Gay Patriot Header Image

The malice behind the “self-hating” slur*

In the forty-eight hours (and then some) since I issued my challenge to those who tar us with the self-hating smear, not a single person has risen to meet it.  Oh, yes, a few have offered screeds and called them arguments, but in none of their comments do they address things we actually said.  Instead, they just recited the prejudices  (about conservatives) they already hold.

Now, one guy did link three of my posts, “summarizing” their contents to show just how self-hating I was:

Defending calling Barney Frank a “fag”

Gay people shouldn’t be around children

Gays don’t deserve marriage because they are rude

Problem is none of these posts says what he says they said as I noted in one comment and ILoveCapitalism in subsequent comments.  In other words, in order to demonize me, this fellow had to twist my words to claim I said things I never said.

It seems that for so many on the left (and indeed some on the fringes of the right), they see politics as an exercise in venting their spleen.  They define an adversary as worthy of opprobrium based not on his own beliefs and qualities, but those they project onto him.

It’s as if they have the need of someone to vilify, an individual — or group of individuals with one shared characteristic of belief — to hate.

Those who level the charge against us aren’t interested in debating our ideas or even understanding the apparent oxymoron of gay conservatism, but in treating us as some extreme social conservatives treat gay people, as a group onto whom they can target their own insecurities and deepest animosities.

*NB:  I changed the title, making it more succinct.

Share

25 Comments

  1. Look at it this way, Tintin obviously got her clitoris hard writing about you. There’s some flattery in there somewhere, I guess. Or not.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 21, 2010 @ 3:31 am - April 21, 2010

  2. You’re absolutely right, it is projection.

    They loathe themselves — and understandably so when you look at why:

    They have defined themselves as victims, telling the whole world that they are less than they could be because of other people’s supposed hate. They have proclaimed on the mountaintop for all to hear that they cant make it without special rules favoring them. Simply put, they have defined themselves as losers and blamed their loser-hood on other people.

    As successful, happy, well adjusted homos who reject their claims of victimhood, we disprove their whole schtick, which in turn proves that they are nothing more than weak, whiny, crybaby losers demanding special rules and preferential treatment.

    And deep down they know it, and they rightfully loathe themselves for it, and they hate us for proving it, so they lash out at us.

    I think its much the same thing that black conservatives face, getting called “House niggers, Oreos, Uncle Tom’s and a whole litany of other hate filled terms by the professional victims and race-baiters of the black left and the partisan demagogues who struggle to keep them on the plantation.

    It’s what people who define themselves as victims HAVE to do to people who prove that they are not victims at all.

    But I think its a mistake to pay so much attention to their hate. We cannot combat rage with reason. It’s tilting at windmills.

    You can shine a light on it, and call it what it is, but you can’t stop the hateful lefty gays from hating conservative gays (or conservative African Americans, women, etc…) any more than you can stop the fringe religious nuts from hating homos because somewhere in their subconscious, they think it absolves them of their own sins. They are flip sides of the exact same coin.

    But for the most part, I think its best to ignore them. let them froth, and go right on proving them frauds by example.

    Comment by American Elephant — April 21, 2010 @ 5:57 am - April 21, 2010

  3. Um, Sadly, No! linked like nine of your posts.

    If you really want me to, I’ll do it, Dan, but you won’t like it, and I’m really busy, what with three jobs and shit, but…

    If you really need me to, say the word and it’ll be on TWO this week.

    Comment by Evan Hurst — April 21, 2010 @ 6:05 am - April 21, 2010

  4. Funny thing about uncle tom…

    I was reading ‘The Essential Captain America’ Vol 4, written in the early 70’s. In addition to the amusing over abundance of Afros, bell bottoms and Jive talking, Falcon was called an ‘Uncle Tom’ for being Captain America’s partner and not just a vigilante in Harlem. (‘taking care of his own’)

    I was kind of surprised to find the term in a book 35 years old.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 21, 2010 @ 6:37 am - April 21, 2010

  5. It’s as if they have the need of someone to vilify, an individual — or group of individuals with one shared characteristic of belief — to hate… treating us as some extreme social conservatives treat gay people, as a group onto whom they can target [ed: project] their own insecurities and deepest animosities.

    Yes. I state it more in terms of them having a sort of religious cult going among themselves. They have to warp and misrepresent what “enemies” are saying (that’s you, Dan) in order to keep the cult going.

    The evidence provided this week is clear. Some time ago, you had a very careful, nuanced post on Kevin Jennings. (So careful that I knocked you at the time for being overly careful.) In the course of which, you conceded/implied that sexual predators shouldn’t be around children. Now from that, Rusty Shackleford got, “Gay people shouldn’t be around children.” That is a huge leap. I mean, a gross cognitive error. Cut-and-dried. And BTW, anti-gay to boot, i.e., self-hating on Rusty’s part.

    Rusty’s other “examples” were as equally f*cked up. Now Evan Hurst tells us:

    Um, Sadly, No! linked like nine of your posts.

    Alrighty then – so it turns out that there were nine, not three or four, and that Rusty is so much a part of this particular Gay Left cult that he couldn’t even generate his own thoughts – he reposted someone else’s sever errors on blind faith. So much the worse for Rusty and SN alike.

    Personally, I wonder how the SN people can practice in so much fraud and still get up in the morning.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2010 @ 6:50 am - April 21, 2010

  6. Typo, “severe errors”. Hey, it’s early!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2010 @ 6:52 am - April 21, 2010

  7. P.S. AND, if I’m not mistaken Dan, Evan Hurst just tried to intimidate you with a threat:

    say the word [i.e. keep on pointing out what dopes and frauds SN are] and it’ll be on TWO this week.

    I don’t know what TWO is. But the apparent threat is wrong on so many levels. Here are just a few:
    1) He is threatening, in effect, to indict SN – to publicize SN’s own horribly laughable errors. Only he doesn’t realize it. LOL 🙂
    2) He shows that he is a bully at heart – fitting the theme of your post.
    3) He thinks it’ll work. Etc.

    I’ve run into this sort of thing before – i.e., a self-deluded bully who imagines they’re scaring you if they threaten to post and re-post THEIR OWN gross errors about you. I handled it by letting them… and laughing.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2010 @ 7:13 am - April 21, 2010

  8. @Evan: Hey! Are all three of your jobs anti-American? Or is that just something you do on your free time?

    Best wishes,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — April 21, 2010 @ 8:07 am - April 21, 2010

  9. Wow, some people are STILL seething all these months later. And now some people are redefining the meaning of “handled” to add to the long list of Clintonesque redefinitions of words like reproduce and nuclear family.

    Like I said above, lashing out is what people who identify themselves as victims HAVE to do to to people who disprove the whole victimhood schtick. Its one of the many unflattering things victims do to maintain their victimhood. Stewing and seething in anger over subjects that everyone else long ago moved on from is another.

    Comment by American Elephant — April 21, 2010 @ 8:13 am - April 21, 2010

  10. MFS – good one! 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2010 @ 8:15 am - April 21, 2010

  11. I am always amused when the wingnut right rails agianst projection then they themselves start projecting:

    “Like I said above, lashing out is what people who identify themselves as victims HAVE to do to to people who disprove the whole victimhood schtick”

    “..which in turn proves that they are nothing more than weak, whiny, crybaby losers demanding special rules and preferential treatment.

    And deep down they know it, and they rightfully loathe themselves for it, and they hate us for proving it, so they lash out at us. “

    Comment by gillie — April 21, 2010 @ 8:54 am - April 21, 2010

  12. Dan – Just to briefly toss out a couple more desciptors for what it is that the SN, Evan Hurst and other blog-jerks of the world “do” – try these on:
    – Hyperbole
    – Character assassination

    I just came across those terms in a passing remark on Verum Serum:

    Ultimately we need to win the war of ideas, and engaging in hyperbole and character assassination should remain the primary weapon of our opponents.

    The VS post is on something else (Bertha Lewis), but I thought it was a good point in general.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2010 @ 9:18 am - April 21, 2010

  13. That’s not lashing out Gillie, thats accurate identification. What would you call a person who doesn’t need or deserve special treatment but complains until they get it anyway?

    Seems I rather hit a nerve.

    In other news, Liberal Victim Group A sues Liberal Victim Group B! You guessed it! over victimhood!

    Comment by American Elephant — April 21, 2010 @ 9:31 am - April 21, 2010

  14. @Dan: Don’t know if you follow Bernie Goldberg at all, but he’s going though very similar smears after his Daily Show appearance.

    Just FYI.

    Best wishes,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — April 21, 2010 @ 11:42 am - April 21, 2010

  15. Hmmm. I guess I should be surprised at how seldom I’ve gotten the “self-hating” label over the years. I mean, I’ve frequently written as an out homo in support of not calling oneself “gay”; in support of voting Republican; in support of homosexual men who self-identify as masculine and reject effeminate partners; and in support of men who distance themselves from anal sex and prefer “frot.” In other words, on a number of different and unrelated issues, I’ve taken positions that are different from prevailing definitions of “gay identity,” but without making myself a magnet for the “self-loathing” accusation.

    What am I doing wrong?

    Comment by Throbert McGee — April 21, 2010 @ 12:19 pm - April 21, 2010

  16. Throbert, since I have come out as a conservative in LA, I have gotten the slur in person increasingly rarely, but we seem to get it on this blog only when some gay leftist references us.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 21, 2010 @ 1:00 pm - April 21, 2010

  17. There is a perception that, at least in some cases, the terms “gay” and “Republican” are clearly at odds. For example, the 2008 Texas State Republican Platform explicitly states:

    *****

    We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.”

    We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

    http://www.tfrw.org/2010_party_conventions/GOP_FINAL_2008_PLATFORM.pdf

    *****

    Based on the platform, it seems reasonable to suggest that the Republican party leadership in Texas holds homosexuals in rather low esteem. In fact, their position on sodomy implies that practicing homosexuals should be regarded as criminals.

    For many people, it is difficult to understand why gay Texans would identify themselves as members of an organization that appears to regard them as criminal degenerates. Self-hatred is obviously not the only possible explanation, but it is perhaps the first explanation that occurs to many people.

    Comment by Orric — April 21, 2010 @ 8:32 pm - April 21, 2010

  18. “in support of homosexual men who self-identify as masculine and reject effeminate partners; and in support of men who distance themselves from anal sex and prefer “frot.””

    Let’s see if I understand this correctly. If a gay man is “effeminate” he should be rejected? And somehow this is not self-hating? In regards to your policing of other’s sexual activity, well to each thier own.

    Comment by Brendan — April 21, 2010 @ 10:14 pm - April 21, 2010

  19. If a gay man is “effeminate” he should be rejected?

    As a possible romantic or sexual partner for some specific individual X? It all depends on individual X. On what they happen to enjoy. It’s called “freedom”, Brendan. Do look into it.

    And somehow this is not self-hating?

    Well, let’s see. The thrust/implication of your argument is that gay men’s choices should be submitted to your judgment. That gay men should have to take effeminate men (or butch men or tall men or short men or purple men – whatever) lest your, Brendan’s, sensibilities be offended. That *you* shall “police” or at least judge others’ personal preferences.

    I’d say that shows a deep insecurity on your part. Now whether self-hate – in you – lies at the root of that insecurity and desire to control others’ choices, I will leave you to discover through introspection.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2010 @ 10:56 pm - April 21, 2010

  20. We cannot combat rage with reason. It’s tilting at windmills.

    Maybe, but it’s a helluva lot of fun.

    As a possible romantic or sexual partner for some specific individual X? It all depends on individual X. On what they happen to enjoy.

    I guess, according to Brendan, all those snooty queens down on Pacific St. are “self-hating”. Not to mention all those guys who would roll their eyes whenever I said “Howdy!” back in my single days.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 22, 2010 @ 2:16 am - April 22, 2010

  21. “The thrust/implication of your argument is that gay men’s choices should be submitted to your judgment. That gay men should have to take effeminate men (or butch men or tall men or short men or purple men – whatever) lest your, Brendan’s, sensibilities be offended. That *you* shall “police” or at least judge others’ personal preferences.”

    No, ILC, that is not what I said. Your disagreement is with Throbert. He is the one who by his admission feels the need to speak out in support of masculine men rejecting effeminate men. His comment was clear that this was not a personal preferance, but some unexplained need to police others.

    Comment by Brendan — April 22, 2010 @ 6:02 am - April 22, 2010

  22. Just so we’re clear on something.

    Gays who assimilate, live quietly in the suburbs, enjoy committed relationships, don’t make a big deal out of their sexuality, work hard, vote on issues other than which party caters to their self-esteem … self-hating.

    Gays who live in gay ghettos, dance around giant inflatable phalluses at gay pride rallies, use drugs at circuit parties, collect venereal diseases and bad debt, and vote for Democrats forever even though the party does nothing for them… not self-hating.

    That should clear things up.

    Comment by V the K — April 22, 2010 @ 8:32 am - April 22, 2010

  23. No, ILC, that is not what I said.

    Brendan, I will try to make this so simple that even you can understand.

    1) Throbert expressed his support for those individuals in our community who “self-identify as masculine and reject effeminate *partners*”. (With the implication that he would be one. And I just added the emphasis to “partners”.)
    2) You, Brendan, then proceeded to have a problem with it. You implied that in your judgment, Throbert would indeed be self-hating.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 22, 2010 @ 10:41 am - April 22, 2010

  24. 3) Which in turn implies what I said at #18. You, Brendan, in objecting to what Throbert said, implicitly want to control (or judge or police) his choices. And that is deeply insecure, on your part.

    Deal with it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 22, 2010 @ 10:43 am - April 22, 2010

  25. Maybe, but it’s a helluva lot of fun.

    You got me there! 😉

    Comment by American Elephant — April 23, 2010 @ 2:43 am - April 23, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.