Another personage at Gay Patriot has weighed in on the side of righteousness, apple pie and all that’s holy. Throbert McGee – who is frequently funny, but who just as frequently comes across as a pompous and self-impressed twit – has informed J “Man” and I that we are “shitting on the carpet and raping the dog” because of our longstanding commentary feud.
As I don’t care any more about what Throbert McGee thinks than I do what J “Man” thinks, this would scarcely qualify as consequential. Except that it nudges me forward on the path I’d already begun to consider inevitable.
Gay Patriot is, essentially, an Amen Corner. It’s every blog’s right to be what its bloggers want it to be. I’m not sure Dan or Bruce ever intended it to become an Amen Corner, but that is what it has become. Most of the commenters are comfortable with that. Readers who don’t like it are free to leave – and, once they’ve had their fill of it, they do.
Why bother going there to comment anymore? I will change no one’s mind. Those who agree with many of my opinions have already come to enjoy Born on 9-11. Many of the posts at Gay Patriot are still very worth reading, but commenting on them is a largely fruitless experience.
No blogger should need to “shit on the carpet or rape the dog” on anybody’s blog in order to get people interested in her/his own blog. I have better things to do with my time, and as nearly every comment I register there is now challenged, it has become virtually impossible to say anything without getting into a fight.
The rabid attacks only underscore what statism does to its minions. Many of the commenters at Gay Patriot are very anxious to prove themselves “good gays.” They obviously feel dirty and guilty about being gay in the first place. Thus must there be “bad gays” against whom they can continually contrast themselves.
I suppose I get to be a “bad gay,” because I frequently fail to mindlessly bobble-head every opinion the “good gays” express. As I don’t buy into such crap, I don’t care. They are straining to prove themselves to people who cannot stand them, wish their destruction and regard their efforts to please them with contempt. They are welcome to the approval of such people – if they ever get it. They won’t, but that’s their problem, not mine.
I’ve put very little time or effort into this blog, because it ranks very low on the list of projects that occupy me. I’d like to develop it more fully, because I do believe it has the potential to be a relevant and interesting libertarian blog. But there are certainly ways I can do this that don’t involve wasting large amounts of time fighting with people with neurotic compulsions.
I welcome the readers and commenters who found this blog via Gay Patriot. They can still reach me here, and I sincerely hope they will continue to return. But they certainly don’t need, anymore, to go through Gay Patriot to find me.
The social conservatives at Gay Patriot can’t seem to get over the fact that gay leftists don’t include them in their reindeer games. I have no trouble with most gay leftists – probably because it isn’t libertarianism most of them have a problem with, but social conservatism. As I have a problem with the same thing, though there are plenty of matters upon which I disagree with leftists, I’ve experienced very little social discomfort.
I’ve never lost a date because of my political views, and I almost always fit in well at parties. Maybe it means that I’m a great, big, closet liberal. Or maybe it means that the social cons at Gay Patriot are simply obnoxious. After dealing with them on one commentary thread after another, I tend to vote for the latter.
I hope these people eventually prove to themselves whatever the hell it is they’re trying to prove. What would they do without Sonicfrog, Vince, Douglas, Pat, Rusty, Priya Lynn, Yours Truly or any of the other good folks they feel the need to designate as “bad gays?” To paraphrase an old Doritos commercial, they’ll make more.
Born on 9-11 
That someone likens a person using their real identity to an anonymous commenter speaks volumes. Even if the two examples are conducting themselves in an identical manner, there’s an imbalance that needs to first be addressed. One is holding themselves more responsible for their actions than the other. And, if that person is willing to gloss it over as insignificant, than they have personal biases they need to address first.
I just realized that right after I chose to accept Bruce’s offer to sever ties with GP, the Supreme Court rendered their judgment on what was the most monumental moment in gay history in the context of GP’s existence (and way beyond probably all the way back to Stonewall or the spread of AIDS). It was a turning point, where, though I may be wrong, there was probably a huge momentary jump in the rather likely slow climb towards social acceptance of gay marriage. Though there are more battles to be won state by tate, it all is seemingly downhill from here. I’m curious as to the effect this will have on GP. The moderators all have their separate views on the matter (from pro-gay marriage to fence-sitter who can’t be bothered), yet the majority, if not all, were very strict on how it could/should be achieved (I believe they all believed any steps toward gay marriage should be achieved legislatively, despite the unconstitutionality of existing statutes), and they were, of course, a willing sounding board for those who stood righteously against it and made little effort to engage those more self-righteous types and question their beliefs. There were probably more posts in the “Evil in [Insert American city where mass shooting just took place]” series than there were posts in support of the advances of the gay marriage cause.
Now that the SCOTUS has settled matters on the federal implications of DOMA’s section 3, if you live in a state that allows for gay marriage, you may enjoy all of the state and federal benefits that come with it. The “bond” that kept the So-Con’s connected to GP has been dealt a harsh blow. Part of their gripes now have zero federal backing. I wonder what that means for the site in the long haul. Less vitriol? Less extremists? Less traffic? Perhaps gay marriage becoming less of a wedge issue, will even the playing field and some liberals who defined themselves solely by the gay marriage issue may gravitate over to the right.
If GP was smart and ambitious, and truly cared about making a difference by selling people on why their party/beliefs are the way to go, and why it’s good for the country, I figure they would mainstream their content and make it more accessible for the layman. But, I don’t believe that’s their endgame. I believe, like you suggested, it’s an Amen Corner. While there are economic posts that are way over my head and may be of some import, most of what I see is a lot of whining, complaining, and finger-pointing. Perhaps that’s all they set out to do, and that’s all they ever want to achieve. It appears that have the makings of so much more, or, perhaps, they don’t believe in themselves enough or lack the interest. That’s too bad. But, that leaves a void and opportunity to be filled.
Vince, I’m glad you pointed out that in the conflict Throbert so abhors, one of the combatants uses her real name, and the other an alias. This is a point often too lightly skimmed over at GP. Because the nonsense that appears on commentary threads often shows up when people Google me, I have to live with what is said there — and my overall reputation may be affected. Do the people in J “Man’s” world even know what he does online?
Then there was the whole “turning same-sex tricks on the streets of downtown Phoenix” comment. Designed, of course, not only to slander me, but to slyly remind me J “Man” knows where I live. Was it an invitation for somebody to come and engage me in a physical confrontation? Of course it was. As it was almost certainly intended to be.
I agree with you that GP’s slide into incoherence leaves a void and an opportunity to be filled. What never seems to occur to the little darlings who attack us is that even if we don’t agree with them on absolutely every issue, we obviously find many of the ideas expressed at GP compelling — or we would never have bothered to comment there. But then, we regard people who agree with some of what we say but not all of it interesting. They merely regard such people as threats.
The battle in that one thread (or at least my embroilment in it) began because NDT was — again — ruthlessly attacking Sonicfrog. Who doesn’t deserve that sort of treatment. I came to his defense because he deserved to be defended. I don’t expect someone like Throbert to soil his lily-white hands by actually going back and reading the entire thread (I don’t want to do that, either), but his willingness to place both me and J “Man” on the same plane, as if he actually knows what he’s talking about when he hasn’t bothered to follow the sordid tale from its beginning, exposes him as a moral idiot.
I will probably check up, from time to time, to see what’s cooking over at GP. Some of the posts are still very interesting. And I certainly wish Dan and Bruce all the best. But it may be a good idea for me to ban myself. Standing among the banned, I would be standing in good company.
I saw the prostitute comment and that bothered me. But, what I thought was even worse was when he drug your mother into the conversation and what he implied. But, hey, if you tow the line at GP, anything seems to go. Zero standards.
“Many of the commenters at Gay Patriot are very anxious to prove themselves “good gays.” They obviously feel dirty and guilty about being gay in the first place. Thus must there be “bad gays” against whom they can continually contrast themselves.”
I’ve dealt with many people along the entire political spectrum. I had heard the ‘self-loathing-gay-conservative’ meme many times. I had always dismissed it as a silly ‘catch all’ for anyone who didn’t drool over every gay policy that flowed from a liberal administration.
I had been following the fledgling GOProud, and was quite interested in their intentions for the party. I took pause at the announcement of Ann Coulter as the ‘Gay Conservative’s Judy Garland.’ Wha…???
Then I got news of GOProud being banned from CPAC, (the first time) and I was curious as to how they would reconcile their desire to represent gay conservatives with the rejection by that same party.
This led me to discover GP.
Then I discovered self loathing gays *do* exist.
The extent to which the gay regulars at GP will ‘buddy up’ with straight hard core conservatives is a sight to behold. The hetero regulars there make no bones about their derision, disdain, and contempt for SSM and anyone who would enter into it or defend its existence. They are never challenged. But go in there and make an argument upholding SSM and all the regulars, gay and straight will tar a feather you.
Fine, as Vince stated; the bloggers as well as the regular gay followers, if they have an opinion at all on SSM, feel it should progress legislatively. Again, fine. However, just in the past few months this has happened at least four times. It took weeks if not longer, for a post addressing this political shift. When Dan finally addressed it, the comment section was undeniably dominated by the straight regulars, with there predictable condescending comments. The gay regulars scattered like cockroaches. When it came time to sing the praises of the political process working as it should for something that was needed; on that the comments were completely silent. Suddenly, the ‘contrast’ with the ‘bad gays’ wasn’t so stark, thus they kept their mouths shut.
That says something.
And now that DOMA and 8 have been dealt with, the gay/straight regulars once again feel the need to parade the ‘big bad slippery slope’ out for all to see. That float is so old and dusty, the candy thrown from it has gone stale.
The argument has been addressed in every practical way from the legal hurdles to the social hurdles to the legislative hurdles. But all the regulars with their selective reasoning skills simply respond with, ‘Yea, But…’
This latest ‘debate’ now states that those who advocate for SSM are, by precedent, advocating for polygamy and incest. By that reasoning, those advocating for religious freedom are advocating for witch burnings and child sacrifice.
Will the advocates for SSM through legislation address this (albeit outlandish) concern?
Nope, just the opposite.
What’s more absurd is the slippery slop alarmists answer to this Chicken Little dilemma; Civil Unions. Apparently, a rose by another name smells sweeter.
Yes, simply calling SSM ‘Civil Unions’ works as a magical incantation against the woes of polygamy and incest. For all the intellectual superiority and moral absolutism wielded over there, it comes as no surprise that the obvious eludes them. If all it takes is a change in name to curb the slippery slope, then get ready for ‘Intergenerational Unifications’ and ‘Multi- individual Fusions.’
But hey, at least they’ll have stopped Gay Marriage.
Oh and I forgot ‘Intra-family Mergers.’
My memory isn’t the hottest, but, when I came out in the mid-1990s and volunteered at an AIDS hospice and other organizations, I started pondering gay rights, etc. At the time, Hawaii was the only state that flirted with gay-marriage/civil unions for a hot second (they certainly nipped that quickly in the bud!). I remember thinking, at the very minimum, that civil unions should exist, period. It was a no-brainer. Perhaps it was a “compromise” on my part, or the intent of my logic was “separate, but equal.” I was still pretty young, and clearly lacked the imagination and vision for how things could and should be. But, when I finally understood what DOMA really was (not that it was a secret, or hard to figure out), I had no problem understanding how discriminatory and illogical (at a minimum) Section 3 truly was.
I think with a lot of gays (especially, in general, the older the generations you go back), there’s a degree of self-loathing. Perhaps more open-minded parenting has been around for a while (RuPaul’s mother comes to mind), but the internet makes it clear that its prevalence is growing (for better or worse, an extreme example would be Raising My Rainbow), and it seems that we as a society have small communities that give young gays practically a level playing field. (Though, conversely, its negative opposite is still working silently in larger numbers than a childless urban adult like myself may be aware of, and continues to influence poor self-perception, and external hatred.)
So, it should have come as no surprise when I read Jman the other day dusting off that slippery slope nugget, pondering the rhetorical question after the SCOTUS ruling, “What’s next? Age of Consent laws?” (aka code for pedophilia) His irrational fear says more about him, then it does about where this country and the gay movement are headed. One would expect it from an evangelical straight like Helio or someone like The_Livewire. I don’t know what it’s like to have fears of NAMBLA taking over the world, and I don’t ever want to know. I know, being a child of the 80s and growing up in a small, close-minded town with parents that did their best, I had my own issues I had to process. But, that can’t be anywhere near the burden Jman carries and I hope one day he finds some peace.
Some time back, there was a gay-marriage victory by a state through purely legislative means. I brought it to moderator Dan’s attention via email. He responded to me personally, but didn’t actually address the issue on his blog (in a celebratory or pragmatic manner), or waited for several weeks. It was odd, because it fit right into his very specific niche desires and interests as related to GP, yet, he was so casual about discussing it (when passionate about so many other things). This is where the “guilt” Lori touches on comes in, I believe. They say, “I don’t need society to tell me I’m a good person. Pride should be based on actions, not being born a certain way.” Well, they raise a good argument. Ideally, every last person should be judged on their actions, not who or what they are and had no control over when they were born. However, this country is still playing catch-up with its laws. And, in order to achieve equality, there is always going to be a degree of arrogance and ignorance attached to the momentum required for change. That’s the nature of the beast. This movement has also brought us advances in HIV/AIDS management and getting closer to a cure, hospice, centers that provide outreach service to gay youth, drug and sex-addicted adults, the elderly, poor, etc. For whatever its faults, The Gay Left or Gay Mafia or whatever, as well as those people of faith, gay and straight, have enriched the world for gays, and beyond. Is it perfect? Of course not. Yet, at GP, any support one throws the gay movement, especially in the media, is viewed as suspect.
WIth the SCOTUS rulings, Scott introduces an element I touched on, but in a manner I hadn’t considered. DOMA and Prop 8 were indeed these life rafts that kept the common ground GP held with their straight “allies” afloat. Now that they’re gone, like you said, they lost a great deal of their contrast to distinguish themselves as “the good gays.” Regardless of the ilk they attracted, its that defiance of standing against the grain (and, now, for what purpose?) they ended up defining themselves as. While The Gay Left is filled with brainless one-issue advocates whose arrogance and ignorance can be QUITE off-putting, there are also sensible middle-of-the-road thinkers who don’t exist in the eyes of GP. And those are the people GP, through fault of their own short-sightedness and lack of interest, are ultimately driving away, while “valiantly” refusing to part of the bigger picture and maybe altering it for the better.
“If GP was smart and ambitious, and truly cared about making a difference by selling people on why their party/beliefs are the way to go,”
Unfortunately, they’ve proven they don’t care. I’m libertarian, and identify with the Conservative type solutions more than that of liberal ones….
Or, at least I used to.
I can’t deny that I haven’t changed over the years, but the metrics of what is now required to be a “True Conservative” has changed much more. Can you imagine 25 years ago if someone would have told you that Conservatives would not only permit torture…. But actively promote it by changing the definition (enhanced interrogations). Redefining things to your own purpose was supposed to be one of the evils that only liberals did.
I’m not a liberal, but mainstream Conservatism, the real stuff that is spewed forth by Rush / Hannity / Levin et. al., and the nevre-ending Obama bashing repulses me. They don’t seem to even have a real platform anymore, just a strategy to try and get as many people to dislike Obama as possible, and thus get their vote. Well guess what. People have stopped liking Obama so much… But they still hate “True Conservatives” even, and unfortunately, that hatred now extends to the same conservatives as well.
Perhaps repulses is too strong a verb, but I don’t feel any kinship to what the Conservative movement has become.
Most conservatives emulate Ronald Reagan. Yet, ironically, it has been several times where I’ve heard the theory Reagan couldn’t even get the Republican nomination today because he was too middle-of-the-road by today’s standards. Don’t know if that is true. But I’ve heard it on more than one occasion.
“Most conservatives emulate Ronald Reagan”.
Actually, many don’t. They emulate the caricature of what they want him to be. They’ve edited out the stuff they don’t like; like raising taxes, being against torture, being happy to accept someone on the team who only agrees with 80% of your goals or principles and not 100%, and other things that Reagan did that would make him unable to win an election in the current version of the GOP.
Thanks for the corrections!
First off, Lori, I’d like to thank you for even putting me in the same league with heavy hitters such as yourself, Sonic, and Vince. I know flattery when I see it. We will probably never be 100% in agreement (don’t feel left out; I doubt anybody with their own mind agrees 100% with anybody else), but I don’t think anybody can discount that you brought something to the GP fold. But the fact is, the religious right like that creepy JMan and the Rush/Levin crowd are pretty much the only people keeping the GOP itself afloat… but simultaneously repulsing their own voters. Eventually, with the social issue battle being a losing one, GP, and the GOP overall, will either disband or become more libertarian, because necessity will dictate it.
No, the SoCons are convinced their views are indeed the most dominant and they are only losing because the mystical / magical Republican Elites, who are the true minority but have all the power, are thwarting the SoCon populist agenda at every turn! They beleive this so much that a number of noteable persons such as Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent have openly started to hint at bolting from the party and forming the Freedom Party.
As I wrote on my facebook page when I read this news….
Please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please…..
Note: This drastic action seems to betied to the preadedospects of the dreaded “amnisty” bill… i mean immigration. If it passes, they bolt. That bill is indeed crap, not for the reasons they argue, but if its passing is the catalyst that makes the schism happen…. I might just find myself supporting this rancid legislation.
The payoff of total political chaos would be totally worth it!!! 🙂
PS. Check out Althouse. They posted my letter explaining why I think their banning comments in the wake of a wave of nastiness is a good idea. I advocated this as a temporary move, restoring comment at a later date and rebuild the good reputation on the Althouse name. Too bad Dan and Bruce don’t have the guts to do the same.
This sounds so bad to say, but I almost get the feeling that they want the adoration of the religionist crowd so bad, they’ll allow the carrying on in the GP comment section to appease them.