On the “Need” to Attack Conservative Bloggers
(and other proponents of right-of-center ideas)
The more I consider Glenn Reynolds’s comment that those gay marriage advocates “pushing the ‘bigotry’ meme are in fact more interested in calling others bigots than in accomplishing anything,” the more it appears to define more than just the attitude of politically correct “journalists” and pundits toward gay marriage opponents. It also defines an entire mind-set of all too many left-of-center bloggers, pundits, journalists and even Democratic politicians.
And yes, there are some on the right who prefer labeling their adversaries on the left to addressing the legitimate points they do raise from time to time.
When I first start blogging, I would get regular hate mails from left-of-center gay people, lambasting me, usually with the standard refrain that I was hypocritical or otherwise self-loathing. They rarely took the time to address specific points I had made on the blog. When they did, they regularly misrepresented them.
They seemed to have some “need” to lash out at me, much as we Angelenos lash out at the one driver who seems to cut us off in traffic when we have been stuck on the freeway for three times as long as our journey was supposed to take. That guy did what we probably would have done in the same situation. And even if he was in the wrong, he wasn’t to blame for all of our traffic woes.
It doesn’t seem matter to some of our critics how we address the objections they raise to our arguments, they will never be satisfied. We remain narrow-minded, beholden to an intolerant right wing and self-hating. Like the frustrated man in traffic, they “need” a target for their frustration. They “need” to vent. They “need” to lash out.
Let me illustrate with an example.
Not too long ago, an acquaintance alerted me to a post of Bruce’s that he thought we should pull. When he first contacted me, I had not yet seen the post, so checked it and shared his concerns.
So, as a favor to him, I e-mailed Bruce, asking him to pull the post. Bruce refused. I disagreed with his decision, but honored it all the same. The post remained on the blog. I contacted my acquaintance, told him what had transpired. Instead of thanking me for trying, he lashed out at me, accusing me of hypocrisy and a few other things, none pleasant.
I made an effort, addressed his concern to the best of my ability, yet received, as a result, repeated reprimands. He couldn’t be satisfied unless I gave him exactly what he wanted. So, he lashed out.
That attitude does seem to describe some of the critics of conservative bloggers. They’d rather lash out at us than join us in the arena of ideas. I’ve said this before. But, then, this phenomenon is pretty widespread.
20 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Scared little children out of their depth. You have the strength of your convictions, and they don’t stand a chance.
Comment by Sissy Willis — April 20, 2009 @ 5:17 pm - April 20, 2009
The reason I attack the gay community is because they have placed themselves beyond self-criticism. I experienced the gay community as a cultic, toxic, amoral, self-destructive place and, like an abused child trying to report an alcoholic father, I have been it’s my fault, and if I don’t understand why I need to be beaten up, then I’m the one with the problem. When I suggest that not all communities promote/tolerate multiple sexual partners, drug use, spreading disease, exploiting the young, I’m told “straights do all that, too.” Um, Alcoholic Dad, I’ve been to other kids’ houses, and no, not all dads drink and beat up their children. No, gay community, heterosexuals do not promote amorality, drugs, and exploitation. They really are better than gays in those categories. I’m sick of the gay community citing homophobia and victimization when someone points out clear, visible problems in the community. I feel like Supernanny coming over to the Lohans–you can’t tell them what obviously needs to be fixed without getting hit.
Comment by Ashpenaz — April 20, 2009 @ 6:51 pm - April 20, 2009
I think Perez Hilton just proved your point. Asking a completely inapropriate question in the Miss America beauty contest. Then having a hissy fit when he didn’t get the answer he wanted. I am so tired of the left.
Comment by Leah — April 20, 2009 @ 9:43 pm - April 20, 2009
As if Perez Hilton is planning to form a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship–what does he even mean by marriage, anyway?
Comment by Ashpenaz — April 20, 2009 @ 9:51 pm - April 20, 2009
Ashpenaz–
I am a str8/bi man and I can tell you that if you go to the hip, sexy, yuppie, overwhelmingly straight clubs you will see plenty of amorality, promiscuity, drugs and exploitation. I go to gay bars too and I would say that there doesn’t seem to be much difference. Club scenes in general promote these things.
And among young single people outside the clubs multiple partners, drugs, etc. are still pretty common in my experience. There might be a larger percentage of gay people who have no desire to ever be in a monogamous relationship and the random PNP hookup is more or less unheard of in straight circles, but in general I don’t think that these things are particularly “gay” issues. They are perhaps more precisely associated with the younger generation and the post-family society we are giving birth to.
That being said, this post is both spot on and banal. As TV, talk radio and blogs tend to take over for print in our political discourse emotion is rewarded and cogent argument punished relative to times past–that’s where you are spot on. The post is banal in the sense that I think that for most people discussions of politics have always been about name-calling and self-righteous indignation over reasoned debate. The difference today is that the technology for actually being a part of the debate is open to more people and the rabble are likely to babble in these outlets. It probably isn’t an increase in this sort of thing, but rather an increasing visibility for such.
That in itself is, of course, worth worrying about. Just be prepared for these types to ignore your arguments and lable you an “elitist” when you do (as if that’s a bad thing). Great blog!
Comment by Andrew Dobbs — April 21, 2009 @ 3:24 am - April 21, 2009
I experienced the gay community as a cultic, toxic, amoral, self-destructive place
Ashpenaz, I agree with you that the gay community is not above criticism. Far from it. I have plenty of criticisms of the gay community as well. And I agree with you that saying that straight persons do it too is not an excuse of bad behavior.
But there’s a big disconnect here. I recall you’ve said in the past something to the effect that gay people are nicer, better (or whatever) in the “flyover” states, that they are good people with values similar to yours. But you also say that gays are toxic, amoral, etc. Which is it?
I live in New Jersey, and maybe I haven’t looked deep enough, but I just don’t see the type of gay people that you are referring to. Perhaps part of it is I choose not to look for these types.
So, I’ll have to ask you. Where do you find these types? So I know what places to avoid.
Comment by Pat — April 21, 2009 @ 7:16 am - April 21, 2009
Speaking of Perez Hilton, how is it that a bucktoothed bitter old queen without any viable talent gets to be a celebrity? I guess the same way that Bawney Fwank got to be in Congress.
Only in America, I guess.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 21, 2009 @ 10:28 am - April 21, 2009
Fair question and unfortunately, you can have people who are both “toxic, amoral and self-destructive” and fairly nice on the surface… you only learn about the first part later.
General example: you meet someone who seems nice, then only as you get to know them and start looking for certain things, you find out they are a porn-addicted drug user. Recent example (no drugs, but you will get the idea): A friend of mine knows this gay couple who host “game nights” that are pretty fun, and seem pretty wholesome on the surface. I’ve been to a couple of them. Everyone brings a snack and plays different board games and has great fun. Of course, if you stay late enough, you find out that the event gradually devolves turns into a hot-tub orgy. And that half the guests, and one of the hosts, are the kind of people who will happily smear Condoleeza Rice based on her race. And that the other host, in the 80s and 90s, founded two major gay porn sites. Blech.
Ash, I don’t know if that’s what you had in mind; let us know. Also, don’t construe this as a blanket endorsement of your views – you know we have some disagreements
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2009 @ 10:45 am - April 21, 2009
The urban gay community has little influence in flyover states, so I would say flyover gays are somewhat friendlier. However, as you notice, that any time I critique the gay community, someone comes along and says “Straights are just as bad.” OK, straights in their early 20s are just as bad, but they grow up. Also, straight guys look out for each other in ways that gays don’t–they’ll try to save a guy they see might be going over the edge. Gays stand on the sidelines and make bitchy comments. Gays don’t grow up and stay in the same amoral ruts all their lives, for the most part.
Straight guys will ultimately say, “Playtime’s over, dude, time to get married.” For gays, it’s always playtime, forever and ever and ever.
The reason this comment is relevant to this thread is that, like the article suggests, I post because I need to vent.
Comment by Ashpenaz — April 21, 2009 @ 10:48 am - April 21, 2009
(P.S. by “are the kind of people who will happily smear Condoleeza Rice based on her race”, I mean they are extreme left-liberals.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2009 @ 10:50 am - April 21, 2009
Ashpenaz, again, I get what you’re saying. And much of what you’re saying I agree with. My question is what you are saying true for even the “flyover” gays? Are the gay people you know around your age have not grown up and “stay in an amoral rut”? Do they also sit by the sidelines and make bitchy comments when someone they know is in trouble?
Or is the above not really true, but you are just venting?
You say that the urban gay community has little influence over flyover states. So does that mean that the gay community near you is more palatable to you? Or the gay community near you also sucks, but in a different way than the urban gay community sucks?
Comment by Pat — April 21, 2009 @ 11:23 am - April 21, 2009
What I like about the flyover states is that in sparsely populated areas, there isn’t a community. There’s just a person here and there who turns out to be gay. I’m sure you will say that we are all self-loathing and in the closet because being gay isn’t the most immediately visible thing about us. But nobody’s hiding anything–for the most part, nobody asks. I have a ready answer for the next person who asks me why I’m past 40 and not married, but, well, apparently nobody is confused by that. Which means they have either figured out I’m gay or I’m REALLY unattractive.
Comment by Ashpenaz — April 21, 2009 @ 2:40 pm - April 21, 2009
What I like about the flyover states is that in sparsely populated areas, there isn’t a community. There’s just a person here and there who turns out to be gay. I’m sure you will say that we are all self-loathing and in the closet because being gay isn’t the most immediately visible thing about us.
Nope, not at all, Ashpenaz. In fact, I usually don’t deal with a community either, just individuals, especially since I’ve been partnered. So if that makes me self-loathing, so be it.
Anyway, thanks for your response. It makes more sense to me now.
Comment by Pat — April 21, 2009 @ 4:23 pm - April 21, 2009
I mean, Ashpenaz, that sounds like a generalization, but you’re on to something that’s worth exploring. There are gay bars, bath houses, where things go on that would shock people. This is obviously a problem, and it’s probably not accurate to say that there’s no difference between this scene and straight clubs. And as my co-blogger Andrew writes, there’s no comparable hookup culture among straights (to the extent that there is one among gays). And though you are not satisfied with the conventional explanation that it has to do with social marginalization of gays (I’m not either, but it has its role), the key to understanding this has to do with men.
For one, there’s no similar culture among lesbians. So it’s not a “gay” thing necessarily. But the kind of amorality, exploiting the young, abusive self-destructiveness is actually quite common among men of all sexual orientations. One need only to visit a bar where women in their late teens and twenties remove their clothes for male patrons, or look at rape and sexual abuse, or take a cursory glance at the plight of sex workers around the globe, or the rampant adultery of abusive husbands. These things are much more common than most people assume, I think.
In gay culture, women’s temperament is absent. There’s no check on men’s desire to spread his seed, as it is. Again, if you look at strip clubs for straight men, the behavior is basically the same, and the only thing keeping it from descending into debauchery are the large and intimidating security guards there to keep the women at a comparatively safe distance — and women’s own refusal to consent to any and all of men’s primal desires. When these boundaries are absent (look but don’t touch) the descent to this kind of exploitation and amorality you see as a given in gay culture — with all of its consequences — is like flipping a switch.
Comment by Robert Kelly — April 24, 2009 @ 7:47 pm - April 24, 2009
As an addendum, you write, Ashpenaz: “No, gay community, heterosexuals do not promote amorality, drugs, and exploitation. They really are better than gays in those categories.”
Heterosexual *men* do promote those things. I mean, we’re entering into generalizations. And certainly not all gays are debauched. I’ve had my moments but comparatively I think I hold up rather well. But…!
I should reiterate that these men are in long-term relationships *with women*. Of course, that doesn’t stop men from doing all kinds of bad things. They share the impulses of gay men, on the inside, although tempered by married life. I doubt that say, addiction to pornography is less common among straight men than gay ones.
Comment by Robert Kelly — April 24, 2009 @ 7:59 pm - April 24, 2009
Ah, it seems my first comment disappeared. Nevertheless, the point I intended to make is that we’re looking at men; in gay culture, unrestrained by women. One need only to look at bars where women remove their clothes for male patrons, or the plight of sex workers around the globe, or rape of women by straight men. These things are much more common than most people assume, I think. But it takes place behind closed doors. It’s not advertised as much. There are exceptions.
Like the strip club. The behavior of men is more or less the same as in a gay bar. And what prevents it from descending into amorality and debauchery are the large and intimidating security guards there to keep women at a safe distance, and women’s own reaction against the most base impulses of men.
So I think what you’re seeing in gay culture is not something that only gays do per se, but the *default condition of male sexuality*. It’s in a sense the pure expression of being a male.
Comment by Robert Kelly — April 24, 2009 @ 8:06 pm - April 24, 2009
Well… Now my first comment is back. Crazy internet.
Well. Great blog. I’m a gay man and rather temperamentally conservative, and although I don’t necessarily share many conservative political goals, I’ve been fed up with the Democratic Party consensus for some time. What I like about this site is that it encourages debate and dissent, which I am grateful.
If anyone liked what I had to say, please follow the link to my blog. We have some posts about the liberal shaming of closeted gay conservatives that I find rather loathsome but it’s not a gay blog specifically. Thanks!
Comment by Robert Kelly — April 24, 2009 @ 8:10 pm - April 24, 2009
[...] course he is. It’s not so much about the cause, it’s about feeling superior to political opponents. This is basically a Leftie activist thing. It has nothing to do with any particular issue. [...]
Pingback by On Perez and Other Intoleranti « The Rhetorican — April 26, 2009 @ 10:46 pm - April 26, 2009
It doesn’t seem matter to some of our critics how we address the objections they raise to our arguments, they will never be satisfied. We remain narrow-minded, beholden to an intolerant right wing and self-hating.
I run into this over and over from the Left. If you don’t robotically agree with them 100% on everything, you’re automatically a homophobe, bigot, racist, sexist, whatever. Regardless of your actual views.
Comment by Tully — April 27, 2009 @ 10:33 am - April 27, 2009
Gays in flyover land. I am not gonna claim to be some expert on this but here in our little town their was the young gay guy who felt he had to leave the town. Why? I didn’t know at the time. Turns out he didn’t think they all knew he was gay. Everyone did apparently, except me because I didn’t really care if he was or not, some claimed I didn’t know because I am clueless. Then I asked someone “didn’t he know you all knew”. “I thought sure he knew we all knew” was the response I got. Last time any of those here saw him he was wearing some buttless leather outfit in a larger town about 50 miles away. I guess he thought he couldn’t do that here without troubles coming his way. The outfit sounds impractical to me, freeze ur butt off in winter. He was and from what I hear is a nice guy, told jokes all the damn time. The problem is people like Hilton end up representing gay people by default, because they and those like them are the loudest. Despite that you all can have friendly disagreements here, most of what the world sees is Hilton and from the other side they see people with signs saying gays should be killed. Hard to do anything constructive about anything when those people are seen as the representatives from the opposing sides.
Comment by Bill Tyler — April 28, 2009 @ 9:23 am - April 28, 2009