The cult of "rights" and bickering as politics.

[JackDragna]

One of the things I've grown to be increasingly disgusted by is how those on the wrong side of an issue hide under the "rights" banner when defending their argument. The issue that recently brought to my attention how pervasive this is in American society is the extent to which I've seen people defend Tim Hardaway for his comments about homosexuals. People on the radio and on the net are coming to Mr. Hardaway's defense by saying he has a "right" to say what he said and the PC libs should just stop bashing him and trying to get him to shut up.
I've seen the same tactic trotted out numerous times, on any number of issues, where those with inflammatory opinions are inevitably defended by those who somehow see criticism of their opinion as an attempt at censorship. It's yet another situation where those defending the factual side of an argument (in the case of something factual, such as the existence of global warming) or the side of tolerance (such as criticizing Mr. Hardaway) must somehow placate the opposite side by assuring them we're still in favor of them being allowed to speak. There's an inherent assumption that we somehow cannot possibly disagree with their positions on things without wanting to undermine them, to prevent them from speaking. And, usually, being the magnanimous people we liberals are, we pat our opponents on the head and tell them we're still civil and willing to listen to their opinions.
I'm tired of it. I am tired of having this stereotype thrust upon us that we're unreasonable. Not only are liberals, for the most part, better informed about any political or cultural issue than our opponents, we're almost always more skilled in the realm of debate and following the "rules" of debate. We're also much more interested in real dialogue about an issue rather than meta-discussions about whether the other person is immoral or whether they have some secret reason for holding the position they do. Nobody who criticizes Mr. Hardaway for his opinion owes anyone a damned thing regarding whether they think it's "okay" for someone to say they don't like gays. Of course it's okay to say it, but it's also okay for us to vehemently disagree with the person.
Which brings me to the crux of the matter - usually, people who accuse liberals of trying to shut people up are doing so in an attempt to deflect attention from their own weak arguments. I have yet to hear a single good secular explanation for why homosexuality is immoral. People quote the Bible at me, but I remind them they live in a secular society, much as they might it were otherwise. Mr. Hardaway and people who feel like him cannot adequately explain why homosexuals are immoral or what danger homosexuality presents to a stable society. The last refuge for such people, then, is to accuse us of being PC simply for critcizing their opinions.
There is a larger issue here, too, one I once saw eloquently discussed during a post here on DU. Debate about issues now is no longer whether facts support one side or whether one side can even defend their own arguments. In our age of bickering and screaming as loudly as possible, making noise is now the measure of how right one is. I am not surprised those of us who try to reason as our primary tool of debate must contend with claims we want to censor the other side, for the other side cannot imagine anyone arguing using anything other than playground rules. It is a continued sign of the disdain our culture has for intellectualism and intelligent debate that such tactics are considered appropriate.