Liberals Regularly Practice Hate Speech Against Conservatives

Liberals often use hate speech to attack conservatives. As proof, I have copied a blog on here from Emily a self described sexual educator in college.

Many liberals are the worst kind of bigots as demonstrated by the comments made against me on this blog. Note the dictionary definition of bigotry below.

big·ot·ry   /ˈbɪgətri/ Show Spelled
[big-uh-tree] Show IPA

–noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Then note the dictionary definition of hate speech. Does not these comments smack of bigotry and hate speech.

We need civilized discourse. We need tp practice assertive communication rather than aggressive communication. Assertive communication tells a person that you disagree with their viewpoint without the verbal clubs trying to intimidate and berate them. Aggressive communication is that of a bully who tries to intimidate the person by all kinds of hateful communication and designed to intimidate the person that they disagree with. Sadly, many people take aggressive communication into their marriages and the marriage subsequently fails as a result. I am trying to reach people and convince them of the necessity of assertive respectful communication.

Emily Nagoski :: sex nerd ::
knowledge is power.
Okay folks, I’m pissed off. I’m just gonna warn you in advance.

There have been some conversations lately about the role of religion in, say, the suicide of gay teenagers.

“I don’t believe gay people should get married and I believe gay people are going to be punished by god, but I don’t hate them and I would never be violent against them,” say the religious fuckwits. And they genuinely believe they are not part of the problem.

Well of course they are, but that’s not my point.

Look, let me be unambiguous about this:

If you believe gay people – or indeed any people – are going to hell, then I don’t respect you. I don’t just not respect your beliefs, I don’t respect YOU. As a person. Morally. I feel morally superior to you. I have contempt for you and I think the world will be a better place when you are dead.

I’m not participating in a dialog here. I’m not creating an environment of mutual understanding. I’m not trying to see the world through your eyes. I know what the world looks like through your eyes and it’s a vision that will never, ever become a reality.

The hard part is: am I, with my bitterness and intolerance, any different from the bigots? Am I not myself a bigot? Am I not therefore a hypocrite?

Nope.

For two reasons:

(1) Having contempt for the culturally dominant narrative is not the same as having contempt for the target narrative. Believing that gay people are going to hell gives a cultural purchase to hatred and violence. Like a little bump on a rock where over years barnacles accumulate, the idea of sex as sin is a foothold for discrimination, bullying, harassment, and violence.

Believing that people who believe that gay people are morally inferior, are morally inferior (complicated predication) is the tide smoothing away that bump on the rock. The minority, target perspective – the “intolerant of intolerance” perspective – is a fundamentally responsive, rather than reactionary, perspective. It’s protective of the minority. It takes the punches of the dominant view. It absorbs and buffers violence, where the dominant view commits violence.

(2) This is the really big one: all opinions are not created equal.

The magic of culture is that we move – slowly, messily, painfully, non-linearly, but inexorably – toward justice. Toward equality. The massive blob of humanity is filled with diverse opinions, but the blob moves in a direction; some opinions will be winnowed out. In the natural selection of morals, ideas of hate and discrimination lose. It’s inevitable.

There is no finish line; peace and justice and equality are never complete, can never be complete. But the cultural process of humans is inherently inclusive. We are moving in that direction and cannot but continue so, at the largest scale of analysis. Over time and space, we grow more just.

Religion has been used as a justification for slavery, for the oppression of women, for genocide. And religion has been used to speak out against each of those. It’s not about religion; it’s about you and your wrong opinions.

You “religious” fuckwads, don’t have to respect me – I don’t ask that you do – and it doesn’t matter if you don’t because you have already lost. And I refuse to respect you because that will slow down the movement; the longer it takes us progressives to put an end to your pernicious bullshit, the more kids die.

Not all opinions are created equal. Your beliefs are not innately respectable; the belief that gay people are going to hell is, indeed, contemptible, and I am at peace feeling contempt for those who possess that belief. I am content because I know not simply which way the wind is blowing, but what force causes the wind to blow in one direction or another.

And justice shall roll down like waters, doncha know, and righteousness like ever-flowing stream.

I should probably re-read this before I post it, tone it down; I should probably add caveats about how this is just my opinion etc. But dammit I’m fucking ANGRY. And sometimes righteous anger is the only appropriate feeling.

Share this:

——————————————————————————–

Roi des Faux | 7 October 2010 at 11:49 | Reply Sometimes it is best to converse calmly and politely.

Sometimes it is best to call out evil with a righteous anger.

Hear hear.

Ron | 7 October 2010 at 11:51 | Reply Damn you’re good! Of all the horrors we humans created religion is the most horrible. God must be totally pissed off at the harm religion causes Her creatures. I think She’s saved a special place in hell for religious bigots. It probably looks a lot like a “family values” church gathering but with fire and brimstone and plenty of time for the religious residents to consider their sins against their neighbors. It’ll take a long time. They’re REALLY stupid…

Thanks.

Andrew | 7 October 2010 at 11:54 | Reply The magic of culture is that we move – slowly, messily, painfully, non-linearly, but inexorably – toward justice. Toward equality. The massive blob of humanity is filled with diverse opinions, but the blob moves in a direction; some opinions will be winnowed out. In the natural selection of morals, ideas of hate and discrimination lose. It’s inevitable.
I don’t actually believe this, but I think my take strengthens your argument. Equality isn’t inevitable, it takes hard work by a lot of people over a lot of time to head in that direction, let alone to preserve the gains or continue to make headway. But this is precisely why it’s important to not allow immoral views to maintain their traction – the endless push towards greater justice falters and slips backwards when the immoral view is ‘respected’ as ‘diversity’.

The trick, of course, is to not become the person ruling out any dissent; these discussions have to happen at least once. But I think it’s important to move on once something gets ruled out after the discusison or else you never get anywhere. I also don’t think it’s that fine a line between ruling things out in a principled vs. non-principled way – the only people who ever claim it is are the assholes.

Zweisatz | 7 October 2010 at 12:25 | Reply @Andrew
Mainsplaining.

@Emily
I think, too, that we move toward justice. But the movement is painfully slow.

Andrew | 12 October 2010 at 05:27 | Reply I had to Google ‘mainsplaining’ :v

That wasn’t my intention, fwiw. I was just thinking out loud about my first thought on this post.

emily | 13 October 2010 at 07:37 | I had to google it too. Myself, I didn’t think that was what you were doing, but then again I know you and also I’d get exactly the same critique all the time if I had a penis. Fuck knows I’m condescending enough sometimes (see above). Isn’t why we get along so well?

Sammy | 7 October 2010 at 13:02 | Reply Hi Emily,

I’ve been a longtime reader and lurker. For the first time, I feel moved to respond because your post…well, to put it far less eloquently than you would, is just awesome. I love your blog, the advice, and the commentary. It is always fun and interesting to read and I look forward to every post.

I completely agree with you about the immorality of religious intolerance and the need not to dignify it by showing it respect or holding such opinions to be on the same level as others.

I wish I could hold the belief that, “Over time and space, we grow more just.” It seems to me that when we talk about the issues you raise in this post and in your blog generally, you are correct. However, when we look at issues of economic justice things are going in the completely opposite direction. The income and wealth gaps are increasing. Unionization is decreasing. People are having a harder time making ends meet. I’m curious, what does the increasing lack of economic justice in the world say about your general belief that the world is becoming a more just place?

Thank you so much for this blog.

Sam

Amy Beth | 7 October 2010 at 13:23 | Reply Annnnd reblogging. You. Are. Awesome.

Dave | 7 October 2010 at 14:10 | Reply You weaken your argument by tagging it with the word “progressive”. There are a lot of non-left folk (libertarians in particular), who believe as you do on this issue, or even more strongly.

(Also, and while I realize it an inherently confrontational argument even more confrontational, I’ll assert that deep down it actually _is_ about religion, and that we’re getting to the point where more and more people can see that religious beliefs per se actually _don’t_ deserve respect.)

Bill Noble | 7 October 2010 at 15:02 | Reply Keep saying it. More of us, keep saying it.

Thank you.

Emily | 7 October 2010 at 15:04 | Reply Thank you for this. I am angry too, but not nearly as eloquent. I feel the same way about the “going to hell” crowd. What a bunch of crap and so hateful and non-productive.

mumsyjr | 7 October 2010 at 15:47 | Reply standing up and applauding now

Jennifer | 7 October 2010 at 16:47 | Reply Hear, hear.

I cannot “respect” or pretend to respect people who I suspect are mentally doing the happy dance and gloating at the thought of people I like “burning in hell.” Fuck them.

Dhorvath | 7 October 2010 at 17:16 | Reply I cannot agree more.

Ambidexter | 7 October 2010 at 17:44 | Reply You weaken your argument by tagging it with the word “progressive”. There are a lot of non-left folk (libertarians in particular), who believe as you do on this issue, or even more strongly.

Why do the libertarians always feel the urge to bring their ideology into a discussion of something that has absolutely nothing to do with their particular brand of socio-economic sociopathy?

GeorgeFromNY | 7 October 2010 at 20:21 | Reply Bravo! I love me some righteous anger.

My only criticism would be…

…screw it. I’m too tired. And there are cookies here.

Bravo.

GeorgeFromNY | 7 October 2010 at 20:27 | Reply Ambi,

Why do you feel the urge to pathologize those who don’t share your political philosophy?

mulierosity | 7 October 2010 at 21:47 | Reply WIN.

cicely | 7 October 2010 at 22:01 | Reply This.

Wolf | 7 October 2010 at 22:25 | Reply F%ck yeah! EN FTW!

marriagecoach1 | 7 October 2010 at 22:30 | Reply What an amusing post. I take it from inference that you support the NAMBLA. Our country was founded on the idea that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights and it is God who decreed in the Bible that homosexuality is sin. I hold no animosity towards gays even though I was one of thousands of kids sexually abused by a catholic priest.

You seem to think that because of your political viewpoint that you have more rights than people who disagree with you and at least you admit that yout think that you are smarter than them. I have a genius IQ but what excuse do I have?

God gives us all a choice and rejecting God you send yourself to hell. I suppose that you don’t believe in Hell either. I resect you as an equal, I don’t agree with your opinion but respect your right to have it and speak it. Too bad you are not as egalitarian with others.

Blessings on you and yours
John Wilder

emily | 8 October 2010 at 08:03 | Reply This is why “an open dialog” doesn’t work. Because religious fuckwads say stupid shit like “support gay rights is the same thing as supporting the rape of children.” REALLY?!?! Dialog doesn’t work when one side of the argument doesn’t follow established rules of evidence and logic.

The bible says homosexuality is a sin. The Bible also told you not to eat shellfish or pork, not to wear blended fibers, and, oh yeah, to stone to death people who blaspheme the name of the lord. Like me. Come and get me John – the bible says you have a moral obligation to stone me to death.

I live in Northampton, MA. We’ll set up a public stoning in the park downtown. Bring your bigot friends. Come and get me, you ignorant, bigoted hate-mongering fuckstick.

section9 | 7 October 2010 at 22:48 | Reply What pretentious merde.

Gays and Lesbians are hunted down in the Islamic world all the time. You wouldn’t dare condemn a mob of Islamic fascists for what THEY DO to gays and lesbians because you know that they would come after you.

Some Islamic fascist savage issued a fatwa against a cartoonist for “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” and the best this Government could do was to put a United States citizen in the Witness Protection Program.

It’s very easy to smoke out “progressives”. They’re the ones who ignore Islamic fundamentalist violence because its so much easier to beat up the the Elmer Gantry crowd.

Too bad. They want to behead gays and lesbians, too. And here’s an easy prediction for this conservative to make: you don’t have the guts to say write what you just wrote on some Islamist message board. You know why? Because what you just wrote above was directed at people you KNOW won’t kill you.

Call me when you fly to Pakistan and demonstrate against the savagery taught in the madrasses against gays and lesbians every day. So much easier to preach to the converted and whack the Bible Thumpers. They won’t kill you. They won’t even send you to Jesus Camp.

Roi des Faux | 8 October 2010 at 09:36 | Reply Reread the post. It says nothing at all about Christianity. Everything it says about religious fuckwitism is presented in a nice, nondenominational terms. It’s as applicable to Islam as it is to Christianity or any other religion that condemns homosexuality.

This is a very stirring defense of Christianity though. “Yeah, well the Muslims are even worse.”

Ryan | 7 October 2010 at 23:16 | Reply I agree with this entire entry so very much. Thank you.

Iris Vander Pluym | 7 October 2010 at 23:37 | Reply Not all opinions are created equal. Your beliefs are not innately respectable; the belief that gay people are going to hell is, indeed, contemptible, and I am at peace feeling contempt for those who possess that belief.

Beautiful. Just…beautiful.

@marriagecoach1: Your gay-hating, nasty little god exists only between your ears. It is the impotent projection of your tiny hateful mind. I’m more direct and explicit than Emily: take your “blessings” and go F*%# yourself.

Iris Vander Pluym | 7 October 2010 at 23:54 | Reply @marriagecoach1:

God gives us all a choice and rejecting God you send yourself to hell.

Citation needed.

I suppose that you don’t believe in Hell either.

Oh there’s a hell alright. It’s what people like you create for gay kids, right here on earth.

And NAMBLA? Srsly?
You and your deranged little hate cult cannot die soon enough.

AV | 8 October 2010 at 00:22 | Reply @marriagecoach1 / John

bwaahahahaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

Marissa | 8 October 2010 at 00:55 | Reply Ha! I came to this post expecting a lot more variety of opinions in these comments! Save for marriagecounselor above (I sometimes have a hard time believing these people are for real and they’re usually best ignored – and I tried to make that statement less condescending but decided against it in the spirit of the post) it seems everyone is pretty angry right there with you!

I experience quite a different emotion- sadness. Children are brainwashed into religious dogma at such an early age that it’s often irrevocable damage. At some level, I do find it hard to blame someone for a reinforced belief they’ve been terrified into carrying with them for their entire lives…. especially when those beliefs lead them towards such poisonous lives.

I do know anger won’t do us any good, but sadness won’t either. What do we do to fix this?

Marissa | 8 October 2010 at 01:02 | Reply Okay, and I re-read Wilder’s comment and I have to say, I feel sorry about not toning down the condescension. I’m sorry to the rest, I feel like I fail on the outrage meter here. But to be fair, making a factual claim that someone will go to hell for not believing in the same jamba juice you believe in is a little condescending too.

emily | 8 October 2010 at 08:08 | Reply Don’t be sorry for being condescending Marissa. John’s survival doesn’t make him less of a bigot.

chris | 8 October 2010 at 01:43 | Reply Thanks for the ‘moving-towards-justice’ bit. After all the shitty things I’ve been hearing people say about the suicides, it was good to hear, and I hope you’re right.

s0meguy | 8 October 2010 at 02:26 | Reply @marriagecoach1

Child Molestation has basically nothing to do with homosexuality, even if the victim is the same sex as the perp. It’s a whole ‘nother kind of thing.

This is a really, really important distinction.

Lin | 8 October 2010 at 04:01 | Reply Thank you Emily.

GeorgeFromNY | 8 October 2010 at 05:01 | Reply Someguy,

Not only that, but John’s inability or unwillingness to make such a crucial distinction vaporizes whatever credibility he might have.

So John has a “genius level IQ” but cannot tell the difference between consensual adult sex and the sexual victimization of children – even though he himself was so victimized?

Furthermore, this genius level IQ infers support for child sex abuse from Emily’s forthright condemnation of those who would deny legal and social equality to gay people?

That’s not just apples and oranges. That’s apples and beef stew.

I guess genius ain’t what it used to be.

Should we bother to point out that the “Creator” mentioned in the D of I is not the Christian God – something known to even the greenest student of US Constitutional history?

Or that maybe, just maybe, the sexual hang-ups of Bronze Age mythology might not be the best guide for modern people to live by?

Iris Vander Pluym | 8 October 2010 at 09:22 | Reply @section9:

Gays and Lesbians are hunted down in the Islamic world all the time.

And, therefore we should pay no attention to hateful religious bigots in the United States.

You wouldn’t dare condemn a mob of Islamic fascists for what THEY DO to gays and lesbians because you know that they would come after you.

I hereby condemn all mobs of Islamic fascists for what THEY DO to gays and lesbians. Anybody care to join me?

Some Islamic fascist savage issued a fatwa against a cartoonist for “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” and the best this Government could do was to put a United States citizen in the Witness Protection Program.

Because what the U.S. needs to do is bomb, invade and occupy more majority Muslim countries. That’ll make all the hardliner Islamists more moderate, amirite?

It’s very easy to smoke out “progressives”. They’re the ones who ignore Islamic fundamentalist violence because its so much easier to beat up the the Elmer Gantry crowd.

Smoke out “progressives”? It’s not like we’re hiding. You can find us very easily by, for example, doing a google search on women’s rights groups Islam. Oh, look! Why, there are a whole bunch of progressive organizations very busy not ignoring Islamic fundamentalist violence. Since this is clearly a big priority for you, too, I assume you’re a regular donor, or you were just somehow completely ignorant, and you’ll be writing one of them a big check today.

And about:

because its so much easier to beat up the the Elmer Gantry crowd.

Because we cannot simultaneously fight for gay rights and women’s rights in the United States and abroad. It’s simply not logically consistent. (And calling monsters “monsters” is not the same thing as “beating up” monsters, but you knew that, right?).

Too bad. They want to behead gays and lesbians, too.

And here’s an easy prediction for this conservative to make: you don’t have the guts to say write what you just wrote on some Islamist message board.

Do you say things like the OP on Islamic message boards? If not, why not?

You know why? Because what you just wrote above was directed at people you KNOW won’t kill you.

Tell it to George Tiller. Or Oklahoma City. But we must never, ever do or say anything about that, at least until there are no scary Muslims left anywhere.

Call me when you fly to Pakistan and demonstrate against the savagery taught in the madrasses against gays and lesbians every day. So much easier to preach to the converted and whack the Bible Thumpers. They won’t kill you. They won’t even send you to Jesus Camp.

Once again, everyone: remember that we cannot post blogs about Christian bigots in the United States, at least not until we prove our bona fides to section9 by protesting outside of Pakistani madrassas, which is where we can always expect to find the brave, noble section9. And does anyone believe the Bible Thumpers wouldn’t kill gays (and uppity women) if they thought they could get away with it? Tell it to Matthew Sheppard, and the countless gay kids bullied into suicide…by Christians.

What pretentious merde.

Shawn | 8 October 2010 at 15:14 | Reply I’m at a loss to say how wonderful that post was, Emily.
Thanks.

Ed | 8 October 2010 at 15:31 | Reply Emily, I’ve been your admirer since I began reading your blog. Now, after reading this post, I absolutely adore you.

Love,
Ed

Pingback: Emily doesn’t respect you, and neither do I. |

Lainey | 8 October 2010 at 22:38 | Reply Thank you. And… yeah, that’s all I’ve got. Thank you.

Pingback: Comments to Emily Nagowski’s post. |

marriagecoach1 | 9 October 2010 at 10:39 | Reply First of all, the laws you mention were all Old Testament laws which were done away with the New Testament and Christ’s crucifixion.
Talk about logical insonsistency. You advocate for women not to subjected to sexual violence but you practice verbal violence against people who disagree with your viewpoint. You have no more right to verbally abuse me than I do to physically abuse you. I don’t hate anyone and you obviously do which makes you a huge hypocrite.

You should know that rape is not about sex but about violence and control and men’s hatred of women. You show absolute disrespect and hate for anyone who disagrees with you. Reminds me of Perez Hilton’s diatribe against a certain beauty contestant who disagreed with gay marriages which is consistent with President Obama’s view.

As to my molestation, it is all to common among gays. President Obama’s education czar stood by and did nothing when a teenaged boy came to him and talked about being sexually abused by a grown man, a teacher I think. There is logical consistency to my argument whether you choose to see it or not. You don’t come close to practicing what you preach but I have seldom seen a liberal who does. Hate speech is a piece of legislation that liberals push but are the most egregious offenders of their own proposed legislation. Nice that you are honest eno0ugh to show your true colors and intolerance.

I teach couples conflict resolution skills. The first is that you practice assertive communication rather than aggressive communication and verbal slams against the other person. Assertive communication makes your points of disagreements without the slams as word clubs to beat someone else into submission.

I wish you well
John Wilder

Roi des Faux | 9 October 2010 at 13:47 | Reply Matthew 5:17-19
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Talk about logical inconsistency.

Your reference to rape is an incoherent non-sequitur. The worst thing you can say is nowhere near as bad as physical violence, especially sexual violence. Leaving aside the first amendment protecting the right to free speech and not the right to free violence, if someone’s words and actions are leading to human suffering, you don’t just have a right to speak out against them. You have a moral obligation to call them out.

Let’s clarify things here. It sounds like you see this as one group of people saying “People shouldn’t live gay lifestyles,” and another group of people are viciously attacking them for it. If that’s how you see it, then it makes sense that you think the response is out of proportion. But the way Emily and I see it, you have a large number of people who: teach their gay children to hate themselves and fear eternal punishment; foster a culture in which a disproportionate number of gay teens commit suicide ; actively campaign to deny gays equal rights; and/or physically assault or even murder people based on their sexual orientation. This is not people engaging in a debate, this is people destroying lives. For this they deserve condemnation.

emily | 10 October 2010 at 00:43 | Reply Did you READ my post, in which I explain why I think it’s not hypocritical of me to think I’m morally superior to you, why it’s fair for me not to tolerate you ignorant bigotry?

Having said that in my post, would I then see your ignorant bigotry and say, Well you’re welcome to your opinion? No. I’m going to tell you to go fuck yourself you hate-mongering fuckstick. My whole point is that I think people should tell people like you to go fuck themselves, rather than sit poliely while you spew your filth and call it holy.

Sheelzebub | 14 October 2010 at 16:39 | Reply As to my molestation, it is all to common among gays.

It’s all too common among straights as well. Straight men rape girls. Yet the only time it’s a big deal to you folks is when it’s done by someone who’s the same sex as the survivor.

You should know that rape is not about sex but about violence and control and men’s hatred of women.

Gee, thanks for the mansplaining! I never knew that!

You show absolute disrespect and hate for anyone who disagrees with you.

Actually, it’s hateful and disrespectful to actively work against someone’s civil rights (same sex marriage, the ability to adopt children, the right to serve in the military, anti-discrimination laws). It’s hateful and disrespectful to peddle slander and lies about gays to justify this hatred and discrimination on your part.

And make no mistake–you are completely ignorant about child molesting. Child molesters don’t have a gender orientation–they have an age orientation.

But what the hell? It’s not like the oh-so-Godly Catholic church didn’t hide behind this slander to deflect responsibility for their gross inaction–and in many cases, active efforts to cover up–child molesting priests (who, by the way, ALSO molested girls, but they don’t count amirite?)

Assertive communication makes your points of disagreements without the slams as word clubs to beat someone else into submission.

Does assertive communication include peddling stereotypes and lies about a group? Because that’s what you’ve been doing regarding gays.

And you know what? If you support, or work to enact or perpetuate policies that limit someone’s civil rights, then yes, you are hateful and you are a bigot. Sorry if that bothers you so–the truth does tend to hurt–but when you tell people that they are not even worthy of second class citizenship, that they are going to hell, and that you think they are all a bunch of child molesters, you’re going to get heated responses. You will not be respected, and you will be regarded as a bigot because you are denying the humanity of an entire group of people.

GreenGlass | 9 October 2010 at 11:31 | Reply I think you are wrong about disrespect and name-calling ever being justfiable, Emily, and this post makes me sad and upset.

I don’t believe humanity has a tendency towards inclusion, and I don’t believe the best way to undermine hateful opinions is to express your own intolerance and venom for the unfortunate people who hold believe those ideas. I believe that is polarizing, dehumanizing, and unhelpful in it’s own right. I believe that refusing to give in to the temptation to disrespect others, no matter how much we disagree with them, how wrong they are, or what terrible things they have done is a fundamental choice we must make in order to make our future better.

http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/2010/03/physiology-behind-xenophobia.html?spref=fb

GeorgeFromNY | 9 October 2010 at 18:16 | Reply John,

Wow, you actually dragged out that tired old apologetics line? Really?

As for the rest… I needn’t bother. Your critique of Emily’s post is so laughably inept as to be self-refuting. For the rest of us it’s like watching a man punch himself in the nose. Repeatedly.

GreenG,

I agree with you about the inclusion thing. But, alas, sometimes there’s nothing left BUT venom.

The thing about dialogue, reason and all that good stuff is that they require, at minimum, the possibility of a receptive ear. Otherwise you’re just talking to yourself.

Every scrap of available evidence, without exception, tells us that being gay does not make you an inferior person, parent, citizen, worker, thinker, friend, spouse or whatnot. There is no “moral” element to homosexuality distinct from that of heterosexuality. Period. Full stop.

Now, we are confronted with those who claim otherwise; who insist that ancient superstitions and ignorant fears are legitimate because some invisible Sky Daddy says so.

This is as unhinged as me claiming to be Charlemagne and demanding that all of modern France and Germany be turned over to me.

Such a mindset cannot be “respected.” You cannot “reason” with that which is the antithesis of reason.

marriagecoach1 | 9 October 2010 at 21:43 | Reply Every scrap of available evidence, without exception, tells us that being gay does not make you an inferior person, parent, citizen, worker, thinker, friend,
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that homosexuals are in any way inferior. I don’t at all agree with violence of any kind directed at anybody.

Sadly you don’t see that you are every bit as culpable of hate speech and verbal attack as the jerks who bullied the homosexual boys into suicide which I defnititely don’t condone.

You don’t change hearts and minds with hate speech and vebally bludgeoning someone. You might intimidate them but you have not changed their minds. You don’t at all intimidate me. You are sad pathetic people who justify their own verbal bullying in defense of people. You use the classic wifebearters excuse that if she did not piss me off and her stupidity then I would not have to beat her.

Ethics demand that you follow the rule that you have no more right to verbally abuse someone than they have to physically abuse you. Otherwise you are just as guilty as those you hate. I don’t hate anyone, even those of you who ignorantly verbally abused me for daring to have a difference of opinion. You are guilty of religious intolerance as well.

John Wilder

Shawn | 9 October 2010 at 22:47 | Reply John Wilder?
Aren`t you the same John Wilder who wrote this on CNN Money:
“Three years ago I decided enough was enough and quit using my card and stopped making payments on $12,000 in credit card debt.
I still owe the money, but the credit card companies usually write off balances after seven years.“
I think you appear to know very little about what constitutes the moral high ground.

GeorgeFromNY | 10 October 2010 at 00:34 | Reply John sayeth:

“Please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that homosexuals are in any way inferior. ”

However, John sayeth earlier:

“Our country was founded on the idea that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights and it is God who decreed in the Bible that homosexuality is sin.”

So, John denies believing that gays are in any way inferior but DOES believe that homosexuality is, innately, morally corrupt – a “sin” – in a way that heterosexuality is not.

John does not specify homosexual conduct – as even the Catholic Church does, these days – but homosexuality itself; merely the condition of existing as a gay person.

Indeed, Roi, logic does not seem to be John’s forte.

The rest of John’s recent missive is so crashingly stupid as to be, again, self-refuting.

John A. CONNOLLY | 10 October 2010 at 12:33 | Reply BIGOTRY IS BIGOTRY It doesn’t matter weather you’re a religious, gay, or racial bigot. If the shoe fits…

emily | 10 October 2010 at 17:12 | Reply I don’t disagree that I’m a bigot against deliberately ignorant, self-congratulatory fuckwits too stupid or too selfish to recognize the consequences of their attitudes. I DO disagree that the fallout of my bigotry is the same – hence my post.

mulierosity | 10 October 2010 at 17:16 | ❤

hauntfox25 | 10 October 2010 at 21:24 | as Mulierosity said:

Iris Vander Pluym | 10 October 2010 at 13:10 | Reply As Emily pointed out in response to John’s first comment, one cannot have a productive dialog or debate with conservatives like John. You cannot use reason, logic or evidence to convince them they are wrong, since they did not arrive at their opinions by rational means in the first place. They believe stupid, hateful shit like:

it is God who decreed in the Bible that homosexuality is sin.

and

God gives us all a choice and rejecting God you send yourself to hell.

If such a Biblical god existed it would certainly not be worthy of worship, and putting aside that there is no evidence for the existence of any god(s), John nevertheless believes the above statements are “true.” Unfortunately, providing conservatives with hard evidence that disproves their erroneous beliefs often causes them to believe their bullshit even more strongly, so in a very real sense, trying to convince people like him to change their minds is actually counterproductive. They just cling even more strongly to their wrong beliefs. (And you will never out-scream or out-bully them; they have had many, many years of practice and are heavily invested in the idea that, if in response to their relentless shrieking interruptions and refusal to address any point you’ve made, you shut up or walk away, this means they’ve “won.”)

The point of engaging with someone like John (or section9) is not to convince him he is wrong; even though he can easily be shown to be morally, factually, logically, and fractally wrong, it will never convince him. But there is a very good reason to do it anyway: to communicate something to other people who may be witnessing this “dialog,” lest anyone mistake silence for agreement, concession, or apathy.

emily | 10 October 2010 at 17:25 | Reply Yeah. I struggle with not engaging – not because I want to role model alliance and activism but because such nonsense is like intellectual pruritis and I just CAN’T leave it alone. *sigh* my life would be easier if I could either respect or ignore the fucksticks.

Iris Vander Pluym | 10 October 2010 at 21:54 | I didn’t mean to imply that you (or anyone else) should always engage fucksticks. I don’t know you, but maybe you CAN leave it alone – not always, but sometimes. Fact is, fuckstick slaying is freaking exhausting! And it’s an endless, seemingly pointless battle, because fucksticks will always be among us. But I’ve learned that I can and should choose to ignore them sometimes for my own wellbeing (granted, this is definitely a late-acquired skill and against my natural instincts). I ain’t exactly proud of the times I’ve walked away from it, but for me it helps to know that more and more, there are others (like you) who will pick up the sword – sometimes – when I cannot.

You’d never be able to respect the fucksticks, even if you wanted to, but you might learn to ignore them…sometimes.

Kathy Tortoreo | 10 October 2010 at 15:24 | Reply What seems clear is that you don’t understand that hate cannot be crushed with hate. Ignorance can only be addressed with knowledge, and open forums are critical, because one person will never change his / her views by sitting alone and figuring it out on his / her own. It just doesn’t happen.

You spout hate. If you have contempt for someone because of his views, you are as limited in mind as he is. Have contempt for the ignorance. Then inform the Bible thumpers that translations of the Bible are still debated because so many people who translated it possibly didn’t understand the terminology and context of it in terms of the culture 2,000 to 4,000 years ago. “Homosexuality” for instance, demands a re-examination, as some linguists now suggest that the word as used in the original texts referred to adult men having sexual relations with boys – clearly pedophilia, and not homosexuality.

That’s why debate must be calm, researched, and presented in open forum: so this information can be addressed to prove its ignorance. You have done nothing to help the situation with your tirade.

emily | 10 October 2010 at 17:19 | Reply This isn’t hate, it’s rage. Totally different. Calm is not an adequate response to hatred that results in violence. The fuckwits don’t listen – that’s what makes them fuckwits – and they are incapable of reasoning (see John below) , so education and tolerance are ineffective. They thus forfeit their place at the table.

Kathy Tortoreo | 10 October 2010 at 18:01 | Same situation. You can’t quell hate or rage WITH rage. It only serves to escalate the situation. It must be approached differently, or the shouting matches with closed ears will only continue.

I know it’s just a movie, but American History X gives a good example. Edward Norton’s white supremacist only learns of the true nature of a black man by being forced to see him and listen to him in a forum where the anger and rage and hatred were in the back seat. The movie struck a chord because it was true to human response.

Rage and hate will not solve this.

piny | 13 October 2010 at 23:16 | Edward Norton’s character in American History X didn’t actually exist. He also had to be gang-raped by white supremacists in prison in order to figure out that they weren’t such nice people after all. Plus, he stomped a man to death before anyone intervened. That fictional character would probably have preferred a more direct approach.

In real life, I can think of Stonewall off the top of my head. Those people rioted and changed history; their anger was powerful. Anyone else care to contribute actual examples?

piny | 13 October 2010 at 23:08 | Reply You know, I’m an atheist? I don’t care what the Bible says about homosexuality or anything else. I don’t care what any religious text says about homosexuality or anything else. I’m not hunting for a religious justification for adherence to the establishment clause. We don’t live in a theocracy. Religious beliefs about homosexuality should be completely irrelevant to my freedoms under the laws of this country. They should be completely irrelevant to the ability of teenagers to protect themselves from the level of harassment that drives them to suicide. I don’t care if the first Christians did hate homosexuals on exactly the same terms and for exactly the same reasons as Pat Robertson does now. They are not an authority in this discussion, and their beliefs do not limit my human rights.

mulierosity | 10 October 2010 at 21:01 | Reply @Kathy

While your intentions are noble, laudable even, you missed the point. This post was a display of frustration. Or exasperation. But to touch upon your point, what solution do you propose? Logic and reasoning have proved futile. Your assertion, and I agree, hate and rage will prove equally futile. Hopefully by now, you see that rage, succinctly and lovely depicted via this post, is actually the logical progression and natural reaction here. Because the only thing more ridiculous than bullying kids into suicide due to sexual preferences is doing the same due to pizza topping preferences. Actually, I think the former is still more ridiculous given that it’s a product of biology. Ooooo, I know. Sex differences! You’re a female?! Blasphemy! According to God, that’s a sin! Burn in hell! Et cetera.

Seriously, I don’t want to speak for Emily, but I will be more than happy to entertain a solution.

GreenGlass | 11 October 2010 at 03:36 | Reply A solution to Emily’s frustration? Why would I want to solve that? I agree with it! I feel it!

I even agree that “rage… is actually the logical progression and natural reaction…” if we want the logical, natural progression of fundamental value system disagreements to lead to the kind of enemy dehumanization precedes killing those who cannot be convinced to stop disagreeing with you. It is THAT outcome I must disagree with.

However, it also seems obvious (and she seemed aware in the original post) that her conclusion (that it is excusable to be a bigot against bigoted people) was much more about feeling than logic.

This idea is not rationally defensible, only emotionally defensible, which is why there has been so much repetition of such justifications as the defeatist “there is nothing left but venom” or the belief that the dissenter who holds unethical beliefs negates any ethical argument they try to make. And let me not forget:”this” is why open-dialogue doesn’t work, or the rebuttal “then come and stone me,” or that there is only “sit[ting] politely” vs telling people to “go fuck themselves” (on a SEX POSITIVE BLOG). I am sorry I cannot consider such ideas effective, or even rational arguments and I am dismayed that I find it difficult to curb my own reactionary expressions of derision.

I realize that there is no arguing with many people. I am not defending fair debate. I am asking that we take our stand clearly, even when we must state we are unwilling to argue, without obscuring our righteous outrage with our own hate, aggression, verbal and emotional attacks, etc.

You don’t always know who those people are or where you are going to find them, and you aren’t likely to find them through catharsis inspired by the masses of people in this world who provide endless reasons for us to feel legitimately outraged and supremely frustrated every single minute.

There is no excuse for dehumanizing other human beings, not even their own dehumanization of the most weak and vulnerable members of our society.

I am not asking you to try and understand the rationale behind irrational beliefs, but I assure you that some kind of explanation is there. (You may dismiss all positive influences that religion has because of all the extremely negative ones it also has. You may not want to actually think about how difficult it is for some people to simultaneously believe that God is loving and that God hates gay, to simultaneously believe that they are good people while they believe that gays have to be sinful, bad people, to simultaneously believe that they are rational people while they believe in a prejudice with no real evidence. You may not be able to or even want to imagine that struggle, or the struggle of someone who honestly can’t believe that gay people are bad, and yet honestly believes in the Bible…) Honestly being unable to fathom someone else’s delusions makes you no more logical or justified.

Let me highlight only two of the terrible ideas being listed in this post:
Terrible idea #1) Gays are morally inferior
Terrible idea #2) Calling people “fuckwads” is equivalent to expressing the moral inferiority of the above idea

Fuckwads… literally meaning discarded refuse used after intercourse (which in and of itself, I see nothing wrong with)… which, I’m guessing, is purely supposed to be very derogatory… but does not seem very accurate. Why is this more effective than expressing that prejudiced people who irrationally believe such morally inferior ideas are actively causing harm to others, etc, etc, etc… Why is telling someone that you cannot respect their belief, their mindset, not a profound enough statement that you need to tell a fellow human being that you also cannot respect their existence?

You know… I wonder why I argue whenever I encounter this attitude, even when I agree with the position passionately. I don’t think it’s because I think there a point. I don’t assume that the groups of people who agree with me on what is morally outrageous are any more reasonable than the groups of people who are opposed to me about what is explicitly outrageous. Unfortunately.

I just want to be one voice standing up for a world in which people who believe opposing, and yes, sometimes even terrible things, can find a way to live together without those beliefs causing damage to those around them.

mulierosity | 11 October 2010 at 20:26 | Thank you for the eloquent and well reasoned reply. I am impressed and moved. But I think you’re too noble, if that’s possible, and maybe too utopian for lack of a better word. Yes to compassion and acceptance. Yes to defending another’s right to express a thought we vehemently disagree with. But somewhere a line needs to be drawn. If I understand you correctly, you would accept anyone that proclaims that 1+1=3 (in base 10) and bully those who disagree to death? Emily drew her line and I ❤ her line.

Kathy Tortoreo | 11 October 2010 at 08:08 | Reply Ghandi and Martin Luther King provided an excellent solution that worked. Perhaps we could follow their lead. . .

xtinA | 13 October 2010 at 21:44 | Gandhi (yeah you misspelled it) and Dr. King were both murdered. What they did worked in their times and don’t seem to be working in ours.

emily | 14 October 2010 at 09:21 | I disagree. Their deaths don’t mean that what they did didn’t work – look at the change created by the movements they led. As the saying goes, if you’re pissing people off you know you’re doing something right. I think their approach to creating social change was HUGELY powerful, maybe the MOST powerful way to create change outside of actual governance or military intervention.

I’m not trying to lead a social change movement here. I’m just saying I personally am done trying to be nice and patient with the intractable morons. Social change happens as people who were on the fence get off it and starting walking, not when we persuade the unpersuadable, belligerently ignorant dipshits of the world. They just get left behind, and good riddance.

piny | 14 October 2010 at 20:50 | Martin Luther King actually stepped back from the stance you’re mutilating here. We’re not really sure what he would have said next, because he was murdered by a white supremacist after being threatened by thousand of other white supremacists, including many people working for our government.

Ambidexter | 16 October 2010 at 10:49 | Rage doesn’t work? Have you ever read Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”? He wasn’t advocating playing nice with segregationists.

Kathy, you can suck up to the homophobes all you want. The rest of us will do the heavy lifting to correct the situation while you sit on the sidelines, wringing your hands and whining about how mean and nasty the people actually trying to do something about homophobia. I’m sure you’ll feel superior to us nasty people who have the nerve to put homophobes in their place.

The only thing I find surprising is you’re not demanding the GLBT folks go back into the closet. Or is that just a little too blatant even for you?

Iris Vander Pluym | 11 October 2010 at 08:55 | Reply Kathy Tortoreo:

That’s why debate must be calm, researched, and presented in open forum: so this information can be addressed to prove its ignorance.

What world do you live in, where “calm, researched debate presented in an open forum” effects large-scale, positive change, ever? John accused Emily of supporting NAMBLA, and section9 accused her of ignoring Islamist violence, fer chrissakes. If you think calm, researched debate is effective in changing minds like these, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

and:

You have done nothing to help the situation with your tirade.

Citation needed. Did women get the right to vote by calm, researched debate? How about civil rights for African-Americans? Susan B. Anthony, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King had millions of followers – what motivated all of these people to march, protest, hunger strike, and risk life and limb? Hint: it was not calm, reasoned debate. In all of these cases, including the one addressed in the OP, the violence and vitriol spewed at the oppressed makes Emily’s “tirade” look like a Hallmark card. To assert a moral equivalence between the side of vicious hatred and violence and the side that screams in rage in response merely demonstrates what an ignorant fool and a coward you are. If we listened to people like you and GreenGlass and just be nice and calm and reasonable, we’d still have Jim Crow and women couldn’t vote.

Rage and hate will not solve this.

Rage does not purport to solve anything, but no large scale societal injustice has ever been addressed without it. It is a perfectly noble and appropriate reaction to willful, hateful, irrational ignorance. Kids are dead because of that, not because Emily’s pissed off at fucksticks on the internet. Get some perspective.

GreenGlass | 11 October 2010 at 11:00 | Reply I apologize that my attempt at responding last night was somewhat convoluted.

“To assert a moral equivalence between the side of vicious hatred and violence and the side that screams in rage in response merely demonstrates what an ignorant fool and a coward you are… ”

I would like to clarify that I am capable of believing two ideas are bad and that certain strategies are morally equivalent, but in this case I also believe that homophobia would qualify as being “worse” to a greater degree than the belief that homophobics should be verbally attacked. That doesn’t make the lesser evil preferable in my eyes.

It’s funny how conviction and persistence makes it hard for me to accept that I am either fool or coward. I know what I am attempting, no matter how inadequate or clumsy.

“If we listened to people like you and GreenGlass and just be nice and calm and reasonable, we’d still have Jim Crow and women couldn’t vote. ”

I don’t want you to be nice. I don’t even want you to be calm. I don’t think it’s too much to strive to be as reasonable as we can be.

“It is a perfectly noble and appropriate reaction to willful, hateful, irrational ignorance. Kids are dead because of that, not because Emily’s pissed off at fucksticks on the internet.”

Yes. Good. It is a valid reaction. I am trying to address a small part of what she has done with that reaction and energy.

“Get some perspective.”

My perspective is that lasting change is not motivated by temporary rage, no matter how intense or valid.

GreenGlass | 11 October 2010 at 11:03 | Reply **”Yes. Good.” meaning I am in support of the _reaction_, I am very glad that Emily was angry about kids dying, I am glad you are too, because it IS so incredibly upsetting. ;_;

Iris Vander Pluym | 11 October 2010 at 16:28 | Reply GreenGlass – My reply was mainly directed at Kathy Tortoreo, not you, in particular her assertion of moral equivalence between the side that spews vicious hatred and violence and those who would scream back in rage. I apologize if this was not clear in my post.

Where I took issue with your earlier post was here:

Why is [calling people fucksticks] more effective than expressing that prejudiced people who irrationally believe such morally inferior ideas are actively causing harm to others, etc, etc, etc…

First, prejudiced people who irrationally believe such morally inferior ideas do not care that they are actively causing harm to others: in many cases it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. (See: Carl Paladino.) Second, no one is arguing that you cannot or should not use reasonable discussion or debate to effect peoples’ opinions, just that relying on only that tactic has a track record of failure. Some people may be swayed by it, but others may be swayed upon self-reflection after someone they respect, or better yet many people, mock the ridiculousness of their position. Third, seeing someone express rage on your behalf unquestionably has a powerful and positive effect, especially when they do not have a horse in the race. You know you are not alone, that your cause is not hopeless, when other people of good conscience rail against the injustice of the status quo. (Feminist men have had this effect on me.) I am not LGBTQI, but I really give a shit about the bullying, I think religion in general and Christianity in particular is a huge source of homophobia and misogyny in our culture, and that those who would justify this violence and abuse with the bible absolutely deserve to be relentlessly attacked – verbally. Think there are gay kids who might take hope and courage from Emily’s statement: these people are fucksticks? I do.

and:

I just want to be one voice standing up for a world in which people who believe opposing, and yes, sometimes even terrible things, can find a way to live together without those beliefs causing damage to those around them.

I’m sure we’d all like to live in that world. But here in the real world, people who believe terrible things are causing damage to those around them, and in a regrettable number of cases being reasonable does not work. (Fucking NAMBLA?!) Again, no one is saying that just calling every fuckstick a fuckstick is going to change a single fuckstick’s mind, but it could very well spark a change in the mind of someone with unexamined beliefs.

Finally:

My perspective is that lasting change is not motivated by temporary rage, no matter how intense or valid.

Again, I am sorry for any confusion about my previous reply, but ^this^ is exactly where we disagree. The history of every social justice movement proves you wrong. It’s not the case that too many people are enraged; too few are.

marriagecoach1 | 11 October 2010 at 19:54 | Reply For the record, I threw out the NAMBLA comment because having some experience with them, they use the same hate speech you do and the name calling.
Check with the mental health specialist of your choice and show them this blog and see if they support your hate speech and name calling.

For the record I don’t support bullying of any kind nor verbal abuse and I am deeply offended that you chose to attack me when I said nothing disrespectful to you but you obviously don’t care.
All you do by your ranting is turn people off to your cause.

John Wilder

Sean | 12 October 2010 at 23:53 | Reply I believe that the monotheistic, Abrahamic God does not describe anything in reality, that religion is largely an inherited delusion, and I am glad of that because the God of the Bible (Old Testament, New Testament, or Koran) is utterly depraved, not worthy of being compared to a mass murdering dictator, because he has so much more power that he abuses so much more horribly (or he would, if he was any more real than Zeus or Thor). Therefore I consider Abrahamic religion, particularly the more conservative sects that take the Bible literally, to be one of the most grave threats that the world has to face. Yet I mostly try to be “respectful” on this issue. It doesn’t help, of course; believers think that my assessment of their religion is itself morally abhorrent. They will feel offended and, yes, even verbally abused, no matter how I word my criticism, because it’s the idea itself that they find awful. I’m not going to shut up because of that.

On this one subject, where the correct moral path is so clear that even many believers agree with me, where religious bigotry is actively ruining the lives of people around me, on this one subject, I sometimes let my real anger show through, my anger at unjustifiable wide-scale oppression, perpetrated by a mass of believers who all convince each other that they are tolerant, lovely, good people, who use propaganda and circle jerking back-pats and rancid apologetics to convince each other that they are just doing the will of a loving God. It’s sickening, and it hurts people, badly, way outside of the realm of abstract debate, where believers can wrap themselves in a cloak of ignorant self-righteousness, plugging their ears to these issues. At least, until those uppity gays manage to get into the news, at which point the fuckwads will bleat that if they just wouldn’t be so gay, they wouldn’t have these problems.

These people do, in fact, have a deficiency in their ability to reason morally, and so do you, John. Your Bible says evil things, and your supposed God says evil things, and you do nothing put play the yes-man to these vile influences. Care to explain how I could honestly express that sentiment, and not be “offensive”? Given that I think that teaching fundamentalist mythology is a good way to cripple a child’s moral reasoning, do you really think that I’m that concerned when the people promoting such toxicity complain about the “bigotry” directed at them? You have the right to free speech and free religion, just like the KKK does and the Nazis do and the Mormon church would even if it still taught that blacks were born deficient. But that doesn’t mean I don’t despise everything you stand for, not even when your viewpoint happens to be popular at the moment.

On a side note: if you have to say that you have a “genius IQ”, it sounds like a sign of deep insecurity, Mr. Mental Health Professional.

Sean | 13 October 2010 at 03:32 | *sigh* I may have gone overboard in two respects. One is by overusing the word “believers” as if there was a monolithic group of such people. The other is the phrase “everything you stand for”, which is both melodramatic and reaching (like I have any idea what John “stands for”).

But damn it! Why would I want to engage nicely with people who admit that their views are based on unquestionable dogma and not open to change or criticism? Why would I want to engage nicely with someone who accuses me of depravity because, uh, well, because “book says so”, with the unjustified, apparently delusional assertion that “God wrote it”? It’s like you are just begging to be labeled a lost cause.

Ambidexter | 16 October 2010 at 10:56 | Reply One thing I find very interesting is the only people who bring NAMBLA up in conversation are homophobe conservatives like John Wilder. Of course Wilder has already shown he doesn’t know the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, so it’s not surprising he accuses gay-rights supporters as being pedophilia enablers. Perhaps Wilder is confusing us with the Catholic church.

mulierosity | 11 October 2010 at 20:38 | Reply @ GreenGlass

Actually, it’s funny. You did draw a line. You disagree that rage or perhaps more specifically, the use of the word “fuckwad”, constitutes an acceptable expression.

mulierosity | 11 October 2010 at 20:40 | Reply PS: Your line and Emily’s don’t have to be mutually exclusive so to speak.

GreenGlass | 11 October 2010 at 23:15 | Reply Agreed. If anyone is doing the LA Aids walk this weekend, maybe I’ll see you there. =)

Iris Vander Pluym | 11 October 2010 at 20:53 | Reply @ John Wilder:

I threw out the NAMBLA comment because having some experience with them, they use the same hate speech you do and the name calling.

No, you threw out the NAMBLA comment in an attempt to equate Emily’s angry condemnation of religion-based homophobia with child rape. You are not fooling anyone.

You said this:

it is God who decreed in the Bible that homosexuality is sin.

Translation: it’s not me, John Wilder, who thinks homosexuality is icky, wrong, abnormal, shameful and evil (though strangely titillating…?). No, no, no. It’s a god who thinks that (the god who allegedly created people the way they are) and I, John Wilder, with my genius IQ, am humbly relaying this god’s opinion.

Ask the mental health specialist of your choice about “projection.”

and this:

God gives us all a choice and rejecting God you send yourself to hell.

And you’re deeply offended, are you John? You think you’ve said nothing disrespectful? Then here’s a suggestion: take your deeply offended ass somewhere else, and when you get there, please try not to contribute to a hateful atmosphere that makes gay kids kill themselves.

For the record.

One more thing:

All you do by your ranting is turn people off to your cause.

[Citation needed.]

mulierosity | 11 October 2010 at 20:53 | Reply Actually, you’re right.

Suppose two kids, A and B, aged, say, five. Kid A punches Kid B. As a parent/teacher/adult, do you scold A and tell/teach/explain to him/her never to punch someone or do you ask why A punched B? What if the reason gave was something silly like B has a Batman lunchbox. What if it was because B killed A’s guinea pig unintentionally? Intentionally? I think I would definitely teach A never to punch another. No matter what. I think.

GreenGlass | 11 October 2010 at 23:28 | Reply I cannot express how touched I am. That even one person would be surprised into thinking about what I was trying to say is everything I hope for at this point.

Andrew | 12 October 2010 at 05:30 | Reply The weirdest thing I’ve seen recently (in the discussion that sparked this post and in the comments here and frankly everywhere recently) is this ‘hate the sin/love the sinner’ attitude. People saying ‘homosexuals are sinners and God says NO!’ and then immediately saying ‘I don’t hate gay people’. Why do people think you get to have both these views at the same time?

This article (https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/nyregion/12paladino.html?_r=1&ref=politics) got me thinking about this again today.

Equisetum | 12 October 2010 at 14:45 | Reply Great post! Why should anyone tolerate intolerance?

Richard Wolford | 12 October 2010 at 15:19 | Reply MarriageCoach, you’re a complete fucking dipshit. That whole “old testament is invalid now blah blah blah” is a complete, poorly built strawman. Who gives a shit that your god tossed out some really stupid rules? The point is that your stupid god HAD THOSE RULES TO BEGIN WITH! How omnipotent is that moronic deity when he admits to making such ignorant mistakes?

Your stupidity is mind blowing and you are a horrible person. NAMBLA my fucking ass, stop pouring out false equivalence and other non sequitors. Try investing in a book on logic, then see if you can go for a 2nd grade education to brush up on reality and reasoning you stupid fuck.

Pacal | 12 October 2010 at 18:41 | Reply John Wilder said:

First of all, the laws you mention were all Old Testament laws which were done away with the New Testament and Christ’s crucifixion.

That would also include the Levitcus prohibition against homosexuality woudn’t it?

Talk about logical insonsistency. You advocate for women not to subjected to sexual violence but you practice verbal violence against people who disagree with your viewpoint. You have no more right to verbally abuse me than I do to physically abuse you. I don’t hate anyone and you obviously do which makes you a huge hypocrite.

Your equating physical violence with verbal and saying their the samething!? Apples and oranges, oranges and apples. As for your saying that Emily as no more right to verbaly attack you than you have to physically attack you. Well you FAIL. There is the First Admendment and free speech which gives her the right to to do so. Meanwhile laws make it illegal for you to attack physically Emily. And thanks for mind reading Emily. You do realize that she was talking about having no respect for people not about hating them.

You should know that rape is not about sex but about violence and control and men’s hatred of women. You show absolute disrespect and hate for anyone who disagrees with you. Reminds me of Perez Hilton’s diatribe against a certain beauty contestant who disagreed with gay marriages which is consistent with President Obama’s view.

So saying Gays are abnormal, and sinful and will burn in hell is not hateful!? As for Perez Hilton and a certain Beauty Queen isn’t is just so fascinating how so many Christianswant to be the victim of the big bad Gay who is pingem by calling their beliefs stupid. You of course don’t see how easy it is to accuse people like you of disrespect and hate for telling people that they are sinful and will be burning in hell if they don’t believe what you believe. Kettle meet pot.

As to my molestation, it is all to common among gays. President Obama’s education czar stood by and did nothing when a teenaged boy came to him and talked about being sexually abused by a grown man, a teacher I think. There is logical consistency to my argument whether you choose to see it or not. You don’t come close to practicing what you preach but I have seldom seen a liberal who does. Hate speech is a piece of legislation that liberals push but are the most egregious offenders of their own proposed legislation. Nice that you are honest eno0ugh to show your true colors and intolerance.

Like most so-called Christians what you want is for your beliefs not to be subject to ridicule or attack, anything that does

4 Responses to Liberals Regularly Practice Hate Speech Against Conservatives

  1. Nothing better than Yahoo finding you a good website related to what I was looking for.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: