and cab rides.
Don't forget firefightersmen at the parades!
This is as clear as I think it might get
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Why don't you just cover up the affected area with a sign that says "here be monsters"?
Uh, well, DUH?! that would be monsterphobic
So the Monsters and Trans-Monster groups would boycott you for comparing them to Hoosiers?
Fuck, the more you know...
Monsterphobic?
Or monsterphilic?
One man's warning is another man's advertisement, after all.
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.
RELEVANT
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?
Listen, patriarchal oppressor, Don't other them with your micro-aggressions...
OMG HE SAID "MADE BY A THAI JEW" ++ LOL!!
But seriously, like, that's totally not Ok. uhm, you know.
Why not? That phrase accurately describes 2/3rds of my kid, at least.
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
"Her," you othering monster.
"it"
all children are "it" to me.
That was my nickname in grade school.
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.
"slightly educational"
And what did you learn.
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#.
By the way, don't listen to them. Euro Custard Cakes/Strawberry Cakes are the bomb.
You must be the curly lady.
Let me guess, you're a "picky" eater.
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?"
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?"
What RP said:
What Buzzfeed will quote RP as saying:
It's hardly worth worrying about.
Correction:
They'll also quote him as saying:
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.
"I believe...some people...like me.... Do you believe some people...?"
Celebrity Troll Match: Michael Hihn vs. Bo Cara Esq. Who wins and why?
Any thread that mentions a Paul will get the Hihnbeast to appear. It's painful to watch and I'm embarrassed for him.
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?
And this is like the worst chat room ever.
What Rand said: I believe in individual rights rather than rights based on what collective you belong to.
What Michael "I might literally be going insane" Hihn heard: Gays and blacks should have their rights eliminated.
I'm also laughing my ass of at your hysterical appeal to Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Take your medication.
People were slaughtered in Cambodia, Boko Haram runs amok in Nigeria, there's been a war on drugs,...and that's the worst abuse of individual rights??!!!
Re: Michael Hindered,
Like for instance pot legalization, perhaps?
Oh, well, I guess then that the concept of State rights is invalidated by that little piece of history. Never mind other things like pot legalization and the like. No State rights because someone used it as an excuse, somewhere.
Idiot.
Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot never said they were in favor of state rights. They were in fact clearly against the notion of State rights. none more so than Stalin. You're not only an ignorant little shit, you;'re a fucking liar - the scum of the Earth, to put it succinctly.
"...the worst abuse of individual rights since FDR's Japanese Internment Camps."
Did you just have an aneurysm, Michael?
Michael - deep breath.
First, in a period where the Federal government is ascendant, states rights IS federalism. The only way to have federalism is to increase state's rights. I understand you have difficulty understanding this because you are a crazy person, but that's the fact.
Also, all those numbers you threw out there...mind providing a link to the Cato survey and explaining what you mean? Because most people call themselves 'fiscally conservative and socially liberal' but if you actually ask them what they believe, they are neither. So your entire argument is based on self-reported claims that are contradicted by the policies the people actually support, but for some reason you have difficulty understanding the problem here.
Fortunately you provided a link to the context of what you quoted misleadingly:
By wrenching it into a different context, you make it seem like he was saying gay marriage was a moral crisis that needed to be addressed by evangelic Protestantism proselytizing.
Help me out here, Michael.
The article you linked to contains no references to either "gay" or "marriage".
So, were they talking about gay marriage, or not? Because if not, I have hard time getting to "he was saying gay marriage was a moral crisis that needed to be addressed by evangelic Protestantism proselytizing."
What'd I miss? Since the Japanese internment, that bit about DOMA was the worst abuse?
By bringing up "the FDR comparison" & "anyone else", do you mean to say you were referring to the worst abuser rather than worst abuse? That's even more absurd.
Any single class? It's hard to know where to stop the list of victim classes: blacks, drug users & businesspeople, minors, males, male homosexuals, gun keepers...& the number of people who've tried to deny these constitutional rights numbers in the millions. Probably the great majority of Americans have wanted to deny some Constitutional rights to some groups of people.
Re: Michael Hindered,
Socialists and German-Americans?
Italian-Americans?
Ah, there it is.
Thanks.
That's the worst abuse of individual rights since FDR's Japanese Internment Camps.
Worse than this?
http://media-3.web.britannica......8CB497.jpg
Howsabout this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
Jeebus, Michael, get a clue.
You actually think that content makes Mike Hihn's rendering of that quote as, "Was the Rand cult asleep when he called gay marriage a `moral crisis' and part of the fix must be "tent revival meetings" across America?" objective? Or were you being ironic?
Nah. I was just looking for some mention of gay marriage at that meeting.
Looks like there was one.
Now, even as someone who has no problem with gay people getting married, I'm having a hard time getting my panties bunched up over his call for people to assert themselves politically, regardless of whether they live in the imperial city.
In this country, the Republicans, who libertarians mostly ally with including the Pauls, have historically championed states' rights when it came to protect the majority and the comfortable, such as preferring a powerful state versus the civil rights movement, but have been silent or hostile to states' rights when it comes to protecting the less powerful, such as with the war on drugs.
Individuals may have differing views, but those in power have historically used states' rights to empower the state against the people, but not to empower the people.
Well duh, of course you can't see it. Because only Michael had the aluminum deposits in his brain indicative of Alzheimer's secret Orphan Annie decoder ring.
It really is painful to listen to you Michael Hihn. You are quickly becoming The Most Obnoxious Troll On Reason.
Congratulations.
"States having undelegated powers." Errr, powers not delegated to the federal government default to the states. That's just a fact, learn to live with it.
The Pauls' position, quite simply, was to favor limitations on the ability of the federal government to interfere with state legislation, as states, they believe, better represent the interests of their particular constituents. You throw a fit over gay marriage, but you forget that the shoe is as often as not on the other foot, such as the federal government sending people to prison for drug crimes regardless of what the constituents of the state want within that state. In other words, the federal government is every bit as capable (more actually) of depriving people of their liberties as the state governments. The argument (which you willfully ignore) would be that enfranchising the federal government to interfere with state legislation (which you justify as facilitating gay marriage legalization) would also enfranchise the federal government to violate the rights of citizens in myriad ways.
You are willfully myopic. Court rulings have consequences beyond their immediate effects. But the empowerment of the federal government, even for whatever nice little good intentions you have, would come back to bite everyone in the ass soon enough. You unshackle a larger beast to combat a smaller one, never considering that the former might turn on you when he's done with the latter.
But didn't you just say Reason didn't report on it? And now you're saying they did?
And most importantly: who gives a fuck? Gay marriage at any rate is a low tier issue imo, for the simple reason that marriage is little else but a piece of paper which confers the right to get fleeced by the state (ok, and maybe some tax credits, for some reason).
Considering that every other viable candidate (including those on the left) have gone off the deep end in far more egregious and practically important ways, I'm having trouble taking this as a big deal. So what exactly was your thesis again? Vote for Hillary?
Right, we need a strong federal government to empower "the people". I also think I can fix this migraine by sticking my head in a wood chip.
I'm not responsible for your insane conclusions.
FTFY
What cult? I'm not even in his father's cult. In 1988 his campaign tried to justify restrictions on immigr'n by invoking trespass on the property of people at the borders.
Both Drs. Paul are great guys, but I've no problem criticizing their campaign positions.
No matter how many times you bring up the clause about FDR, that doesn't make it make sense. I was assuming there was something that made sense in there that I missed, but if so I still can't see it.
As to how many people sponsored laws forbidding classes of Americans from defending rights in court, well, shit, how many people are in the US senate & get to sponsor laws, period? They would if they could!
How many times can you move the goalposts & still be on the same field?
Judges everywhere have been delegated power over marriage every time people took to court a case that hinged on whether a couple was married.