Gay Patriot Header Image

Once again, a plea for civility in the comments

My most recent post on the Grenell matter should have been an occasion for our readers to consider yet again the most unreported story in the gay media  — and indeed a social phenomenon that only receives passing notice even in the conservative press, that of the of strong intolerance among certain liberals toward people like us, gay conservatives.

Indeed, there are liberal hate sites whose bitter, negative bloggers devote the better part of their time to leveling personal attacks on conservatives, reserving a particular venom for right-of-center gays who do not toe the “equality” party line.

Given how regularly these sites misrepresented my arguments, I haven’t checked them since George W. Bush was president.

Unfortunately, it seems that some of our readers, on both side of the political aisle, have stooped to the level of the hate bloggers in leveling personal attacks on others who have chimed in, offering opposing points of view.  In recent days, I have been checking the comments section less and less frequently.  And when I do, it often feels foreign to me as if it’s part of the blog entirely independent of its bloggers.

So, once again, I ask, readers, please keep the comments civil.  You diminish the quality of your own arguments, making your case far less compelling, when you make assumptions about or level ad hominem attacks against your ideological adversaries.

And all this in a post about the hateful, mean-spirited attacks a prominent gay conservative received.  Those on the left help make my point while those on the right diminish theirs.

Share

61 Comments

  1. Rule of thumb : I ignore all comments after the 25th posting. Discouraging.

    Comment by TnnsNE1 — May 31, 2012 @ 12:26 pm - May 31, 2012

  2. Unfortunately, it seems that some of our readers, on both side of the political aisle, have stooped to the level of the hate bloggers in leveling personal attacks on others who have chimed in, offering opposing points of view.

    Like hell I have.

    I have not called people Nazis and said that they want to sell other people to be murdered in exchange for money like James did.

    I have not stated that liberals look to invade and destroy other countries for the sheer hell of it like James did.

    I haven’t gone around trying to out people for the sole purpose of getting them fired like Mike Rogers and John Aravosis did.

    I haven’t been comparing people to the worst traitors in history like Vidkun Quisling, or saying that they are race traitors/turncoats who are looking to get other people killed as did the kapos in the Nazi concentration camps like Joe Jervis, Michelangelo Signorile, and Pam Spaulding do.

    I haven’t been telling people I hope their child dies of SIDS like bigot Joe Jervis said to Mary Cheney.

    I haven’t been telling people that the best thing they could do and the only way they could please their parents is to kill themselves, or call for them to be dragged behind a pickup truck and killed because of their political affiliation like Obama-endorsed community leader Dan Savage does for Republicans.

    And I certainly haven’t posted anything like that posted by the bigots Evan Hurst and Wayne Besen.

    And yet I’m getting lectured about being “civil”?

    Bullsh*t. Utter bullsh*t.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 31, 2012 @ 12:33 pm - May 31, 2012

  3. Also NDT, and to the best of my knowledge:

    – You don’t go to a blog thread remembering a public figure (and friend of that particular blog) who just died, and insistently slander the dead man as his opponents had in his life.

    – You don’t attempt to reveal personal info about other commentors, that they haven’t previously volunteered on the blog in some way.

    Both of which I’ve seen a certain left-leaning commentor do on GP, this year. As stated before, we don’t always agree… but, I have to admit when you have a point. Including when certain “civil” people who may complain about your words, are actually rather worse than you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2012 @ 1:06 pm - May 31, 2012

  4. Well, this is just too funny.

    Comment by Kevin — May 31, 2012 @ 2:30 pm - May 31, 2012

  5. In recent days, I have been checking the comments section less and less frequently. And when I do, it often feels foreign to me as if it’s part of the blog entirely independent of its bloggers.

    You’re right. Ever think there might be a correlation? Seriously Dan, a sheriff that leaves town for a month with no one in charge has only himself to blame for the crimes committed in his absence.

    Comment by Serenity — May 31, 2012 @ 4:52 pm - May 31, 2012

  6. I disagree that ad hominems detract from a valid point. They distract from it, but if you have a point, you have a point. I’ve said before that I disagree with North Dallas Thirty’s method of making his points. He makes some excellent points, but I think some of his rhetoric overshadows them. Having said that, he is absolutely correct in comment #2. I don’t recall him ever saying anything that comes close to what some leftists have said, not only about gay conservatives, but also about female conservatives, black conservatives, and conservatives in general.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 31, 2012 @ 5:09 pm - May 31, 2012

  7. Dan, this used to be one of my favorite sites. I seldom commented, but I was here on a daily basis. The comments were often as good as or better than the original post. But North Dallas Thirty has trashed the place unnecessarily. This is no longer a stimulating site; it is no longer fun. Whenever ND30 posts, things go straight to h@ll from there. Sorry, ban the bum and things will improve immediately! My 2 cents, for what it’s worth.

    Comment by jwxford — May 31, 2012 @ 5:34 pm - May 31, 2012

  8. a sheriff that leaves town for a month with no one in charge has only himself to blame for the crimes committed in his absence

    “Only himself?” What an illustration of left-wing philosophy. ‘Offenders aren’t responsible for their offenses; lax authorities are.’ Thank you, Pomposity. You just defended NDT… left-wing style. I’m thanking you for the entertainment value. It’s your moment of consistency and I bow to it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2012 @ 6:08 pm - May 31, 2012

  9. 7.Dan, this used to be one of my favorite sites. I seldom commented, but I was here on a daily basis. The comments were often as good as or better than the original post. But North Dallas Thirty has trashed the place unnecessarily. This is no longer a stimulating site; it is no longer fun. Whenever ND30 posts, things go straight to h@ll from there. Sorry, ban the bum and things will improve immediately! My 2 cents, for what it’s worth.

    Comment by jwxford — May 31, 2012 @ 5:34 pm – May 31, 2012

    LOL.

    What do you consider an “improvement”, jwxford?

    Is it comments calling all conservatives and Republicans Nazis who want to kill gays?

    Or maybe the ones calling gay conservatives kapos and traitors to the Nazis?

    Or maybe ones telling gay conservatives to kill themselves?

    Must be. After all, we didn’t see you having one of your public fainting spells demanding that so-and-so be banned because they were ruining your experience, or that bigots like Evan Hurst and Wayne Besen who posted this sort of thing about Dan were causing problems.

    Isn’t that funny, jwxford? The only thing you consider “civil” are posts attacking conservatives and telling them to kill themselves, and the only thing you get upset about are conservatives who are exposing the fact.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 31, 2012 @ 6:12 pm - May 31, 2012

  10. “Only himself?” What an illustration of left-wing philosophy. ‘Offenders aren’t responsible for their offenses; lax authorities are.’ Thank you, Pomposity. You just defended NDT… left-wing style. I’m thanking you for the entertainment value. It’s your moment of consistency and I bow to it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2012 @ 6:08 pm – May 31, 2012

    Exactly, ILC.

    Stupidity and its fellow screaming racist bigots tried exactly that tack last year when they started torching stores and stealing from people in the UK — they blamed everyone else but themselves for their violent and criminal behavior.

    Moreover, what does screaming Stupidity do when it’s actually disciplined? Whine and cry that it’s being “repressed” and how “unfair” it is that it isn’t allowed to rampage.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 31, 2012 @ 6:16 pm - May 31, 2012

  11. Good luck, Dan, on your new call for civility. But, as you have just seen in this thread, pleaing for civility isn’t going to work. Unfortunately, it looks like you are going to have to be more proactive. Yes, people should be expected to behave like civil, rational adults. But the worst offenders have their own rules of civility, and feel justified when they poison a thread. Again, you yourself got a taste of that. Nice, right?

    Rattlesnake, my guess is Dan has higher standards for civility. If someone hasn’t done A, B, C, etc., but instead continuously does D, E, F, even if the latter may not be as bad, I think it’s reasonable for Dan to ask that the former and the latter do not occur.

    Comment by Pat — May 31, 2012 @ 6:46 pm - May 31, 2012

  12. Pat, my new call? Rather, it’s my renewed call; I’ve been making this pitch at least since May 2005.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 31, 2012 @ 7:19 pm - May 31, 2012

  13. “Only himself?” What an illustration of left-wing philosophy.

    What? Individual responsibility? In my analogy, the sheriff is responsible for law and order in his town. On this blog, Bruce and Dan are responsible for enforcing civil conduct on their blog. If they choose not do so, the consequences are nobody’s fault but their own.

    ‘Offenders aren’t responsible for their offenses; lax authorities are.’

    Oh give me a break. If a wild mob is running riot, smashing windows and burning buildings, whose responsibility is it to stop them? Who do we ask to bring them to justice? Who do we expect to stop it from happening again?

    Oh wait, someone is already going on about those riots that I had nothing to do with and did not approve of (yet again). A perfect example nonetheless…

    Even in the most libertarian society, you still have police and a justice system to make sure what laws are in place are more than just a few pieces of paper. When mob rule takes hold, lax authorities are to blame. Offenders are responsible for their actions, but law enforcement is responsible for bringing them to justice and attempting to maintain the peace. You should know that even better than me, so stop being so disingenuous about it.

    Comment by Serenity — May 31, 2012 @ 7:24 pm - May 31, 2012

  14. Pat, my new call? Rather, it’s my renewed call; I’ve been making this pitch at least since May 2005.

    Oh dear. I’m sorry Dan, but that’s just sad. I’ve not been here anywhere near that long, and I’ve noticed a marked decline in the quality of discourse here even in that short time, making it more than obvious that your calls for civility have fallen on deaf ears. You’re going to need to try something else if you’re actually serious about this.

    Comment by Serenity — May 31, 2012 @ 7:28 pm - May 31, 2012

  15. I can hear the Helen Reddy song: I am man, hear me roar.

    Comment by davinci — May 31, 2012 @ 7:31 pm - May 31, 2012

  16. I encourage Dans to heed jwxford’s sound advice. God speed, BDB.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 31, 2012 @ 7:53 pm - May 31, 2012

  17. Rattlesnake, my guess is Dan has higher standards for civility. If someone hasn’t done A, B, C, etc., but instead continuously does D, E, F, even if the latter may not be as bad, I think it’s reasonable for Dan to ask that the former and the latter do not occur.

    Of course. It’s his blog, and he can do what he wants with it.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 31, 2012 @ 7:54 pm - May 31, 2012

  18. I encourage Dans to heed jwxford’s sound advice. God speed, BDB.

    If Dan bans North Dallas Thirty, I would encourage him to ban a few other people as well, for what it’s worth.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 31, 2012 @ 8:11 pm - May 31, 2012

  19. Rule of thumb : I ignore all comments from Serenity, Cinesnatch, Levi or Cas

    Also works.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2012 @ 8:26 pm - May 31, 2012

  20. Dan, yes, I meant “renewed” as you stated.

    Rattlesnake, agreed, it’s Dan and Bruce’s blog, and they ultimately decide how they want to handle this.

    Comment by Pat — May 31, 2012 @ 9:11 pm - May 31, 2012

  21. ND30, who’s having public vapors here? I know the comments from Joe Jervis and the readers of his blog, Joe.My.God. I read it every day. In fact, I have been a fan of his blog longer than I have here. Does he go too far in his dislike and contempt of conservatives? Yes. But he’s a LIBERAL, and I know what to expect when I go to his blog. I either make the decision to put up with it or go on about my business. As to Dan Savage, I hated his comments about conservatives and really wanted to pop him upside the head for that, because I respect him TREMENDOUSLY for the other work that he does. But again, he is a LIBERAL, and I know what I am getting when I read his material.

    As for this place, it is supposed to be a conservative site. But this blog, like HuffPo and many others, is infested with idiots, yes, I’ll repeat myself, idiots, who do not know how to have civil disagreement. Instead, and if the pump fits Cinderella, please wear it, you and people like you destroy the civil discourse of the forum by painting with such a broad brush as to make yourself look ludicrous. Who are you to judge me and ask whether I had public feinting spells about so and so and such and such? I stated plainly I seldom comment, here or elsewhere. You will find no record of what position I have on any issue, other than what I posted earlier this afternoon. But because I disagree with you ever so slightly, you must accuse me of supporting Nazism, self-immolation, and cruelty to our hosts. That is NOT civil discourse. You do not know how to argue your point without personal insult, character assassination and outright lies. That sounds like an “Obama-party” tactic to me!

    I’ll use your term right back atcha big boy: BULLSH!T!!!

    Dan, I am sorry for commenting unwisely here. I promise this will be the only time I respond to this idiot. But I re-state my position: ban the bum, and the tone of the conversation will improve tremendously.

    Comment by jwxford — May 31, 2012 @ 9:14 pm - May 31, 2012

  22. Oh dear. I’m sorry Dan, but that’s just sad. I’ve not been here anywhere near that long, and I’ve noticed a marked decline in the quality of discourse here even in that short time, making it more than obvious that your calls for civility have fallen on deaf ears.

    Comment by Serenity — May 31, 2012 @ 7:28 pm – May 31, 2012

    Yes, isn’t that interesting? Why, it’s almost as if over that time period, we’ve had a commenter whose sole purpose in being here was to antagonize everyone as much as possible and be uncivil.

    Oh, that’s right — we did.

    If you think I’m enjoying this, I am. A lot. No matter who wins the next election, everyone else in this thread will have multiple reasons to hate them. As for me, I stopped caring about two months ago. Makes very little difference to me either way, so I intend to antagonize all of you as much as possible and have some fun.

    Comment by Serenity — November 5, 2011 @ 6:40 am – November 5, 2011

    And isn’t it odd? Pat, jwxford, and the other self-appointed Global Guardians of Civility can find all day to go after every other commenter and post with their Finger-Wag of Justice, complaining about how threads are being “poisoned” and how the blog is going “straight to h@ll” — except for the commenter who is clearly and directly stating that their reason for posting is to be uncivil and to antagonize others.

    So that then leads us to this.

    You’re going to need to try something else if you’re actually serious about this.

    Comment by Serenity — May 31, 2012 @ 7:28 pm – May 31, 2012

    Why, what an interesting idea.

    So what do you think, Serenity? What should be done to a commenter who has publicly stated that their sole purpose in coming here and commenting is to antagonize others and be uncivil?

    The Global Guardians of Civility seem to be all up for banning people. How about that, Serenity? Would you agree that commenters who have said on record that their sole purpose in coming here is to antagonize others and be uncivil should be banned?

    How about you, Global Guardians of Civility Pat, jwxford, and Cinesnatch? Since you’re all so into banning, certainly you would support banning a commenter who has said on record, with links, that their sole purpose in coming here is to antagonize others and be uncivil, right?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 31, 2012 @ 9:46 pm - May 31, 2012

  23. NDT, once again, your assumptions about me are not based on reality.

    Comment by Pat — May 31, 2012 @ 9:51 pm - May 31, 2012

  24. Usually I wouldn’t respond to North Dallas Thirty. But since this is a special occasion:

    Would you agree that commenters who have said on record that their sole purpose in coming here is to antagonize others and be uncivil should be banned?

    Depends on what they do next, a person should be judged on their actions. But I would say that the person you should first consider is whoever is trying to shift the focus onto others.

    Comment by Serenity — May 31, 2012 @ 9:59 pm - May 31, 2012

  25. 1.Rule of thumb : I ignore all comments after the 25th posting. Discouraging.

    I guess this will be the last post TnnsNE1 will see. 🙂

    Comment by Pat — May 31, 2012 @ 10:12 pm - May 31, 2012

  26. As for this place, it is supposed to be a conservative site. But this blog, like HuffPo and many others, is infested with idiots, yes, I’ll repeat myself, idiots, who do not know how to have civil disagreement.

    Comment by jwxford — May 31, 2012 @ 9:14 pm – May 31, 2012

    And let’s post a great example of what you consider “civil disagreement” and “respect” for Bruce and Dan.

    Note the “Quisling” tag — comparing Bruce and Dan to Vidkun Quisling, the puppet dictator of Norway who sold Jews and other undesirables to the Nazis to be executed — and the “kapos” tag, comparing them to Jews who sold other Jews to the Nazis to be executed.

    And just look at that comment thread, full of what you consider to be intelligent, rational people who know how to have civil disagreement, certainly not “idiots”.

    And then that leads us to this:

    Who are you to judge me and ask whether I had public feinting spells about so and so and such and such?

    Because if you want to get all huffy about what I say, you might expect me to ask for some examples to demonstrate that you’re actually standing up for principles of civility.

    But, since you’re blathering about what a fan of Joe Jervis and Dan Savage you are and how they’re so awesome and stuff, I think the point has been made that you don’t really care about civility at all, given how you outright endorse and support “Nazism, self-immolation, and cruelty to our hosts” being preached by your buddy-buds Jervis and Savage.

    Of course, we all know what would happen to you if you were ever to criticize Joe Jervis or Dan Savage or any of their commenters on those sites, so it’s no surprise that you sublimate and project that rage and impotence here in a far-friendlier and kinder environment to try to shut people up. But frankly, those like yourself who worship Joe Jervis and Dan Savage have essentially put themselves out of the business of being able to judge others’ “civility”, and into the business of being outright hypocrites.

    Meanwhile, as I pointed out, you won’t even ban your fellow Jervis-worshipers like Pomposity who outright state their GOAL is to antagonize and be uncivil here. Could you make it any more obvious what an unprincipled, hatemongering bigot you are?

    Finally, I was here defending Dan FROM Jervis while you were clapping and cheering FOR Jervis. I was here when your little bigot friends Mike Rogers and John Aravosis tried to destroy Bruce’s career. I have stood up for both of them across the blogosphere while you were sitting there begging for scraps and clapping wildly for the Massa Jervis and the Massa Savage comparing both Bruce and Dan to some of the most despicable people in history.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 31, 2012 @ 10:22 pm - May 31, 2012

  27. Usually I wouldn’t respond to North Dallas Thirty. But since this is a special occasion:

    Yup.

    If you think I’m enjoying this, I am. A lot. No matter who wins the next election, everyone else in this thread will have multiple reasons to hate them. As for me, I stopped caring about two months ago. Makes very little difference to me either way, so I intend to antagonize all of you as much as possible and have some fun.

    Comment by Serenity — November 5, 2011 @ 6:40 am – November 5, 2011

    Next:

    Depends on what they do next, a person should be judged on their actions. But I would say that the person you should first consider is whoever is trying to shift the focus onto others.

    Comment by Serenity — May 31, 2012 @ 9:59 pm – May 31, 2012

    Yup.

    If you think I’m enjoying this, I am. A lot. No matter who wins the next election, everyone else in this thread will have multiple reasons to hate them. As for me, I stopped caring about two months ago. Makes very little difference to me either way, so I intend to antagonize all of you as much as possible and have some fun.

    Comment by Serenity — November 5, 2011 @ 6:40 am – November 5, 2011

    Pomposity attacks and tries to shift the focus about “civility” to others even as it openly acknowledges that its only purpose in posting is to antagonize people and be uncivil.

    And in the process, making complete fools out of the Global Guardians of Civility, whose Finger-Wag of Justice apparently is closed for repairs.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 31, 2012 @ 10:30 pm - May 31, 2012

  28. I encourage Dans to heed jwxford’s sound advice.

    **In that case**, Cinesnatch, you must promptly ban yourself – if you are not a complete fraud. Because your behavior on this blog has been worse than NDT’s. Please see comment #3 (written with you in mind). Please go now and never return, **as Bruce himself has already suggested you do, on past occasions**.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2012 @ 10:31 pm - May 31, 2012

  29. NDT, once again, your assumptions about me are not based on reality.

    Comment by Pat — May 31, 2012 @ 9:51 pm – May 31, 2012

    Oh, but they are, Pat.

    I have provided proof that Serenity, by its own admittance, is only here to antagonize and harass people.

    And we have you here smugly pushing for “proactive measures”, i.e. banning, against people who “have their own rules of civility, and feel justified when they poison a thread”.

    And yet, when said evidence is presented to you that one of your fellow Obama supporters and NDT haters openly admits it is being DELIBERATELY antagonistic and uncivil and IS going around and poisoning threads…..suddenly the Finger-Wag of Justice goes flat, the calls for banning go silent, and you go running away.

    Question, Pat: since you want people banned for supposedly being antagonistic and violating “civility”….why won’t you call for the banning of someone who openly and directly states that their goal is to antagonize people and be uncivil?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 31, 2012 @ 10:38 pm - May 31, 2012

  30. Wow, just WOW!!! I had no idea I was such a nasty person!!!

    So now I also have an amateur psychologist telling me that I have rage and impotence issues! WOW!! My Mama would be so surprised!

    Anyway, good night everyone! I hope you enjoyed the floor show. The inmates will be returned to their cells shortly.

    Comment by jwxford — May 31, 2012 @ 10:42 pm - May 31, 2012

  31. NDT, please refer to my comment in 23. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — May 31, 2012 @ 11:13 pm - May 31, 2012

  32. Wow, just WOW!!! I had no idea I was such a nasty person!!!

    Comment by jwxford — May 31, 2012 @ 10:42 pm – May 31, 2012

    Oh, I know. People like you and your friends over at Joe Jervis’s site who call Bruce and Dan quislings and kapos and make remarks about how ugly and stupid they are quite honestly get swept up in the fervor of the moment and quite often manage to rationalize their behavior with thoughts of the camaraderie and acceptance that they feel as they’re bashing.

    But you’re still calling them ugly and stupid traitors, Nazis, and people who sold Jews to the death camps — all because they vote differently and have ideas that are different than yours.

    Here’s a thought: since you’re all about civility and are slowly coming to the realization that calling gay conservatives Nazis and assorted things is a bad and uncivil practice, why not try to make Joe Jervis’s and Dan Savage’s websites better places by speaking out against THEIR incivility?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 31, 2012 @ 11:25 pm - May 31, 2012

  33. …the Global Guardians of Civility, whose Finger-Wag of Justice…

    Heh 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2012 @ 12:12 am - June 1, 2012

  34. This thread seems to be falling into the normal pattern. More than half of the thread (as measured by word count) is taken up by North Dallas Thirty, bogging the whole thread down because no one wants to respond to him. Seriously, look at his response to my post. How the hell am I supposed to respond to it? 90% of it is old quotes from me reposted at me, there’s not enough original content to respond to.

    That’s the problem. I can deal with annoying, stupid, even offensive content. But ND30 is the lack of content, everything he says is a reposted repost. That’s the reason I started blanking the guy, I can only respond to the same post so many times.

    Also, I just noticed. The title of his blog. Just beneath is the quote “Yes…..yes….your anguish sustains me.”, which sounds awfully similar to my own (supposedly famous) quote “I intend to antagonize all of you as much as possible and have some fun”.

    He’s me. Except without original content. Who wants that?

    Comment by Serenity — June 1, 2012 @ 12:22 am - June 1, 2012

  35. Oh, and the other pattern of course. Dan calls for civility, so we all strive to make this the most bitter, horrible, vitriolic thread we have ever created! Come on people! Let’s break our old record! I know we can do it!

    Comment by Serenity — June 1, 2012 @ 12:26 am - June 1, 2012

  36. This thread seems to be falling into the normal pattern. More than half of the thread (as measured by word count) is taken up by North Dallas Thirty, bogging the whole thread down because no one wants to respond to him. Seriously, look at his response to my post.

    Comment by Serenity — June 1, 2012 @ 12:22 am – June 1, 2012

    LOL.

    But I would say that the person you should first consider is whoever is trying to shift the focus onto others.

    Comment by Serenity — May 31, 2012 @ 9:59 pm – May 31, 2012

    And as a reminder, Serenity, who is bawling and whining and complaining about “civility” and not antagonizing other people, has started unequivocally:

    If you think I’m enjoying this, I am. A lot. No matter who wins the next election, everyone else in this thread will have multiple reasons to hate them. As for me, I stopped caring about two months ago. Makes very little difference to me either way, so I intend to antagonize all of you as much as possible and have some fun.

    Comment by Serenity — November 5, 2011 @ 6:40 am – November 5, 2011

    And let’s recap:

    1) Serenity insists that being antagonistic and uncivil towards others is a violation of the rules of the blog

    2) Serenity insists that those who violate the rules should be banned

    3) Serenity, by its own admittance, is here solely to be antagonistic and uncivil toward others.

    If that is the case, then Serenity must ban itself — or acknowledge that it is a complete fraud.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 1, 2012 @ 12:51 am - June 1, 2012

  37. As the author of comments #3 and #28, I want to make clear that I do not really ask Cinesnatch to leave, or for him or anybody to be banned. It’s not my place.

    This is Bruce and Dan’s house. If they are willing to suffer anyone whom I happen not to care for, it’s not for me to question. That is how I feel about every other commentor here, left or right, “civil” or not. I recommend that attitude for everyone. We’re all just guests at a party. Fights may break out among us, like they do among guys at straight bars. Fine. But it’s not for us to either (1) deride our hosts, or (2) question our hosts’ taste in religion, decor, booze, or… guests.

    Cinesnatch took a different view: that a certain someone should be banned. I merely point out in a hypothetical fashion that under his standard, he should ban himself. Since Cinesnatch has, at times, behaved worse on this blog than that person ever has.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2012 @ 2:12 am - June 1, 2012

  38. 1) Serenity insists that being antagonistic and uncivil towards others is a violation of the rules of the blog

    No, Bruce and Dan have insisted this is the case. I’m not sure I believe either of them.

    2) Serenity insists that those who violate the rules should be banned

    I insist that if Bruce and Dan intend for their rules to be anything other than empty words, then they’re going to have to start banning people who repeatedly ignore them. At the moment I for one see Bruce as a paper tiger and Dan as just out of his depth.

    3) Serenity, by its own admittance, is here solely to be antagonistic and uncivil toward others.

    If either Bruce or Dan think that constitutes a violation of their rules, then they know what they must do. I’m not deluding myself into thinking any of this chatter is productive or meaningful, I’m just here to enjoy myself.

    Also, I admitted I am here to antagonize. I did not say I intend to be uncivil. I consider there to be a difference.

    If that is the case, then Serenity must ban itself — or acknowledge that it is a complete fraud.

    I cannot self-terminate, since this is not my blog.

    Comment by Serenity — June 1, 2012 @ 3:18 am - June 1, 2012

  39. Actually, Serenity, one can ban oneself. If any one of us doesn’t like the rules, doesn’t like the rules being enforced fairly or otherwise, we are free to leave and never come back.

    Comment by Pat — June 1, 2012 @ 6:30 am - June 1, 2012

  40. Was looking back at some of the recent posts on civility. . .

    came across this

    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/04/17/conservative-superhero/

    short comment section

    Comment by rusty — June 1, 2012 @ 10:22 am - June 1, 2012

  41. I said I was not going to respond to NDXXX, but I just have to.

    In all honesty, do enjoy being mean? Are you this nasty in person? Are you this repulsive in real life? You do understand that you will NEVER get anyone to agree with you when you take this tack of personal insult?

    You accuse me of agreeing with and having friends at Jervis’ site, yet I plainly stated that I HAVE NO COMMENT RECORD anywhere, other than what I have put here. You must really consider yourself a good Christian to bear false witness so very freely.

    I don’t know you personally, and from what I see, I really don’t want to. Your online persona is vile, repulsive, arrogant, mean and probably the most disruptive force on this blog. How do you actually maintain any friendships or relationships in real life when you have this type of personality?

    Anyway, I’m done here. I’ll let the blatherer blather, and move on to more productive things. Good day, everyone!

    Comment by jwxford — June 1, 2012 @ 12:02 pm - June 1, 2012

  42. […] that the media, particularly the gay media, seem intent on ignoring.  As I put it yesterday in my post on civility: My most recent post on the Grenell matter should have been an occasion for our readers to […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Media silence on liberal intolerance of gay conservatives — June 1, 2012 @ 1:40 pm - June 1, 2012

  43. Ah, jwxford, you amuse me.

    In all honesty, do enjoy being mean? Are you this nasty in person? Are you this repulsive in real life? You do understand that you will NEVER get anyone to agree with you when you take this tack of personal insult?…….

    I don’t know you personally, and from what I see, I really don’t want to. Your online persona is vile, repulsive, arrogant, mean and probably the most disruptive force on this blog. How do you actually maintain any friendships or relationships in real life when you have this type of personality?

    Comment by jwxford — June 1, 2012 @ 12:02 pm – June 1, 2012

    Well, let’s see; Joe Jervis, GLAAD award in hand, calls conservatives and Republicans Nazis and insists that they want to kill all gays, DIRECTLY attacks Dan and Bruce and calls them traitors who want to sell gays to be imprisoned and murdered, and practices some of the worst anti-religious bigotry around, and what do you say?

    I know the comments from Joe Jervis and the readers of his blog, Joe.My.God. I read it every day. In fact, I have been a fan of his blog longer than I have here.

    Comment by jwxford — May 31, 2012 @ 9:14 pm – May 31, 2012

    Meanwhile, Dan Savage, fresh off his soiree with Barack Obama, screams for Republicans to be murdered and bullys Christian teens — you in that same thread gush about how you “respect him TREMENDOUSLY”.

    To summarize, both Dan Savage and Joe Jervis, who engage in behavior that by normal definition is vile, repulsive, arrogant, mean and disruptive are receiving national awards and acclaim and are being hailed as leaders of the gay and lesbian community, which shows quite clearly that thousands upon thousands of people agree with them.

    And on a personal level, you yourself are saying that you “respect (them) TREMENDOUSLY”, how you read their stuff every day, and how you’ve been a fan of theirs longer than you’ve been one here.

    In short, it’s pretty clear that your beef with me has nothing to do with my behavior, given that you “respect” and are a “fan” of people who consistently and demonstrably do far worse. Instead of simply being honest and demand that Dan ban me because you don’t like me, you had to try to create a trumped-up case of “civility” charges.

    Which, ironically, has now served only to demonstrate that yours and Pat’s and Cinesnatch’s definitions of “civility” can even include Nazi comparisons, calling Bruce and Dan ugly and stupid, and saying that all conservatives should be murdered if it’s someone you “respect” or of whom you are a “fan”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 1, 2012 @ 3:26 pm - June 1, 2012

  44. NDT, re your last paragraph, please see post 23. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — June 1, 2012 @ 3:48 pm - June 1, 2012

  45. Here’s a thought, Pat; why don’t you and the Global Guardians of Civility go practice the Finger-Wag of Justice, since you can’t seem to use it without hitting yourselves in the face?

    Or maybe you could head back to the planet Etircopyh to rewrite your great Code of Civility to restate that the definition is now based on whether we like you or not versus what you’re actually doing. That way you won’t end up in places like this demanding that someone be banned, only to slink away when one of your own members is caught posting to the effect that their whole point in commenting is to be antagonistic and uncivil.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 1, 2012 @ 4:19 pm - June 1, 2012

  46. Actually, Serenity, one can ban oneself.

    No, what you’re talking about is self-exile, something I’m so bad as that I recently asked an admin to ban me from an IRC network (actually not just asked, but also insulted and threatened to make sure they know it wasn’t a joke).

    I do derive a sort of warm pleasure from the feeling that there may well be a list of permanent klines somewhere on OFTC with mine standing out as the only one with “Reason: User request” in it.

    If any one of us doesn’t like the rules, doesn’t like the rules being enforced fairly or otherwise, we are free to leave and never come back.

    As I stated, I’m not sure there are any rules to speak of. Hence my intention to remain until some are enforced, fairly or otherwise.

    Comment by Serenity — June 1, 2012 @ 10:10 pm - June 1, 2012

  47. NDT, I have NEVER called for you to be banned. Please cease that lie. Frankly, I really don’t care how uncivil you are. That’s up to Dan and Bruce, and you were called out on your incivility as it turns out. I am asking you to leave me out of your rants, and at the very least to stop making assumptions about me not based on reality. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — June 1, 2012 @ 11:03 pm - June 1, 2012

  48. VTK >>

    Rule of thumb : I ignore almost all comments from Serenity, Cinesnatch, Levi or Cas

    FIFY, as you’ve taken the bait from time to time. But, hey, nobody’s perfect.

    ND30 >>

    How about you, Global Guardians of Civility Pat, jwxford, and Cinesnatch?

    Sorry, remember, how you say I have Nazi bareback sex all the time? I’m too busy to respond to you. Sorry, ND30. Heil Hitler!

    ILC>>Tell me when the nightmares stop. I encouraged Dan to heed the advice. I didn’t demand he follow it. In fact, I would be sad if ND30 were to leave. Dan’s daily dose of crazy always puts a smile on my face. Now, rock-a-bye baby, ILC …

    And, I don’t take you very seriously, ILC. (My, how far I’ve come since the death of Breibart merely three months ago.) I encourage you to take the same road. Or, better, yet, don’t. If you want to keep having a horse in that race, please, be my *guest* and continue getting your prescription filled at ND30’s optometrist.

    *kisses*

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 2, 2012 @ 4:43 am - June 2, 2012

  49. NDT, I have NEVER called for you to be banned. Please cease that lie.

    Comment by Pat — June 1, 2012 @ 11:03 pm – June 1, 2012

    Uh huh, right.

    Unfortunately, it looks like you are going to have to be more proactive. Yes, people should be expected to behave like civil, rational adults. But the worst offenders have their own rules of civility, and feel justified when they poison a thread. Again, you yourself got a taste of that. Nice, right?

    Next:

    Frankly, I really don’t care how uncivil you are.

    Comment by Pat — May 31, 2012 @ 6:46 pm – May 31, 2012

    Sour grapes, Pat. You wouldn’t have spent nearly the amount of time making the Finger-Wag of Justice that you have if that were the case.

    The problem is that, given the evidence presented, you would have to use it against your fellow liberals or make it obvious what a complete and total hypocrite you are and how your insistences of “civility” are nothing more than an unprincipled farce.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 2, 2012 @ 11:42 am - June 2, 2012

  50. Nice try, NDT. Your quote doesn’t show anywhere I state that you should be banned.

    And I usually ignore your immoral incivility, except when you include me in your poison.

    Now you can go back being the Finger Wagger in Chief in denial again.

    Comment by Pat — June 2, 2012 @ 11:57 am - June 2, 2012

  51. I encouraged Dan to heed the advice. I didn’t demand he follow it.

    Exactly as I said: you took the position that a certain commentor whose behavior you don’t like, really ought to banned.

    I feel sorry for you, Cinesnatch. It must suck to have people see and acknowledge that, even with all of NDT’s use of ad hominem and your complaints about him, you have actually behaved worse than he, on this blog, and could potentially be a worse human being.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 2, 2012 @ 12:41 pm - June 2, 2012

  52. I don’t take you very seriously, ILC

    LOL 🙂 Then why your fixation with answering me?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 2, 2012 @ 12:43 pm - June 2, 2012

  53. how far I’ve come since the death of Breibart

    Are you saying, Cinesnatch, that you withdraw your previous apologies, for what even you had formerly acknowledged as your inappropriate behavior in that thread?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 2, 2012 @ 1:00 pm - June 2, 2012

  54. (While we’re on the subject: Breitbart was a supporter and friend of this blog here, that you would like to inhabit. I believe Bruce knew Breitbart, because they both served on the board of GOProud. It’s possible, maybe not real likely, but at least possible, that Breitbart’s widow or kids would one day come across Bruce’s thread on their dad’s death and read what GPers had to say. Did you ever think about that? Breitbart’s widow and kids: did you once think about them? I know that you did not. My point is that your apologies all along would have been better placed in the thread, addressed to them.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 2, 2012 @ 1:25 pm - June 2, 2012

  55. Actually, ILC … I’ve only engaged you lately when YOU have brought ME up, as YOU seem to like to make things about ME. Just an observation on how the tables have turned. So, maybe now I’ll stop. We both think we’re hitting the target and are convinced the other isn’t. If you think you’ve proven your points, then tuck that satisfaction in bed with you at night. If you want to suggest ND30 might be a better human being than me, so be it. Just because you suggest it, doesn’t make it so. As with most things that come out of your fingertips.

    But, if you want to submit my comments along with ND30’s to a jury of our peers, feel free. Until then, your editorialization is nothing more than opinion. I’m not the stalwart person you’ve been since I started visiting GP. I’ve gone through a great deal of mistakes/changes and you’ve dutifully noted my inconsistances. In fact, you are one of the reasons I don’t make the same mistakes I used to. I would say Helio, Rusty, Dan, and ND30 have also sharpened by internet commenting senses, for varying reasons.

    As far as beating a dead horse, if I said anything that was inappropriate, Bruce has the power of the edit button and he has used it before. And, considering I wasn’t part of GP when the Shirley Sherrod situation hit, that was my opportunity to share my two cents. And, if you want to bring up his widow and kids, then, yes, I think they should know his actions were unfounded and, if they’re paying attention and know how to read context, they’d also come to conclusion that there wasn’t racism in the video. Perhaps my views will be an educational tool. And you can wear your stubborn defense of Breibart as a badge of honor.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 2, 2012 @ 7:07 pm - June 2, 2012

  56. I’ve only engaged you lately when YOU have brought ME up

    Which flies completely in the face of:

    I’ve only engaged you lately when YOU have brought ME up

    But we already knew that.

    But, if you want to submit my comments along with ND30′s to a jury of our peers

    I love how that illustrates an underlying left-wing philosophical that truth is not objective, rather it is a matter to be voted on.

    [as to] his widow and kids, then, yes, I think they should know [Cinesnatch’s view of Breitbart, i.e., slanders repeated in a thread remembering him]

    And that, Cinesnatch, is a big part of what has taught me to have a low opinion of you.

    I have met both you and NDT. No, I don’t think you are as good a person as he is. I disapprove of some of his comments: whether because I don’t agree with his position (as in disagreement), or because I think he went too heavy on the ad hominem that time. But I approve of him. And in terms of blog behavior, whatever NDT’s problems may be, he has yet to sink to your level.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 2, 2012 @ 8:28 pm - June 2, 2012

  57. Haha, I blew my own lede. Try again:

    I’ve only engaged you lately when YOU have brought ME up

    Flies in the face of:

    I don’t take you very seriously, ILC

    If you don’t take me seriously, then don’t respond to me ever.

    Just like: if you seriously think that a certain commentor should be banned, then start by banning yourself. As Bruce has suggested you do in the past.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 2, 2012 @ 8:31 pm - June 2, 2012

  58. I mean, seriously, Cinesnatch:

    And, considering I wasn’t part of GP when the Shirley Sherrod situation hit, that was my opportunity to share my two cents.

    That’s your new excuse for the dishonest, vile way you behaved in that thread? That when you were a little boy (so to speak), you never got quite enough chance to mouth off about about the Sherrod matter?

    Lying about a newly dead man, insistently for 170+ comments, is just how any reasonable person would “shar[e] [their] two cents”? Seriously?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 3, 2012 @ 2:19 am - June 3, 2012

  59. Your responses are saddening, ILC. I think from here on out, I’ll disengage. Have a nice life.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 3, 2012 @ 5:44 am - June 3, 2012

  60. Translation: You know I’m right, but can’t admit it. Your earlier “apology” is either cancelled now, or was a fake all along.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 4, 2012 @ 1:09 am - June 4, 2012

  61. Just to clean up the record… I never want to confront someone like this, without being sure of my facts. So I went and checked Breitbart’s memorial thread. Was it like I remembered? Yes, it was. Breitbart was a man of tremendous integrity, and Cinesnatch smeared him as not having any. As Cinesnatch put it back then:

    I’ve determined to depict him [Breitbart] as disingenuous and lack [sic] integrity.

    “I’ve determined to depict him” – what an interesting phrase. When person X truly is thing Y, you don’t need to “depict” him that way. You merely point to the facts. You “determine to depict” him as thing Y, when you know on some level that he isn’t really that… when you know that you are engaging in political spin, not something honest. In other words: Cinesnatch, you knew you were lying about Breitbart. I tell you once more: Whatever NDT’s offenses may be, he has yet to practice your kind of incivility.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 4, 2012 @ 12:02 pm - June 4, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.