GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Of Comments & Civility, iv

by

In the comment thread to one of my recent posts on Palin Derangement Syndrome, a number of readers either took our defenders to task for appropriate language or faulted me for not calling them on it.

I answered those criticizing me briefly, “those who use this forum to take issue with my critics in terms I would rather they not use do not speak for me.” Indeed, I believe the ad hominem nature of some responses to our critics weakens their (otherwise sound) arguments, and have told our defenders as much in private e-mails, personal conversations and on this blog, writing here and here:

All too often alas, those who chime in to defend Bruce or me compromise some very strong comments when they resort to ad hominem, using the term “libtard’ or some such. In many cases, if they took the insult out of the comment, they’d have won the argument anyway. That need to get in that additional dig, while emotional satisfying, compromises their entire argument and gives our critics ammunition to attack them.

“Friends,” I once remarked, “you make a better case when you leave out the ad hominem.”   While many have used the forum we provide to conduct serious discussions of the issue of the day, most recently in my post on Anthony Weiner and marriage, all too often the tone of the comments drives away some of our critics — as well as some of our ideological confrères.

It pained me recently when a moderately left-of-center classmate from college e-mailed me about how the discussion quickly degenerated.  And this from a reader who took pains to register his criticism of my posts in a most civil manner, respecting as he did, both my intellect and intentions.  Would it that some of our defenders had showed a similar respect for him.

And for all our critics who chime in in a tone similar to that he adopted.  And that our critics show the same respect for us and those who defend us in a civil manner.

Comments

  3. In many cases, if they took the insult out of the comment, they’d have won the argument anyway. That need to get in that additional dig, while emotional satisfying, compromises their entire argument and gives our critics ammunition to attack them.

    Dan, with all due respect, you’re either an unintentional quisling, or just naive.

    There is no “argument” to be won here, and I am frankly weary of the belief on the right that somehow, welcoming the sick hatred of the left onto predominantly conservative websites (when you and I both know it is seldom, if ever, reciprocated on the left), yet insisting that we respond to it with civility and cogent discussion can result in meaningful dialogue. It is not only futile, but serves to illustrate precisely the RINO problem conservatism has had to deal with for decades.

    You’re asking your defenders to bring a plate of spaghetti to a gun fight, and appear to be convinced that that will make for more civil discourse. Nonsense.

    As I’ve said before, I’ve been a commenter here for over a decade, and have seen nothing from the left except abject scorn, hatred, violent fantasies, obfuscation and lies. I give you all the props in the world for maintaining your cool, but if you believe that that level of hatred can be assuaged by “making nice” with the miscreants, perhaps you’ve been spending too much time with Zeus and Apollo.

    I know Bruce has come a long way toward taking the gloves off, and again, while I respect you for your convictions and prolific intellect, I’m afraid your peeing in the wind. I’m quite certain one or two of my ideological opposites may chime in with approval, but you’re fooling yourself if you think for one second that your argument is either understood or should be allowed to even exist.

    If you wish to defend yourself, so be it, but as long as I am allowed to comment here, I certainly don’t agree with your notion that were it not for my choice of words, any solid argument I make is going to be acknowledged by the liberati.

  4. And of course, Vinci and Dooms step right up…

    In case you hadn’t noticed, Dan, there isn’t anything you can say to a liberal that he/she wants to hear.

    As far as they’re concerned, your entire worldview is a mass of self-loathing, hateful fascism, and as a result, your right to make your own decisions in life can best be made by your moral betters.

    The sooner you realize that the only way to “win” this argument is to vote your opponents into a marginalized purgatory, the better off you’ll be.

    Trying to debate them on the internet is pointless.

  6. Eric, in the thread on guns I have been called a promiscuous loser, a racist, a sexist, selfish, self absorbed, and those are just things off the top of my head.

    The funny thing is, none of what I said came close to insinuating I am anything like any of those things.

  7. Eric,
    While I’ve had a few transgressions on this site that were more sarcastic than anything else (mostly back in in the Fall when I first began posting), I have always taken responsibility for my words. But, you’ve chose to lump me in with a group of people. Or did I misunderstand you?

    “As far as they’re [you implied me in this] concerned, your [Dan’s] entire worldview is a mass of self-loathing, hateful fascism, and as a result, your [Dan’s] right to make your own decisions in life can best be made by your moral betters.”

    I addressed the GP comment policy and how it’s obviously been violated many times over. My question was: why have a policy, if you’re not going to enforce it? So far, it hasn’t been answered, unless you can point me out to where it has.

    “I’ve been a commenter here for over a decade, and have seen nothing from the left [you implied me in this] except abject scorn, hatred, violent fantasies, obfuscation and lies.”

    Please point to where I subjected you to scorn, hatred, violent fantasies, obfuscations or lies. If anyone engages in obfuscation on this site most prolifically and most consistently, it is ND30, hands down and I challenge you to provide me a better example.

    As I’ve said, I do my best to remain civil on these threads. I object to those on the left or right who don’t conduct themselves at the same level of civility. Please tell me again how you object to this.

  8. You’re not the first to call me naive, Eric.

    I apologize if my tone to you came off as brusque, but you oftentimes remind me of the days when I felt the overpowering need to come to the aid of my younger brother whenever he found himself at the mercy of bullies.

    Eric, in the thread on guns I have been called a promiscuous loser, a racist, a sexist, selfish, self absorbed, and those are just things off the top of my head.

    Dooms, I stand by my observation that you are self-absorbed in looking to the government to protect you from all manner of harm at the hands of people you don’t know. It is, in my experience, a hallmark of progressive politics and pandering to people’s fears.

    As for the remainder of the words thrown at you, I didn’t utter them, but I will say this…

    If you state that you frequent this site out of a fervent belief that you will change anyone’s mind, you’re either as naive as Dan, or just plain dishonest. Judging from the myriad comments you’ve made which mistake humor for irony, and display an epic talent for mockery, than I daresay you probably opened the door.

    There are many reasons I choose not to wade on over to the swamp that is the DailyKos, not the least of which is my inherent understanding that my comments there, regardless of how artfully and civilly I state them, are going to fall on deaf ears.

    But it’s a free country, and since I don’t own this blog, you’re free to post here whenever and whatever you’re inclined to. However, don’t expect the vast majority of people here to sit idly by whilst you continuously instruct us on how utterly f*****-up our values and beliefs are to you.

  11. I also visit queerty, which is predominantly liberal. The comments there are much more base, infantile and vile. There is little room for intelligent discussion like there is here. However, I don’t engage insults there, nor do I here. And the insults I’m subjected to over there are much more extreme, demeaning and childish.

    It doesn’t matter who subjects me to what from which political side, that gives me no justification for altering my behavior. I, “stay the course” so to speak. For a site with so many commenters who insist on moral biblical consistency, I find the “they do it, so can we argument” irreconcilable with that mindset.

  13. Eric, what you want is the wild west. I am not looking for the government to protect me from anyone I don’t know (unless its an international issue). What I would like however is for people to realize that the vast majority of people would could actually use guns to defend themselves either can’t afford them, or in situations that would make said situation more violent. Defending your home is one thing, but carrying them around in public is too much.

  15. Dooms comments in 6 and 13 are funny. 6 because the last time Dooms did the “Prove I’m a racist” he was obliged and ran screaming from the thread.

    13. “I am not looking for the government to protect me from anyone I don’t know” Except for all those hypothetical homophobes who will be threatening him.

    Homophobe: Anyone Dooms disagrees with.

    Vile hater: Anyone who calls Dooms out on his racisim.

  16. I didn’t run screaming from anything, furthermore, that’s not racism. What’s funny though is how conservatives are so eager to invalidate the claims and experiences of people of color as “playing the race card”.

  18. Let’s recap…

    Dooms: The only reason the birth certificate is an issue is President Obama’s race!

    Me: Yeah, just like Goldwater, and McCain. They don’t want a white man in the white house!

    Dooms: …

    Dooms: The only reason to oppose the GZM is all those racist Christians!

    Me: Um, Islam isn’t a race…

    Dooms: …

    Face it Dooms, you’re obsessed about race, and convinced that everthing is based on race, even when it’s not.

  19. What’s funny though is how conservatives are so eager to invalidate the claims and experiences of people of color as “playing the race card”.

    Mainly because we judge on the basis of character rather than on skin color, so your attempt to claim your skin color as an excuse for your deficiencies in character is exactly that.

    Furthermore, Dooms, as Livewire pointed out, you are the first to “invalidate the claims and experiences of people of color” when they don’t agree with you. Remember?

    Find me one black person who has not felt the sting of bigotry and I will show you a man ignorant of the world around him.

    So as always, you’re invoking rules you don’t follow and demanding compliance when you won’t comply.

  21. North who are you to be the judge? You have not lived my life nor have you lived the life of a black man in America. Something you know jack all about.

  22. “Only a black man can understand being a black man.”

    How… diverse of our resident racist. Of course, Dooms can lecture us on white privilege. How can Dooms judge anything of this mythical privilege? After all he’s not (by his own admission) a white man, so by his own standard it must be something he knows “jack all about.”

  23. Minorities have to learn to relate to the majority while the majority has the benefit of having their views and opinions viewed as the mainstream.

    By that very definition of what it means to be a minority, many grow to be more empathetic and understanding of various issues.

    You, who are ignorant of your own white privilege could never take off your bigoted blinders to relate to someone of another color.

  24. ND30 >> I posed the question, “If there is a gay political/pop culture site” that offers intelligent discourse. There isn’t one that has been revealed to me yet. In the meanwhile, I must piecemeal a string of sites together to sate my appetite. I also stated here that the discourse is more intelligent than at queerty.

    And, while you are doing research on comments I leave on other sites (I’m flattered ND30, but why don’t you flat out ask me on a date if that’s what you want), you might want to answer post #55 on the guns thread. Or, do you not have an answer?

  26. Awww, isn’t that nice. Dooms wants us to give him special privileges and prominence based on his skin color.

    Furthermore, Dooms wants to demean and discriminate against us, Livewire, based on OUR skin color.

    Sounds like Doomsie is a racist.

    Which makes his whining appeal to the comments policy all the more hilarious and ironic. The little racist can’t stand his ideas being debated in a public forum, so he demands that they be shut down and removed.

  27. There he goes again…

    Poor Dooms… It’s been argued that I am a minority.

    But to a racist like Dooms, I’m just judged on the colour of my skin.

    Quit while you’re ahead Dooms. You’ve already tried the “I’m Black, you can’t feel my pain!” argument in your case, and now your racism is showing “You’re white! You can’t imagine my pain.”

    Here’s another quote you might want to study, racist. “Judged not by the color of my skin, but by the content of my character.” I’d suggest you try it, but you’ve shown the content of your character very clearly.

    Stop now, before you beclown yourself even more.

  29. Here’s my $0.02. In general I have little sympathy for those who call for the comment policy to be enforced – from whatever side. Blogs are a place for grownups. That means if someone is being nasty to you and you don’t like it, brush it off / stop engaging with that person. If you do engage someone personally (and there are cases where I, for example, enjoy doing so), you know perfectly well what you are doing, so don’t act surprised if you do end up with some blowback on you.

    Calling for the comment policy to be “enforced” is in itself incivil: a form of petty whining. (Much like calling for someone to stay on topic, is in itself a form of going off topic.)

    The exception I make is in cases of personal, pointed and repeated slander. If for example, someone were to claim, in a specific and serious way, that (say) Vince is a Brazilian dancer (I picked something neutral but you can mentally substitute something awful), it’s time to call Bruce/Dan in. They do not want their blog being used as a vehicle for crimes of slander.

    Short of that however, stop whining… grow up already. If you think that other people are getting away with more than you are, “too bad”. The behavior that you control, is your own. Be content that you are setting a good example, if civility is (actually) so important to you.

    Dooms, you’re *not* one with clean hands – calling people names by implication is still calling them names – so STFU.

  30. the majority has the benefit of having their views and opinions viewed as the mainstream.

    Yet, in a country in which conservatives outnumber liberals 2 to 1, 95% of the media is hard liberal. Strange, isn’t it?

  32. Blogs are a place for grownups. That means if someone is being nasty to you and you don’t like it, brush it off / stop engaging with that person.

    True that. It is kind of childish to constantly be whining for the grown-ups to come over and make the bad boy stop picking on you.

  33. And, by linking to and rummaging around their site, you’re only boosting their page hits, ND30.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 6:14 pm – June 15, 2011

    While, of course, you’re over there badmouthing the blog AND Dan as “a step in the wrong direction”.

    That’s twice today you’ve shown a willingness to throw Dan under the bus to get what you want, Vinci. Bad form.

  34. Captalism, your argument is undermined by your clear sociopathy.

    There it is, folks. Dooms flings names – in this case, the implied name of “sociopath” – as he pleases. Dooms should not be complaining or lecturing anybody, about civility.

    Thank you Dooms, for helping me to help you expose yourself.

    Now what I came to say, a P.S. to my #29. In the past, I have offered Dan advice about how he might implement his commenting policy more effectively. As here:http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/04/08/of-comments-civility-iii/#comment-403820

    That advice should not be taken as a contradiction of my earlier comments. Trying to help someone accomplish a goal of theirs, is not the same as adopting the goal. Also, my advice was never heeded.

    Finally, something else which I wrote back in that thread may still be relevant:

    On occasion, I think problems have arisen with some people being unable to differentiate between incivility and moral disagreement.

    For example, suppose I make the following statement… “Big Government / statism is morally evil. In pursuing that path, Obama is pursuing a path of evil. And people who support Obama in doing that are, whether they realize it or not, supporting a path of evil.” I have made a very strong statement. A moral statement. It’s not incivil; it’s morally required (as far as I can tell). But some people might react to it as if it were incivil. Some people might try to tar-and-feather it – and the speaker – as incivil… to shut down all moral challenges to their approach. All one can do, in such cases, is let it be their problem and continue speaking the truth.

  35. ND30, I have asked you to answer post #55 four or five times now. You’ve dodged it in as many times. If I wasn’t a bigger person, I would reduce myself to attacking you personally, obfuscating [shout out to Eric in Chicago for teaching me a new word today] and throwing the kitchen sink into the mix.

  36. Blogs are a place for grownups. That means if someone is being nasty to you and you don’t like it, brush it off / stop engaging with that person.

    Sometimes the banter here is more fun than a bunch of Drag Queens sucking down Bloody Mary’s after a court event or a sunday brunch ‘clutch’ party of closeted queers.

  38. I don’t know him personally (he never took me up on my offer to meet him)

    You’ve oscillated between dialoguing with me (i.e. with some degree of person-to-person respect) and getting snotty with me. I generally don’t go out of my way to meet people who look down on me.

  39. I think also some are more invested in these comments than others. Me, I know most of the people who disagree with me are jerks, so their snotty remarks don’t bother me. Also, I realize no comment made on a blog ever changed the world, so I don’t take this whole set up too seriously. Mostly, it’s just a way to kill time during long file transfers or other periods of boredom.

  40. ILC >> I don’t look down on you and if you think I am snotty, it is not something I try to convey. I’m a work in progress, not perfect. I was looking forward to meeting you in January and bummed that it didn’t happen. My point was that you weren’t a sociopath from what I could tell in my interactions with you on GP. I hope you caught that I said that, as that was the crux of my post. If I didn’t convey that as my main point, then it is my faulty skills as a communicator. Again, my main point was that you were not a sociopath and I was calling Dooms out on making the accusation. If I wasn’t clear with that, then please let me know how I can make a point like that more clear in the future. Again, I am not the best communicator, but I am always striving to improve myself.

  41. ILC >> Again, there was a lot more to that post I left as I reread it. I’m not sure what you impressed upon my comment about never taking me up on meeting. It was a friendly jest. It doesn’t seem like it came across that way. Again, it was a friendly jest. Not sure why you concentrated on that one comment and interpreted the way you did (which may have been my own fault), but I left a lot more in that post.

  42. I find it funny people complain I used the term “sociopathy” when he very clearly told me to “STFU” talk about your double standards…thank you for once again proving my point.

  44. 35.ND30, I have asked you to answer post #55 four or five times now.

    And you just demonstrated nicely why I don’t bother.

    55.50 >> ND30 uses the terms “promiscuous loser” and “tantrum child” towards another poster.

    Does that make me in violation of GP’s comment policy for pointing that out? I’ll take my answer offline.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 4:44 pm – June 15, 2011

    Now let’s compare that to your response to Dooms.

    38.I agree that Dooms was extreme with suggesting ILC is a sociopath.

    So let’s see.

    No complaining about violating the comments policy.

    No suggestion that Dan lacked integrity for not enforcing the comments policy against Dooms.

    No accusing Dooms of being uncivil or making obfuscations.

    Funny, isn’t it? Vinci doesn’t seem to be able to enforce or practice what he preaches equally.

    Guess that means he “lacks integrity”.

    That’s what is funny about libbies like Vinci. There’s nothing they will accept from people they don’t like, and nothing they won’t excuse from people like Dooms that they do.

    That’s why “equality” coming from their lips is so hilariously hypocritical. They do not believe in “equality” at all; they believe in the grossest inequality, where they can apply and ignore the rules at their personal caprice and convenience.

  45. Enjoying the thread immensely–plenty of mud, some heartfelt thoughts, all pretty interesting (and I cacked myself laughing a couple of times to boot).

    I’ll ask NDT again–because I am interested, the questions I asked from the earlier thread, since it appears to have moved on…: “[W]hat do you think is the comments policy of this site, as you understand it, NDT? And do you follow it yourself?”

  46. Actually, Cas, I answered that question much earlier today.

    Notice that I have never once called for you to be banned or demanded that Dan enforce the comments policy. That is because I trust his ability to interpret his own policy and manage things as he sees fit, and would not call his integrity into question on it just because I might disagree with it.

    That states four things:

    1) I acknowledge that this is Dan’s blog and his policy

    2) I acknowledge his expertise and his ability to administer his own policy

    3) I place the decision of whether or not he is acting with integrity in his own hands and to his own evaluation

    4) I place the decision on whether or not to step in solely in his hands, and do not impugn his integrity or otherwise try to demand he fight my battles for me

    Given that your behavior indicates that you find those four points incomprehensible, though, I can see why you missed it.

  47. The question, ND30, was, “[W]hat do you think is the comments policy of this site, as you understand it, NDT?” I could be wrong, but I think Cas was asking you what YOU thought THE POLICY is … i.e. what do you think the policy is? (How can the question be any simpler?)

    “And do you follow it yourself?” I can say that you didn’t answer this question. However, I can say that you didn’t answer directly. And, I’m not about to go reading in between the lines of your posts, because, every time I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt in the past, I’ve been burned.

  51. My point was that you weren’t a sociopath from what I could tell in my interactions with you on GP.

    Yes I caught that remark. It is possible to read it as a less-than-ringing endorsement, so it is possible that I didn’t catch your full intent, the first time. But thank you.

    Not sure why you concentrated on that one comment [about not meeting in January]

    Don’t read too much into my picking that one thing. One can’t answer every idea in every comment. I did read the rest of your comment, and didn’t know what to say that would be productive. You think what you think. What you think, is not exactly what I think – and that’s OK, that’s freedom at work, it’s just that a point is reached where we’ve said what we think, and I don’t see a point in adding more.

    For more color on the January thing, I didn’t think you remembered it. It didn’t work out (I think I was ill and cancelled my expected trip to your area), and I didn’t see you on GP or hear from you again (and vice versa, I admit). When you reappeared on GP more recently, I felt (or I inferred) a less friendly attitude from you, like you’d decided that libertarian-conservative politics were definitely wrong. I still don’t know what to make of you. Like I said, sometimes you’re nice, sometimes it’s more of the ‘sparring’ attitude – except it seems you don’t like the results, and go on about the comment policy. Or sometimes you’ll say you’re here to learn, but other times you’re more like “GayPatriot is a step in the wrong direction” (a quote that I only learned of specifically today; but I’ve sensed the sentiment before).

  53. I find it funny people complain I used the term “sociopathy” when he very clearly told me to “STFU”

    No Dooms, you don’t find it funny. You know EXACTLY what I was talking about. My point was that YOU behave incivilly and call names, therefore YOU exhibit double standards, if you dare complain about incivility or the comments policy. Thank YOU, Dooms, again for have proceeded ot put your incivility on display (using me as target) and thus proving my point.

  59. The question, ND30, was, “[W]hat do you think is the comments policy of this site, as you understand it, NDT?” I could be wrong, but I think Cas was asking you what YOU thought THE POLICY is … i.e. what do you think the policy is? (How can the question be any simpler?)

    And I answered it, as I stated above.

    The problem here again, Vinci, is that I didn’t answer to your satisfaction, and therefore you state that my answer is wrong. Just as you insisted that Dan’s not administering the comments policy in the way that you thought appropriate means that he lacks integrity.

    The question then is if I intend to put effort towards satisfying someone who won’t even follow their own pre-established standards, and the answer is no.

    Now, I know what comes next, having dealt with it with Cas: the baiting process, trying to insult, namecall, demean, and the like to provoke an answer and satisfy your need for control and attention.

    Which, ironically, will demonstrate quite nicely the disregard that you and yours have for the commenting policy that you are desperately trying to invoke to shut other people up.

    And that really is the point, Vinci. The policy cuts both ways. I have maintained that having freedom of action on my part requires that I accept the fact that other people may exercise that same freedom on me, and I have.

    You, by contrast, accept only others being bound by the policy, not yourself. Like your fellow Obama Party gays who are all about raising taxes on other people while refusing to voluntarily pay more themselves, your use of the policy is predicated on your never having to follow it.

    Life is not one giant Obamacare waiver process. Practice what you preach, and accept the consequences of what you practice, rather than whining about how unfair it is that others can do what you want to do.

  60. Hi NDT,
    “And I answered it, as I stated above.”

    But VS pointed out that I wasn’t asking what you were answering, that is all, and quite respectfully to, I might add.

    “Now, I know what comes next, having dealt with it with Cas: the baiting process, trying to insult, namecall, demean, and the like to provoke an answer and satisfy your need for control and attention.”

    Actually, I thought you might like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DJC-ECU8IE

  61. ND30, Maybe in your head you did, but I defy you to produce one person who will argue that other than yourself. You and “ewe” at queerty should get together some time.

    And, thanks to Cas, my eyes now burn and I’ve soiled my pants. So, good night everyone. (and there’s even exit music!)

  62. I have maintained that having freedom of action on my part requires that I accept the fact that other people may exercise that same freedom on me, and I have.

    It’s true. As I have said before, I cannot endorse every comment of NDT’s; but one thing he does not do, is complain to Bruce/Dan for them to limit the behavior of others.

  65. ND30, Maybe in your head you did, but I defy you to produce one person who will argue that other than yourself.

    And after we have one, the threshold rises to two, four, and so forth.

    If you crowd-source your principles, Vinci, eventually you end up without any. But then again, as a gay liberal, you should be well-acquainted with that.

  66. ND30, Okay. You found one in ILC. I’m sold.

    Just out of curiosity, could you go to the “About Us” section of GayPatriot. It has an article entitled “About Gay Patriot.” Towards the bottom of the 11-or-so-paragraphed article, there are two black bullet points (respectively the 8th and 9th paragraphs). Could you copy the 2nd & 3rd sentences of the 1st bullet point, as well as the 1st sentence of the 2nd bullet point, and paste them into this thread for me?

  67. And, for the record, I have NOTHING against personal attacks and profanity on a site, if the site doesn’t profess to have any rules against it. But, if the site does have RULES, that they STATE, they WILL enforce, and, then, DO NOT ENFORCE those RULES, then there’s a huge contradiction there. All I’m saying is simply 1) Get rid of the rules you don’t enforce or 2) Enforce them. Why even have them?

  70. So Vinci, since you have acknowledged that you yourself have, by your own interpretation, broken these rules that you keep citing, why not act with “integrity” and ban yourself?

    And if you’re not going to enforce and follow your own interpretation, then on what grounds are you criticizing anyone else?

    Again, all you’re demonstrating is that your demands for compliance are completely one-sided and self-serving. Enforce them against yourself, Cas, and Dooms before you start with anyone else.

  73. how conservatives are so eager to invalidate the claims and experiences of people of color

    Including Asian, black and Hispanic conservatives? What about them, Dooms?

    Let us know when you’re done feeling sorry for yourself. And, done trying to pit Americans against each other. It will be a loooooooooong time, I know.

  74. thought post #63 was a response to #62. My mistake.

    No worries. But yeah, as I often do, I was only picking out the one little sentence in somebody’s comment that happened to catch my eye and that I happened to think I could say something in response to… nothing more.

  75. Harken unto Dooms:

    21. North who are you to be the judge? You have not lived my life nor have you lived the life of a black man in America. Something you know jack all about.

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 6:01 pm – June 15, 2011

    23. Minorities have to learn to relate to the majority while the majority has the benefit of having their views and opinions viewed as the mainstream.

    By that very definition of what it means to be a minority, many grow to be more empathetic and understanding of various issues.

    You, who are ignorant of your own white privilege could never take off your bigoted blinders to relate to someone of another color.

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 6:12 pm – June 15, 2011

    Well,now aren’t we special.

    You have not lived my life nor have you lived the life of a black man in America. Perhaps, but more to the point, Dooms has only lived HIS black life and only among HIS clique of black compadres. Dooms does not speak for black America anymore than Barney Frank speaks for gay America. Both Dooms and Barney have their views of reality, but neither view is universal truth for either one’s specific minority as a whole.

    You, who are ignorant of your own white privilege could never take off your bigoted blinders to relate to someone of another color. Think about this bit of “woe is me” idiocy. Dooms “dooms” his black self to the eternal struggle of near drowning because no white can ever relate to his black self. This he has declared.

    Why, pray tell, does Dooms come here to beat his head against the granite, white, bigoted wall?

    And how does Dooms know the color of the commenters? More likely, it doesn’t matter. Anyone who disagrees with his temper or tenor is white or an Oreo.

    I love the smell of bigotry on the web.

    As to refereeing the comments: why do liberals always call for censorship? It sounds like someone is running crying to teacher to complain about someone on the playground who hurt his feelings.

    Ah, sweet political correctness, it was ever thus. Moral relativity relies on an allied judicial force to silence by fiat.

  76. Heliotrope, good points.

    Dooms ignorantly denies that anyone here but him could have a minority status or know what it’s like to be a minority. At the same time he displays a shocking lack of understanding and compassion for what it’s like to be a real minority like, say, a black gay *conservative*.

  77. Vince S. wrote,

    I’ve said this before and I will say it again. I come here to, in part, to learn (believe what you may).

    I’m here mostly to learn, too. Gay conservatives of the type predominant on this site are so different from the gay conservatives I knew in the ’70s and ’80s and are so different from much of the rest of the self-acknowledged gay community today that I feel somewhat out to sea when I find myself dealing with those who think as you do. That needs to change.

  79. Dooms wrote,

    Eric, in the thread on guns I have been called a promiscuous loser, a racist, a sexist, selfish, self absorbed, and those are just things off the top of my head.

    The funny thing is, none of what I said came close to insinuating I am anything like any of those things.

    It is because you were being called the first two things you listed (I hadn’t spotted the third one) that I hesitated to post in disagreement with your views on gun owner psychology and concealed carry. I didn’t want to give any appearance that I supported those remarks.

  82. Vinci S @ #38:

    I agree that Dooms was extreme with suggesting ILC is a sociopath. I don’t know him personally (he never took me up on my offer to meet him), but, from what I can tell, he’s not a sociopath.

    On a separate note:

    I can differentiate between moral disagreement and incivility.

    Vinci S: What follows is not aimed at you personally in any way, manner or form. Your words are but the catalyst for a general comment to all.

    Think about this. We are having difficulty differentiating between moral disagreement and incivility and when either is the outpouring of a sociopath.

    So, just for grins, lets throw “hate speech” into the mix.

    Suppose imaginary commenter #1 claims to be the target of hate speech.

    Commenter #2 says it was not hate speech from his point of view. It was actually incivility.

    Commenter #3 says the comments were rooted in moral disagreement.

    Commenter #4 calls on Dan, the omnipotent, to apply the blog rules and act the blog nanny.

    What is the game here? Words are tossed about and feelings get hurt, but no bruises are delivered and no bones are broken. However, in real life, you would have a jury deliberate on whether something was “hate speech” as if there is a clear way to determine such a thing. You can tell if a person got beaten. How do you tell if the beating was because of hate and worse as a result?

    Meanwhile, ILC remains a Dooms doomed sociopath. Do not let your children trick or treat at his house. Until Dooms tells ILC in a matter of a fact manner that he flew off at the mouth and he regrets it, ILC remains a targeted and named sociopath.

    My bet is that ILC is plenty amused. To be called a sociopath by a person who looks at the moon and sees racism in every crater is not much of a burden to bear.

    This generally to liberals: Can you engage in rough give and take without running to a judge to make them stop when you run out of self-esteem or find your footing to be slipping? At least Hi! Cas just shifts the goal posts and chirps on about some little variation in the song of a passing bird. Censorship is so cowardly. And if the comments here were out of control, why would you bother? It is far different to be chased away because you can’t hold your own than to be prohibited from commenting or getting someone else banned.

  83. “We’ve (Southern Baptists) lied about the nature of homosexuality and have practiced what can only be described as homophobia. We’ve used the choice language when it is clear that sexual orientation is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice.” – Southern Baptists president Albert Mohler, speaking at this year’s convention. jmg

  84. Rusty,

    Interesting quote. However, I take exception to how Albert Mohler has constructed it. If the Southern Baptists have had an epiphany concerning the “deep inner struggle” vs. the “choice” of homosexuality, then what preceded is neither homophobia nor lie telling. However, if the Southern Baptists believed homosexuality to be a deep inner struggle, but called it choice instead, then Albert Mohler has a right to cast about the words “homophobia” and “lie.”

    The point is that the Southern Baptists who take Mohler’s point still have to reconcile themselves with scripture. Do they love the sinner, but hate the sin or are they going to decommission the sin. Mohler’s comments do not reveal that. I am left feeling the quote is verging on revealing a certain disingenuous attempt to placate while playing safe.

  86. Vinci S makes this comment at #68:

    And, for the record, I have NOTHING against personal attacks and profanity on a site, if the site doesn’t profess to have any rules against it. But, if the site does have RULES, that they STATE, they WILL enforce, and, then, DO NOT ENFORCE those RULES, then there’s a huge contradiction there. All I’m saying is simply 1) Get rid of the rules you don’t enforce or 2) Enforce them. Why even have them?

    Then, Vinci S @ #86 goes after NDT with this:

    ND30 >> Feel free to respond to #68 whenever you so desire. Have a good one.

    Color me confused. Vinci S is rattling the cage at Dan in #68. Why is Vinci S after NDT in #86? Seems to me that Vinci S has a gripe with Dan and NDT is his thorn.

    Ergo, Vinci S has a gripe with Dan, but his gripe is based on NDT having irritated him. I would assume, if all things are equal, that Dan read the gripe by Vinci S and decided on a favorite cheese and crackers with a nice wine rather than Cheeze-whiz and whine. But I could be wrong.

  87. I know a swimming pool where the rules say, no yelling or running. But if it were enforced on people, then (1) no one would go there and (2) honestly, the people doing the enforcement would have to be considered assholes.

    I know a road where people drive 5 to 10 mph over the speed limit. Ditto to above.

    In both cases, the rule exists as guidance / warning, more than as an absolute for for enforcement. To the extent that you run, yell, pass the speed limit, etc., you know you are on thin ice and hopefully you take adult responsibility for your choice to be on thin ice.

    As for GayPatriot, Bruce was always more of an enforcer than Dan. And Bruce is around less these days. And Bruce would enforce on violators both Left and Right, but all enforcement is inherently selective and my view remains that if someone doesn’t like the enforcement at this blog, they are free to go to another.

  91. As I said elsewhere, Vinci, GP does have standards. They are, however, not issued by a mandate from on high, but are community standards, evolved by those who regularly comment here and have developed an understanding about how they interact with each other.

    It seems that, having failed to shut people up by demanding one-sided policy enforcement, you’ve decided to go 180 degrees in the opposite direction and try to be as abusive as you possibly can — perhaps with the hope that you’ll be banned and be able to go running back to Queerty, Towleroad, and other places about how awful GayPatriot is and how it’s “going in the wrong direction”.

    Frankly, I doubt Dan or Bruce would bother. And from my perspective, there’s no need for them to do so, either; the issue is correcting itself quite nicely.

  92. And now, for some entertainment value.

    And you can just suck my cock!

    Cuz GP has no standards, so why should I?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 19, 2011 @ 4:37 am – June 19, 2011

    How things change.

    It doesn’t matter who subjects me to what from which political side, that gives me no justification for altering my behavior. I, “stay the course” so to speak. For a site with so many commenters who insist on moral biblical consistency, I find the “they do it, so can we argument” irreconcilable with that mindset.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 5:15 pm – June 15, 2011

    But there is just too much on this site that clouds up what’s most significant. And part of that is the uncivil tone, language and manner in which goes on in these debates. My feeling is that if GP can weed out the miscreants and those who feel they can only make their points by sinking to a base level of conduct (on the right and the left), then perhaps it will raise the level of debate and what’s most important will become part of the discussion.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 7:09 pm – June 15, 2011

  93. Cuz GP has no standards, so why should I?

    It stinks, when someone tries to blame others for his standards or lack thereof. A grownup decides and carries out her own standards (be they high, low, medium, east or west) for her own reasons. The “why should she?” is, her self-respect. Not sticking to one’s standards (and then blaming it on others) evinces a lack of self-respect.

  94. ILC,

    I always enjoyed “I’ve upped my standards, so up yours.” 🙂

    Of course either a) Vince has gone back to his base personality, or b) he’s off his medications.

    (Aside, ever noticed how it’s common to suggest conservatives should seek professional help, while it’s suggested that liberals have help, just not using it?)

  95. (Aside, ever noticed how it’s common to suggest conservatives should seek professional help, while it’s suggested that liberals have help, just not using it?)

    I think, Livewire, it’s a variation on the old, “conservatives think liberals are misguided, liberals think conservatives are pure evil” thing.

    Knowing several people who have drifted rightwards over time (Breitbart, ILC, to name a few), my thought is that the reason people are liberal has more to do with differing perspectives and standards, not any sort of organic malfunction on their part. That doesn’t mean there are not diagnosably-crazy liberals, but I am not inclined to immediately jump to that as the source of their worldview.

    Liberals, on the other hand, seem to think that “we hold these truths to be self-evident” refers solely to their belief system, and that the only reason you would not be liberal is either a) mental illness, b) deep self-hatred that could be reconciled with therapy, or c) a deliberate choice to be evil.

    Hence their response. In their eyes, we’re either Sybil, Sylvia Plath, or Stalin.