I have wondered sometimes if the number of people commenting has taper off in recent years because the exchanges in our threads can become, well, heated. I know this phenomenon is not unique to our blog. Perhaps, it has become more acute of late because Bruce and I tend not to edit the comments (I have always believed that sunlight is the best disinfectant).
Those who engage in ad hominem attacks on readers compromise their own strong arguments.
I have not been reading the comments as regularly as I once did; it often seems the comment threads are entirely different from the blog itself. Oftentimes the commentary has little to do with the points Bruce and I make in the post themselves.
In the past few days, in e-mails from and other communication with readers, I have heard rumor that the attacks are getting out of hand. Because I was spending time with my family (and just now returning to LA), I have not had time to investigate those claims.
Please, readers, be civil. Make your point. Take issue with our arguments. Challenge our defenders. Criticize our critics. But, don’t make it personal. If you met some of the people (whom you disparage online), you might find they are good folks. Indeed, I have met most of those who have contacted me in recent days. I don’t always agree with what they say (indeed, one of them has criticized my points more often than not). But, they are all good people.
In conclusion, let me offer this suggestion. Each time you find fault with someone’s argument, as your prepare to take him (or her) on, imagine that you are going to have to sit down next to him at dinner the next day. Or work with him in a professional manner.
[UPDATE: I’ve closed the comments on this thread. It degraded quickly.
I guess many of you didn’t actually READ what Dan had to say.
-Bruce]
Times have changed. Government has become to big to fail and many of us are losing property and freedom to this unwelcome guest that seeks to permiate our living space on what seems an almost daily basis. Politics is not theory, it’s real life and some of us don’t want to give up without a fight be it civil or not.
I just tried to read the 300+ comment thread that I stayed out of… Let’s just say I felt sorry for all concerned. What a mess.
I think some of the drop-off in comments the last 6-12 months, happened due to Eric banning or otherwise interfering with certain trolls. FTR and FW(little)IW, I had mixed feelings about his activity there. I admired his motive (combat the Left), until he crossed a line (revealing some people’s personal info). And the worst left-wing trolls, while noisome, also bring a certain spice. Since I don’t troll the left-wing blogs, I don’t get to see how demented their arguments are unless they spout them here for our amusement.
Another part of the drop-off is, I think, that left-wingers are increasingly ashamed of Obama.
Dan, I was greatly relieved when I finally got an email from you asking me what the hell was going on. It dragged on for about 48 hours.
Yes, I should have left and let the ranting go on without me. But you need to remember that we are writers, too, with reputations to think of. To let that sort of thing go on, unrelentingly, for an entire weekend seems like rather poor housekeeping.
He’s probably still sitting there, like Mad King George, ranting and raving to himself. I’m sure everyone else has left that thread by now.
I will definitely email you the next time I think things are getting out of control. I know you’re very busy right now. Maybe you need a few Gladys Kravitzes to help you keep on top of what goes on here.
Richard, thanks for trying to explain what happened rationally. You could be right, or it could be that for some of the people who post here, politics just makes them nuts.
Thanks for posting Dan. Lori makes a very good point about the reputation aspect. While it’s best to just walk away sometimes, the lies can take their toll. I don’t mind having to defend my stances (however flawed they may be), but to be forced into a position where I am being entirely misrepresented and/or personally insulted can touch a nerve. Since my time started here, I’ve learned to turn the other cheek. What was different this time was that there was somebody else involved who was experiencing a similar treatment as myself. For some insane reason, I thought it might have been an opportunity for a teachable moment. I was sadly wrong. Some leopards don’t change their spots and I have to accept that. Not my proudest moment, but I’m willing to learn from my experiences. Not everyone is.
So, I just have to proceed accordingly.
Kudos BDB. I’m in wholehearted agreement.
While I’ve only posted a scant couple times, making a stop at GP has become a fairly regular event for me. I’ve been a reader since GOProud was kicked out of CPAC and I’ve ventured into the archives since then as well. While I certainly don’t agree with every post, I very much enjoy the thought provoking challenges. And I’m the kind of guy that chews through the comments sections because seeing the differing points of view helps me to reflect on my own. Unfortunately, the main side effect of that is after reading many of the ‘conversations’ here, I sometimes feel this urgent need to ‘shower’ after my visits. (I don’t know any better way to describe it.) I refer plenty of my conservative friends here, but I am hesitant to direct my more left leaning buddies; even the ones that are genuinely open to a right leaning perspective. This hesitation is mainly due to some of the activities in the comments section. I’ve never believed in the whole “gay conservatives are self loathing’ drivel, but some of the commenter’s here make even this skeptic a little, well..skeptic. And while some may say these sometimes brutal personal attacks are necessary to make their point, I would simply refer them to your comments as proof that civil discourse has more impact then flaming diatribes. Some may say in the heat of conversation, things get said that may not be appropriate. This may be the case in a live situation, but when we all have the opportunity to re-read our statements before ‘saying it’, that excuse doesn’t fly.
After being a regular visitor these past months I’ve learned whose posts to scroll past and whose posts to zero in on. This is not because I don’t want my sensibilities challenged; rather I know who will make a valid challenge and not just needless acrid venom. (and some repeatedly so)
The fastest way to close someone’s mind to new (or different views) is to attack them personally on the outset. For this reader, it’s the posters who get attacked personally and still respond in a civil fashion that earn my respect; even if I wholeheartedly disagree with them.
I haven’t been here much for several reasons. Been making it a point to spend more time with family and friends since the death of my friend Kevin. Been doing more music stuff! (Yay)
Compared to years past, I don’t find politics as engaging as I used to. It seems that I’ve seen this all before, and it doesn’t matter what happens, nothing is going to change much no matter who wins.
Don’t get me wrong. I still love the game, and find it funny when either side trips up. Maybe I’m growing cynical in my “old age”. I’ve just gotten to the point where I recognize nothing is going to change, no matter who is in office.
I don’t comment here as much as I used to because the back and forth between commenters becomes more of a pissing match to see who can swat the person down by calling them “libtards”, “socialists”, or what-ever, instead of simply saying “that is wrong, here are the reasons why”. Now, granted, you expect that some within blog commentary, but it just gets vile here. And, instead of backing off, several others here gang tackle the commenter with ad homs and strawmen, making it virtually impossible to discuss the original idea. Raj, for instance, never came in and insulted any one, and though our politics differed, he often had something interesting to say (our discussions on the fall of the Berlin Wall were fascinating). But because his views differed, he instantly became “The Enemy”. He stopped coming here because the back and forth just got too acidic. I can’t say I blame him. The gang tackling here is often out of hand. It’s stifling. Why comment on a blog when no consideration is given to the discussion and all you get are personal attacks. On occasion I’ve been this close to not coming back….
But I’ve been contributing here longer than anyone else save Bruce and Dan… So, I’m going nowhere… Bitches!!! 🙂
I know that to be false. He insulted people all the time.
I believe that’s false as well; i.e., that raj’s toxicity got to the point where Bruce banned him, IIRC. And bannings were quite rare at that point (again, pre-Eric).
Sorry sf, 0 for 2.
(If sf is true to past form: having just been corrected by me on the facts and nothing but the facts, but not wishing to have to endure any sort of correction, sf should now attempt to paint me as part of the problem. We’ll see.)
One point I tried to bring up — which was quickly drowned in the attack — was that people who come here sometimes aren’t sure where they are politically. They may wish to remain on the fence for the time being and explore all the options. GayPatriot is an excellent place for them to come to get a better fix on what gay conservatives and libertarians believe, any (hopefully) why.
When they are subjected to long, relentless attacks where they are called socialists and child molesters and accused of being in league with terrorists (if not Satan), they are not likely to stick around. When longtime commenters — who have already made their convictions quite clear — are subjected to this treatment, the environment on this blog has become toxic.
There’s nothing wrong with having a place to hang out and exchange ideas with like minds. Not many places exist, in cyberspace, where we can do that. Sometimes Gay Patriot is like the front porch of a friend: we stop by, pull up a chair and chat for a while.
But if somebody keeps pulling out a machete and chasing us around the yard and all the way up and down the block, we’re not likely to want to keep stopping by.
If even a regular commenter can’t feel free to express an opinion that might be considered (horrors!) heretical to some, then I’m not sure this blog any longer serves its purpose.
I don’t think either Dan or Bruce want that to happen.
good point….. I think I have been good on here so far, but not always other places on line. Thanks for the admonition
On Raj…. Did he come storming in and insulting people?
No. At least not on the outset.
He got into pissing matches when needlessly insulted, just as you and I would. It’s pretty much the same with any liberal who comes in, whether they are looking for a fight or not. It’s the same with Cas. He (or she) never starts off insulting anyone, just offering a different idea or information. Yet, by the end of the day, the topic of the original post is long since lost and the thread has devolved into a pissing match. Regardless, if Raj indeed eventually got banned by Bruce, then I missed that and happily retract.
Now, why add that? Do you subconsciously see yourself as part of the problem???? 🙂
“nothing but the facts”….. If you have to type “IIRC” at the end of your statement of fact, then can that be considered a “fact”? You’re not positive that you are correct, yet, because you assert it, then, well, it’s a fact.
That is 1/2 a point taken off the board and added to my side!!!! 🙂
He was always pretty bad. I’m sure he had ‘better’ moments as even the worst person does, but you’re making it sound like it was someone else’s fault (than his own) that he was bad. Wrong answer.
As I predicted. sf tactic: rather than endure correction, commence with the pissing.
IIRC, Raj’s main trick was not so much overt obnoxiousness as patronizing condescension; much as Cas delights in passive-aggressive threadjacking, and Insipidity, by her own admission, only comments with the intent of aggravating the other participation.
Sorry if it’s uncivil to point that stuff out.
And so it begins…..
In all good faith, Lori, you commented first on that thread and I followed your comment by asking some fairly basic questions of you. You dodged answering me, which is your right.
I think when I or anyone else shows up painting someone with a broad brush and tagging them as out of the mainstream or weak minded or whatever, that everyone and anyone has the right to question me.
If I take the road that what I say is what I said and everyone and anyone can just spin on it, fine. But if I then lay into people for not agreeing with my broad brush attack, it would seem that I am keeping the door open for questioning my reasoning.
I do not get into cursing and I try to respect courtesy with courtesy. When someone questions by reasoning powers and says so in clear terms, I consider the courtesy rules to have been breached.
After many comments, I discovered your comments on your site (to which you offered the path.) When I realized that you are operating from a tight libertarian structure of your own definition and boundaries, I offered an apology for my misunderstanding concerning your openness to query. I now understand that your comments are a proclamation and not intellectually subject to clarification. None is needed.
NDT will certainly speak for himself. However, as you read the genesis of that long thread, you will realize that NDT was initially carrying the question(s) that I asked in #2. That is his right. I suppose one could parse the comments to see who fired first and how the intensity of back and forth escalated and who ends up with more thrusts than parries.
Somewhere, I became a cobra social con who was in need of your cunning mongoose extermination. That type of hyperbole is water off my back, but I must admit that I am not accustomed to that type of vitriol.
In the final analysis, I prefer the system of asking a few basic questions before I make a final judgement. And, my final judgement is never cast in stone unless it involves basic principles of logic or ethics. All other basic principles in my life are subject to the test of logic and ethics as well.
No one is required to answer any question from another commenter. Ask Cas, Levi, Serenity or many others who come here to shoot and run. But if you are of a nature to explore and educate and provide food for thought, I would suggest a more open form of interaction.
I try not to be seen here as a straight trying to stir up “the gays.” I really hope that my views help some people to assess how they go about changing the culture dominated by straights to be more “accepting” of what gays feel as important to them. I do this from a profound belief in Christian brotherhood. Being all to human, I will screw up and have. All I ask is forgiveness and a chance to be a valued part of the community.
V, I think you’re right, except that the patronizing condescension often crossed the line into insults. Also, a quick google reminds me that there was a question of raj playing sockpuppets, too. raj was kind of an Internet phenomenon who managed to get banned on several sites.
This is interesting and long before I started reading GP
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/07/30/new-commenting-rules/
Was looking at the post (googled Gay Patriot Raj)
Kudos BDB and GP(Bruce)
Yes. I hope we won’t re-litigate it here. As I said, I felt sorry for ALL concerned. I have met both NDT and Cinesnatch and consider them good people (or basically, haha). I hope to one day have the honor of meeting both Heliotrope and Lori.
rusty, interesting link. It shows that at the least, raj had to be heavily edited at times (or individual comments deleted).
FTR, it may be that Bruce never banned raj as such, but advised him heavily to move on, like a near-ban:
Or there could have been more action after that. The details are lost to me, I just know “it was something”.
(i.e. something fair, something deserved, that raj did not initiate)
I was reading that post as well. Note that both Ian and Raj (or IanRaj if they were indeed the same person) commented on posts after that thread. (I never bought the IanRaj thing… thought their dialog voice was each too different… unless it was an even more elaborate con than I suspect)
So, was Ian / Raj officially banned, or did he stop coming? (would love to see the deleted posts from that one though – that would be fun)
I tend to ignore most of the trolls; you can’t persuade them. Personal attacks is just a sign someone has touched a nerve, but that’s no justification for the personal attacks. Constructive criticism is good, but the usual trolls try to hijack the threads which makes engaging them worthless.
Just wondering … (so I know how I am perceived here)
1) am I considered a troll here?
2) if so, short explanation as to why
3) do you believe once a troll always a troll?
Raj did sometimes get belligerent, but that can be said of most all of us, except maybe Dan, who just doesn’t seem to have a cross bone in his body.
Is that like being “almost” pregnant, or rather, “almost” having sex? Raj continued to post months after that thread. ILC… Sorry I’m busting your nuts a bit, but, considering that your “Raj got banned fact” is not, as you stated, a fact… In all fairness, you owe me one.
Sebastian… Oh, I have the most intense desire to post something snarky on that comment… but, I’ll just ignore it!!!! 🙂
Just Kidding!!!! 🙂
Oh… Am I trolling now???
Ignore Me!!!!!!
(I had to find a way to sneak that video in)
Helio, if I did not completely answer a question of yours to your satisfaction, I regret that. But I do not “dodge” questions. To claim that I do is to call me a liar.
If you feel there is any question of yours that I have not fully answered, please ask it again and I will certainly answer it. There is no need to insinuate that I am a dishonest person. That had a lot to do with why the vitriol on the other thread got so heated in the first place.
I will clarify what I said above, because in re-reading it, I see it looks as if I said that your accusations, Helio, caused the vitriol. As a matter of fact, it was not your accusations but someone else’s.
Words were put in my mouth, on that thread, that were blatantly false. When challenged to back them up, the person who made the claim — that I called for Michele Bachmann to be banned from ever running for public office — was unable to do anything but produce a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
If I’m a little sensitive about being called a liar, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that when a certain long-time commenter DOES lie, he seems to get away with it with impunity.
If libertarians get the idea that there’s a cobra-and-mongoose fight going on between them and social conservatives, perhaps the soc-con tendency to accuse them of lies — while remaining blind to the lies of those with whom they agree — might have had something to do with giving that impression.
#15 – “I try not to be seen here as a straight trying to stir up “the gays.” I really hope that my views help some people to assess how they go about changing the culture dominated by straights to be more “accepting” of what gays feel as important to them. I do this from a profound belief in Christian brotherhood. Being all to human, I will screw up and have. All I ask is forgiveness and a chance to be a valued part of the community.”
I can find myself in what you have penned there, Heliotrope. I’m probably a little more secular at my core but I enjoy reading your comments and often agree with them.
These threads never fail to descend into self-parody.
Case in point:
Right before:
Civility for me, but not for thee; I have the right to defend myself and you don’t.
Next up:
Given what blogs endorsed by the Obama Party, the Human Resources Campaign, and GLAAD consider normal, intelligent, and civil fact-based discourse, I find it hard to believe that this blog would so upset the delicate stomachs of your left-leaning friends.
Unless, of course, the objection is more to what is being said, rather than how.
I can’t agree enough with lori in post 28, particularly with paragraph 3. I was trying to say something along those lines, but she did it so much more eloquently. While it’s my responsibility to support my own views, when I engage someone who is being blatantly insulting and using tactics that are completely disingenuous, it’s frustrating if people on here give that person a free pass, as long as they’re conservative. If they were liberal and using the same argumentive “style,” they would be on the receiving end of a string of vocal dissenters.
If we are adult enough to police ourselves, then a little fairness goes a long way. As it stands, the silence is sometimes deafening.
Again, too good to parody.
Now, let’s see, what were those excuses again?
Or maybe:
Civility for me, but not for thee; I have the right to defend myself and you don’t.
Again, Don Surber, ladies and gentlemen.
As the “new hetero” commenting here at GP, I would just like to give feedback about the experience of being “new” and “hetero” here that some may like to know. It’s almost maddening to me how many homosexual posters type something like, “not that I care what anyone thinks about my being homosexual” in replies. Please try not to do that so regularly because some of us want to know what you think and feel about your homosexuality. I can understand how many of you are probably sick to death of being open in that way but sometimes a hole gets left in conversations because of it.
Okay. No more please. Thank you.
Cinesnatch #24 – I do not perceive you as a troll… any more, haha. There was a time when I did. It might have been my fault (thin skin) or yours, but there were points when I experienced some of your remarks as snarking for the sake of snark.
Wiki’s definition of ‘troll’ is halfway decent:
I suggest you make your own honest judgment of yourself (and others). If you KNOW that you are not provoking just to provoke… then… you are not a troll. With slightly different emphasis: when YOU know that something applies to you, then it applies… when YOU know that something does not really apply to you, then it doesn’t apply.
A tiny example in action:
Well then sf, you are doing it so ineffectively that I can’t take offense, or bother replying. 😉
Everyone else: Again please, let’s NOT re-litigate the other thread… or, issues from it (that may be perceived as re-appearing here). Am now sorry I mentioned it.
Nd30, MY violence/Lori comment came after you accused me of threatening violence against you. After asking you to provide proof, you provided something that was not proof. After that, what was good for the goose was good for the gander. Not my shining moment, but once it was clear that you were going to throw around falsehoods, I chose to do the same. It was a lame attempt at parody. I went crazy, because crazy is what I was dealing with.
I have asked you to provide proof for your accusations in the past. I’ve asked you to apologize for your insults towards me. When you refuse, I allow myself to conduct myself at the level youre acting. I wish you could see this clearly.
As it stands, my only options are to repeat past behaviors or ignore you. If i met you, my impression of you would be so much more positive and i would be able to deal with you better when you engage me in moments that are impossible to negotiate through. I wish we could interact like adults.
Sorry Bruce, looks like you and I were typing at nearly the same minute.
Okay just read the calls to put this to bed. Got it. Thanks for the response ILC. 😉
Nd30, if you would like my email, so we can converse oneonone, I would really like it. Dan or bruce has my permission to give it to you.
Sorry, but I’m quite happy taking the responsibility and consequences for my own behavior; I have no interest in taking either on for yours as well.
ILC… Why is it so hard just to say you were wrong? I’ve done it, for NDT. I was critical of Sarah Palin, had a fact wrong, NDT shot me a link showing my error, and I admitted I was wrong.
It’s simple. You claimed as fact that Raj was banned. That isn’t the case. I generally know you to be an honorable man. Why is it so hard to admit you jumped the gun? Or is it that it’s me that’s asking for a retraction? I mean, if it was V who made the statement, he would retract.
I won’t bring it up again, but I’m curious why it’s so hard to admit an error.
More pissing from The Projector.
Nope. Qualified with “IIRC” and gave detailed, additional explanations as to what exactly I knew/remembered or did not know/remember. Kindly re-read comments 7, 16, 19-21… this time for comprehension, please. Then reflect on the uncanny accuracy of my prediction at comment 8. 😉 Then accept my goodbye.
ND30, can we please continue our conversation via email? I would like to address our disagreements and sort them out. Please.
@33 “…………..some of us want to know what you think and feel about your homosexuality.”
Richard, is there anything specific you want to know? Other than the whole same sex attraction thing, I don’t believe I otherwise think or feel anything about my homosexuality. My being gay has very little if any impact on going about of my daily life. Not consciously.
I am glad you’re interested, Richard. Even though I don’t comment frequently, I would always be open to your questions.
Something our associate Rector said this morning at chapel dovetails nicely with Dan’s last paragraph “remember when you believe you are right, you are often talking to someone who believes just ardently that they’re right.
If we operate from a pure capitalist model, the market doesn’t seem to be sorting itself out here.
Heh 🙂
Spot on.
I would like to resolve our differences nd30. Can I engage you in this venture?
@33
I remember when I was the token straight guy. 🙂
This column is worth a read:
Prager is moved to write about the attacks on Rick Santorum by Alan Colmes and Eugene Robinson re the Santorums’ dealing with the loss of a child.
The first sentence is: Only a fool believes that all those with whom he differs are bad people.
Sometimes one’s opponent really is a bad person but, more often than not, he/she is just misguided 😉
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287648/leftism-makes-you-meaner-dennis-prager
#44 – “My being gay has very little if any impact on going about of my daily life. Not consciously.”
A simple but natural reply that meets the context of my request very nicely. Thank you for taking the time, David.
Perhaps an introduction is overdue. For those that don’t know, I’m a 4th generation NYC native of German/Irish background. I’ve been aware of non heterosexuals pre and post “Stonewall” days. (My parents were progressives who taught me and my siblings it was wrong to persecute gay people.) I got involved with debating the gay activist class on the Columbia University BBS and elsewhere not so much because they were gay but because they were hard core America hating marxists, leftists and anarchists. Being close to the stonewall community I eventually made a good friend, a writer, many years ago. We would sit in the stonewall drinking, talking about politics, writing and about his gay community. Unfortunately he passed the year they renovated the stonewall bar and I haven’t wanted to return knowing he wouldn’t be there. He was a great friend and a great conservative and the only gay conservative in my memory from those days. The SSM debate of the past year in my state brought me back into the mix. Names like the “log cabin republicans” and “go proud” have been in my periphery but not any closer. Eventually I wound up here on GP sceptical that there could be very many real conservatives and certain GP must be a fraud.
#49 – “I remember when I was the token straight guy.”
Hah! Perhaps if we recruit, Heliotrope we can become a movement. We’ll call it the “token’s of GP”.
Lying is a strong charge and not particularly a definitive charge. In ethics and rhetoric, we must look at the lie in relation to the truth and ascertain if it is intentional or accidental or based in ignorance.
Specifically, there are several forms of lying:
The boldest form is to knowingly attempt to deceive through a statement the teller knows is not true.
This is followed by giving a false impression. Allowing your words to lull the hearer into making assumptions that are not true.
A variation is allowing a false assumption through actions or words said of you to go uncorrected. (Are you a doctor? Answer: I am retired.)
Change the topic to avoid: the truth, exposure, having to answer. Or pretend offense or throw a counter charge to avoid being “trapped.”
Quibble or move the goal posts to cause issue confusion; intentionally creating ambiguity to avoid specificity.
Make stuff up or repeat made up stuff with the intent to mislead or obfuscate.
Omission: “The lie of omission” is to remain silent when speaking the truth would give the other person important information that would affect the other person’s perspective or decision.
Calling someone a hypocrite is to say that he proclaims to believe one thing while actually engaging in what he claims to to oppose.
So, it should be apparent that calling a person a liar or claiming to be attacked as a liar covers a lot of territory.
Hopefully, we can tone down the rhetoric about lying a degree or two. There is not a lot of difference between one person saying “you are a liar” and another person saying “you are calling me a liar.” Both are distractions and incomplete. Such charges deserve a more detailed charge or explanation.
Of course, if you are charged with calling someone a liar and you do not respond, then perhaps, by the sin of omission, you stand convicted. But sometimes, discretion is the better part of valor.
That is the conundrum posed by commenting on blogs. Do you see it through to the bloody end or do you walk away.
As an ancient academician quite used to the impetuousness of those who must come out on top in all cases, I have learned when it is best to let it go and mutter to myself: “Chuck you Farley and the mule you rode in on.”
Helio >> ND30 accused Lori and I of physically threatening him. If you can point out where I (or Lori) threatened him physically, I am all ears.
Second this.
I am a musician, business owner, spa technician, auto mechanic, teacher, blogger, history buff, geek, and many other things before I’m a “gay man”.
On why I’m gay? I can’t say exactly why. I can say it was not a choice to be gay, to have the sexual attractions to members of the same sex. Besides… Who WANTS to be gay! It was not a matter of the environment in which I was raised, as my five other siblings who were raised under the same conditions are not gay. I can say from the time I was at least seven or eight, I did have a pull toward the same sex. When my older brother had posters of Farrah Fawcett and Raquel Welch on his wall… I was like… Meh. That just didn’t jostle my molecules. I didn’t have that prepubescent pull toward the opposite sex my older brother and even my younger brother had.
Now, when my three sisters were watching some movie on TV, and were drooling over the hunk-of-the-week…. I got it. Of course, I never told a soul about that. I wouldn’t have known how to express it anyway, but it was there.
There is more to the story, but I’ll just say this. I think many who contribute to this blog, even though we may have our disagreements, we all pretty much agree that there is no “pride” in simply being gay. I’m not the only one who hold a certain disdain for the whole “Gay Pride” displays and parades. Some here think they are disgusting. I think they are silly. Being gay… It’s what is. It doesn’t need its own celebration in my opinion. We didn’t have to work at it to get better at it. It just is. It’s not an achievement. Parades are better spent on real accomplishments, like successful flights to the moon, or the end of a war.
Now, personally, I DO take pride in the fact that I was able to eventually wade through my own personal minefield, shrug off the social stigma and negativity that accompanied the idea of being gay when I was growing up, and come to terms with the fact that, Hey, I AM gay. It’s what is. Either get on with life and find peace with who you are, or continue to torture yourself and make yourself perpetually miserable over something outside your control, your attractions to the same sex.
I’ll let others add more. But if you have any questions, feel free to ask.
PS. I’ve been “married” to the same man for 17 years this July. I use the term “married” because, though we cannot get married in the state that we live in, we are that committed to each other.
Helio, you do a lot of parsing about what lying is and isn’t, but you have yet to tell me which of your questions I supposedly “dodged.”
If I were, indeed, “dodging” your question, I would hardly be persisting in trying to find out what it was.
I suspect I have answered it, and that you just didn’t like the one I gave you, but if I did neglect to answer, I am nonetheless quite willing to do so. As soon as I know what it is.
For Richard: I am a 38-year-old single gay man who is left of center with conservative leanings. I’ve never been in a relationship before, but figure I’ll be in one eventually when the timing is right and I’m ready. As far as the whole pride thing, I agree with the previous comments. I’m proud of my journey, but kinda over it at the same time. That being said, as obnoxious and frustratingly militant as the Gay Left can be, I also see them as providing a valuable service. They’ve led the way on a lot of issues, as well as increasing exposure towards a more tolerant and/or accepting culture. As in everything, it has its pluses and minuses. If had the resources that exist now available to me when I was growing up, it would have helped me accept who I was and rebuild my confidence much quicker.
I try not to make an issue of my being gay, but it matters to me to some degree, or else I wouldn’t visit gay political sites–both on the left and right.
#54 Cines****,
I am not a part of the physical threatening stuff nor am I a referee. Please forgive me for “passing” on this, but I do not wish to become involved.
Agreed. Gay groups who were on the edge back in the day, though we may not always agree with their radical leanings, make it easier for us more normal folk to integrate into society.
Lori @ #57,
I did not discover a definitive, unqualified answer to what I asked. If the issue is over my use of the word “dodged” I will gladly accept the burden of misspeaking.
In deference to Bruce and ILC who are both people I respect greatly, I will not “re-litigate” the issues on another thread here. I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that several of us when too far to the “ballistic” side and move on. Hopefully, you do not have an inordinately strong point of honor at stake and can do so as well.
Helio. My apologizes. Since I had made an accusation of lying and you addressed the term, I thought you we’re referring to me.
On Townhall.com, the comments are so vicious at times that I read fewer columns than before. Some far left liberals will spout their drivel and paste it onto other columns that have nothing to do with the topic. Some right wingers do the same. What people should do is write about that topic, not something else, and stop the copy and paste crappola.
#2
Yes, and they also show how crazy the left often is. Censorship might make the left look more reasonable then it is to someone who doesn’t know the truth.
#9
The thing that first prompted me to comment here was how vile the leftist commenters were (but I was already sure of my politics). While some nasty comments are made by those on the right, I’ve found the left to be much worse (and not only here). If someone comes here unsure of their politics, hopefully they would reject the hatred of the left (which is much more prevalent than hatred on the right) and not be scared onto the plantation of the left by the fear of rejection (by the gay community, or whatever).
By the way, I haven’t seen very many leftist trolls here lately. There is certainly a void without them.
#25
Actually, Raj was banned (I’ve been reading archives, too).
#55
Well said.
#58
That may be true to an extent, but I think the perception of the Gay Left as “militant” may be hurting their cause. I don’t think people react favourably to radicals, especially ones they may already be predisposed not to favour. However, if they did make homosexual less taboo, I am grateful for that. I have yet to come to conclusion that they did (I am still on the fence about whether that happened in spite of their efforts or because of them, but I haven’t made a conclusion because I know little about “gay history,” nor do I really care to learn about it).
“By the way, I haven’t seen very many leftist trolls here lately. There is certainly a void without them.”
There certainly is. Perhaps those who routinely feasted on them have gotten too lean. It may explain the necessity for the post that originated this thread. Those whose only reason for wanting to comment on this blog is to attack certain stock-character villains need fresh meat.
If there’s going to be a new tone of civility, Rattlesnake, you are proving to be a very positive addition.
Thanks, Lori.
I apologize for instances in which I have been unjustifiably incivil in any of my past comments. I will try to be civil when I should, but if a leftist troll comes along and lowers the civility, I ain’t raising it back up. I promise to try to treat people how they should be treated (regardless of whether or not they deserve to be treated respectfully; however, I do tend to give fellow conservatives the benefit of the doubt when it comes to disputes. I realize there’s a double standard there, but hey, I’m a partisan hack, and a proud one at that. But that is still no reason to treat liberals disrespectfully if they don’t deserve it).
And a correction to my previous comment: it should say “if they did make homosexuality less taboo.”
Indeed.
Civility for me, but not for thee; I have the right to defend myself and you don’t.
I think, Richard, if you’ve not read it before, Armistead Maupin says it better than anyone else in this excerpt from More Tales of the City.
Nd30, I am willing to have a civil discussion with you about our past disagreements where I will offer you all the civility you want. Civility for you. Civility for me.
How about it? Can we work this out?
PS. I’ve been “married” to the same man for 17 years this July. I use the term “married” because, though we cannot get married in the state that we live in, we are that committed to each other.
Comment by Sonicfrog — January 10, 2012 @ 7:51 pm – January 10, 2012
Beautiful Sonicfrog! We refer to ourselves as married for the same reasons you do and will celebrate our 27th anniversary later this year.
I grew up in a large, extended, southern family (or as my husband of Yankee parentage will tell you, gothically southern). And they were and remain conservative though I would say it has always been more it is of the fiscal variety.
Like you Sonic, I did not choose to be gay and fought it. At my father’s request I willingly went to a reparative therapy center as a teenager. That experience was hideous, but I discovered I had greater strength of character than I had known and like you survived and thrived.
Cinesnatch said left leaning gay activists led the way to liberation and I agree. But the gay left of today is not so useful, I think. We want to be be seen as responsible and contributing members of society, we must behave thusly. Parades and shows of overt hedonism does not help that cause does it? I really believe that most gays are better than what is on display in the parades and southern decadence etc., but sadly that gets a lot of airtime.
We had a very close friend, actively involved in gay issues in the 80’s. Doc and I had just bought our first home, in the burbs, and he was over to see us. I asked him what he thougt was the best way we could help the cause of tolerance and acceptance of gays. He told us to simply be active members of our community, not the gay community, but the community we live in. Just be ourselves. Be responsible. Be good neighbors. Be good examples. We do our best.
BINGO!!!!
My guitarist Steve was a preacher in his church. He is a freaking awesome guitar player / vocalist, and we were all so pleased when he asked to join the band. I knew he was a fairly religious guy, and not that I do any different in my normal existence, I never mentioned much that I am gay, with the exception of the obvious and hanging gay quip that needs to be said when we’re all joshing around at a gig…. Fun band banter, as it were. Last year, before a gig, he pulled me aside and told me he needed to tell me something serious. Well, I didn’t know it, but he has a son that is gay and has for a long time had a strained relationship because of the clash with his religious views. I was absolutely stunned when he told me this, but then he said that because of my normalcy and attitude about being gay, and getting to know who I was, he had changed his entire thoughts on the subject, and had started to reach out to his son because of his experience with me…..
Shit! That is the most incredible thing anyone has ever, and probably will ever say to me. Without knowing it, without trying, I changed someones life. To tell you the truth, it still freaks me out a little. This isn’t a part of my life plan or anything, to be a gay ambassador!….
But Hell… I’ll take it!!!!!
@Sonic,
Ironic in a way. Donna and I did consider marriage and decided, despite the commitment we had to each other (and our little dog too) it didn’t ‘fit’ what we had. A mistake in hindsight, but I didn’t allow myself to see how sick she was.
Also to the entire ‘gay man’ bit. I knew a sub who summed it up perfectly. “We’re not ‘kinky people’ we are people who are kinky a difference often ignored in politics by the left, but should never be forgotten by conservatives. (and libertarians too, to include Lori) 😉 Unfortunately, none of us are perfect, and we all make that mistake.
@Lori
It shouldn’t be too surprising, unfortunately. I’ve said in the past that I would stand with the SSM advocates to get civil unions, but would fight to prevent marriage from being defined. Without people like Levi spreading their easily debunked bile fractures can appear in what previously was a united front. I’ve seen it here in the local D/s community. Without the threat of persecution, the various organizations break apart, with ‘the gay group’ vs ‘the married couples’ group vs ‘the spanking only’ group etc etc.
ALL of us need to remember that we should discuss our differences civilly.
@NDT I saw Tales from the city on PBS when I was a 20 something. To this SE OH born and raised farmboy, it was an eye opener. I definately felt for the Maryann character, as she was my ‘window’ into the world, though Chloe Web caught my eye.
Livewire, my son is beginning to date a woman who says she “gender identifies” as a pan-sexual gay man. To me, that seems like a red flag big enough to fly over a Chinese Car Dealership, but he’ll have to learn for himself.
Agreed. They’re stuck in the past. I used to be one of them – in the days when sodomy was still illegal in 22 states, and marriage (or even civil unions) inconceivable. I more than did my bit in fact, but then as “it worked” and America changed, I recognized I could let it go and that other aspects of human freedom were more important and universal. Like, say, not getting blown up by terrorists. Or still having meaningful property rights.
LOL 🙂 Thank you, Rattlesnake.
For my part: I’ve been consistently careful to say what I knew/remembered for sure vs. what I was less sure of (but had some impression about). It looks like I was never in the particular thread that you caught.
More on the Gay Left being stuck in the past…
There was a time, namely the time when gays faced the stigma of sodomy laws and related discrimination, when gays were second-class citizens in some ways and the struggle to rectify it took real courage, and was noble. (I can tell you, in the early 90s when I first stopped hiding all details of my personal life at work, it was scary.) It was a great time for the “gay identity”, because it meant that a self-centered focus on personal sexual identity was, simultaneously, something progressive and even elevated (in some ways).
That is what the Gay Left doesn’t want to give up. America has changed. Gays aren’t second-class citizens. Keeping a self-centered focus on your sex life and identity is no longer progressive (in any honest sense of the word “progress”). But recognizing that reality means individual gays having to develop new lives, new identities. They might even have to clean up their act. The moral-spiritual privilege of believing that one’s sexual indulgence per se is noble, is what the Gay Left people cannot give up.
Thus, they now actively strive to keep the past going – they actively strive to believe that gay death camps run by Anita Bryant are still just around the corner – and they manifest all the silliness, malice and bitterness that people must inevitably manifest, who live in denial of reality.
You know, ILC, it is rather unfortunate that the gay left is willing to sell out their liberty, prosperity, and security just for a pat on the head from the people who will take those things away from them.
ILC… You were correct. I was wrong…
Either way, I still hate playing a Bm7 on the guitar! It is the bane of my existence!!!! 🙂
For me it’s the Em7 type of bar chords that are harder. (meaning the variation that takes more fingers, the one with the ‘7’ on the B string)
Pretty much.
The gay and lesbian community has figured out what the Jesse Jacksons, Charles Rangels, and Al Sharptons of the world already knew: minority status among liberals and progressives trumps right, wrong, up, down, and any other normal principle.
Gays and lesbians like Evan Hurst, Wayne Besen, Rob Tisinai, Joe Jervis, Pam Spaulding, Jeremy Hooper, Jim Burroway, Timothy Kincaid and the like do not under any circumstances want to be treated equally. They want to be able to play the gay card and do whatever the hell they want, get whatever they want, and silence whoever they want without consequence, responsibility, or criticism.
The evolution of the meaning of “homophobe” is a great example. Before, “homophobe” meant someone who hated gay people. Now it means criticizing attack pieces trashing peoples’ babies, or social workers investigating reports of child sexual abuse, or when the daughter of a conservative politician is doing well on Dancing With the Stars.
“Civility for me, but not for thee; I have the right to defend myself and you don’t.”
Oh, was that what NDT was doing in his thunderously-comical “You called for Michele Bachmann to be banned — BANNED, I say! Banned, banned, banned!” line of attack?
Which was quietly dropped when he was called to produce — um, you know — actual evidence I had ever said that.
But this is a new thread — a thread on civility in our discourse!
The point Dan has basically been trying to make is that we would not treat each other that way if we were interacting face-to-face. I have tried to say the same.
This will, of course, be taken as a cue to dredge up fifty new (out-of-context) quotes “proving” I’ve been mean to NDT.
His biggest problem is that he seems to have hired Obama’s spin doctors to prove his case. Try this lead balloon first, and then try that one.
“You know, ILC, it is rather unfortunate that the gay left is willing to sell out their liberty, prosperity, and security just for a pat on the head from the people who will take those things away from them.”
Yes, I’m still hearing, from my friends, that we had to elect Greg Stanton mayor of Phoenix because he marched in the Pride parade.
He was a longtime city councilman, which — I explained to them — was the reason I was NOT voting for him. In the fifth largest city in the country, one must migrate out to the suburban hinterlands to find a job. People like Stanton think the city is run well because of the high rate at which it forces taxpayers (and tourists) to subsidize the arts.
There’s vacant space in nearly every commercial building. But he loves us! He loves us! He marched in our parade!
“The point Dan has basically been trying to make is that we would not treat each other that way if we were interacting face-to-face. I have tried to say the same.”
I like to think I’d be just like I am on the net as I’d be IRL. 🙂
Yup.
Yes, I should leave and let the ranting go on without me. But all should remember that I am a writer, too, with a reputation to think of.
Interesting observation sort of related to this suggestion. Our local paper (the local south Jersey paper, as opposed to the larger Philly papers which are also nearby) recently switched it’s comments forum on the articles from a separate registration system where people could post anonymously to a Facebook commenting system. Since then comments on the articles have all but disappeared. Before the transition, the vitriol was quite pronounced. Correlation does not equal causation of course, but I have read other articles online about how requiring non-anonymous, by name registrations does tend to significantly reduce the bile on internet forums. I’ve noticed the same trend on Slate.com and some other sites. I think a lot of us are willing to say things online that we wouldn’t say to a person’s face in a social setting. Like that old New Yorker cartoon. 🙂
Very interesting Neptune, I have mentioned this to others!
ND30 … More is on the line with one’s reputation when they link their internet activity to their real life identity. Lori and I have been open about our names and the cities we live in among other details (which you can find in addition to pictures of myself on FB as well as the Internet in general). Someone conducting themselves rather anonymously (outside of the city they live in as well as having met the acquaintance of some on this site) has less to lose, giving them more liberty to act any way they want. Finding out who I am is quite simple, so I take offense when I’m misrepresented and/or the object of libel.
Like I already said, I would like to work out our differences, would you?
#85 – “by name registrations does tend to significantly reduce the bile on internet forums”
Who wants to have insane left wingers showing up in front of their house to protest a comment made on the blog of their local paper? Or worse yet, insane left wingers following their kids around because they make a post supporting a conservative?