Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Obsessed with obsession with obsession...or something like that

Evil Bender seems positively obsessed with my obsession with claiming Brayton is obsessed with anything gay. And why do I call Evil Bender obsessed? For the same reason he calls me obsessed: because I occasionally post on my blog about it. If I'm obsessed, why isn't he obsessed? For that matter, why, under this logic, isn't Ed Brayton obsessed? In fact, it's sort of ironic that Evil Bender would charge me with saying that Ed is obsessed (which I have never said) when the only argument under which Ed could be considered to be obsessed is the one laid down on his own blog.

In fact, the funny thing is that posts like Evil Bender's are not only that they are logically self-defeating, but that they prove my point: that any time you question the Approved Opinions on homosexuality, you get a hysterical response.

In response to my comment that gays get upset merely because you disagree with them, he invokes Matthew Shepherd. What is his argument? And what does it have to do with what I said? It is hard to tell. Matthew Shepherd was killed by idiots, he seems to suggest, therefore anyone who disagrees with the political agenda of gay organizations is an idiot. Evil Bender seems to find this logic singularly compelling.
I guess Cothran has never heard of Matthew Shepard. Or maybe Shepard’s killers aren’t the homosexuals who Cothran is discussing. Or maybe he’s thinking of the vicious gangs of lesbians that Bill O is so afraid of. Cothran loves rhetoric, so I have to wonder how he could be so blind to the realities of homophobia that he would accuse gay people of being “violent” in their disagreement–and this in a world where actual violence against homosexuals is a very real, very horrific problem.
To simply say "Matthew Shepherd," and repeat the formula often, is somehow seen as constituting an argument in defense of campus speech codes and other forms of intimidation toward people who disagree with the Tolerance Police. Apparently there is widespread violence against gays that will somehow be eliminated if we simply stifle free expression.

Or is there?

The only people who supported murdering Matthew Shepherd were the people who murdered Matthew Shepherd. Are there groups out there supporting murdering gays? Where? And how many other instances similar to the Shepherd case are there? I have asked this question before, and have yet to receive an answer. Gays are more likely to be celebrated in our popular culture than they are to be discriminated against in any form. In fact, it would be interesting to see who would be the more likely victim of discrimination in applying, say, for a media or academic job: a person who is openly gay, or a person who openly disagrees with gays.

Oh, and lest I forget, somehow this all undermines the case for Intelligent Design. Go and view his post and see if you can make sense of it. I can't.

14 comments:

Celular said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Motheral said...

To simply say "Matthew Shepherd," and repeat the formula often, is somehow seen as constituting an argument in defense of campus speech codes and other forms of intimidation toward people who disagree with the Tolerance Police.

Evil Bender says absolutely no such thing, at least not in the Paragraph of his that you quoted just before this hysterical nonsense about "tolerance police." Your blatant misrepresentation of the meaning of words you quoted, when the meaning is obvious to anyone who can read, speaks volumes about your honesty. "Vere Loqui" this ain't.

Are there groups out there supporting murdering gays?

There are PLENTY of people who equate gays with terrorists, nuclear attacks, pedophilia, bestiality, and all manner of evils, any one of which makes a ready excuse for killing them. WE all understand that terrorists and child-rapists deserve to die; therefore if you equate gays with either of these evils, you justify killing gays too.

Ever hear of a guy named Pat Robertson? He -- and other evangelical "Christians" -- explicitly said that 9/11 was (his) God's punishment of America, because we allowed gays to live. How's that for "supporting murdering gays?"

Ever heard of your fellow Republicans Alan Keyes, Sun Myung Moon, John Hagee, Rod Parsley, and (thankfully deceased) Jerry Falwell? Look up their statements about gays if you don't believe me.

Also, ever hear of a place called Iran? They hang gay teenagers there, and it's legal.

Gays are more likely to be celebrated in our popular culture than they are to be discriminated against in any form.

Anyone who reads a reputable newspaper would know you're both a bigot and a moron. Ed Brayton alone has proven you flat wrong on this, many times, and unlike you, he always cites actual news sources to back up his assertions.

In fact, it would be interesting to see who would be the more likely victim of discrimination in applying, say, for a media or academic job: a person who is openly gay, or a person who openly disagrees with gays.

There are plenty of the latter group in the highest ranks of the Republican Party and its supporting interest-groups; and the media are giving them a free pass.

Motheral said...

By the way, I just read Bender's post, and there's nothing "hysterical" or "obsessive" about it. He's right, you're wrong, and all you can do is call him names, lie about what he actually said, and fall back into your "violent gay persecution" fantasy.

One Brow said...

Oh, and lest I forget, somehow this all undermines the case for Intelligent Design.

Not according to Evil Bender. He said it just makes the character of ID proponents all the more clear to people who might be inclined to agree with you.

Evil Bender said...

Twice now, you've "responded" to one of my posts by mentioning part of it out of context. Last time I didn't bother to point out the distortions of my position--this time, I will.

Thank you for suggesting without evidence that I'm a member of the "Tolerance Police." Thank you for calling my "hysterical" and for putting words in my mouth like "Apparently there is widespread violence against gays that will somehow be eliminated if we simply stifle free expression."

Of course, I never said or suggested any such thing, nor would I, but that doesn't stop you from making up a nice strawman to attack.

To recap my actual point: homosexuals are far, far more likely to be the victims of discrimination than the perpetuators of it, while actual descrimination comes from members of the powerful heterosexual majority it's nonsense to claim they are waving their sexuality "in your face," and accusing them of intolerance and violence while providing rhetoric that covers for those who would do harm to gay people is truly reprehensible, as are your repeated distortions about my position.

Blather all you want about how hard it is to be a conservative Christian in the face of rainbow-clad "tolerance police." Just don't expect reasonable people to stop making fun of you for it.

Martin Cothran said...

Evil Bender,

Twice now, you've "responded" to one of my posts by mentioning part of it out of context.

Yeah, check out your quote of my term "violent" (clearly meaning rhetorically violent) to give the impression that I said gays were physically violent.

Thank you for suggesting without evidence that I'm a member of the "Tolerance Police."

Wait. Are you saying that you really believe there is such a thing as the "Tolerance Police"? Are you in the habit of taking everything someone says literally rather than in the way it is obviously meant? If so, I need to introduce you to a few of my fundamentalist friends.

Thank you for calling me "hysterical"...

You're welcome. Thank you for for saying I'm obsessed.

... and for putting words in my mouth like "Apparently there is widespread violence against gays that will somehow be eliminated if we simply stifle free expression. Of course, I never said or suggested any such thing, nor would I, but that doesn't stop you from making up a nice strawman to attack."

Really? Here is what you said in your post: "and this in a world where actual violence against homosexuals is a very real, very horrific problem." If it does not extend beyond the one incident of Matthew Shepherd (a past event), then in what sense is it a problem (present tense) in our world? In which case, I think you ought to answer my question: other than this one case, where is the evidence for this being a "problem"?

To recap my actual point: homosexuals are far, far more likely to be the victims of discrimination than the perpetuators of it, while actual descrimination comes from members of the powerful heterosexual majority..."

Oh c'mon. You mean like the powerful heterosexual majority that runs our colleges and universities that commonly imposes speech codes that prevent you from expressing disagreement with homosexuals under the guise of "diversity"? Or maybe the powerful heterosexual majority that runs the media, which celebrates everything gays say and do?

Blather all you want about how hard it is to be a conservative Christian in the face of rainbow-clad "tolerance police."

Since the main point of your comment was to accuse me of misrepresenting your position, maybe you could tell me where I said it was "hard to be a conservative Christian." Never said it. It's actually pretty easy, especially when those who disagree with you give you so much ammunition.

Just don't expect reasonable people to stop making fun of you for it.

Maybe you could point these people out to me sometime.

Look, I'm sure you're a very nice guy, and if you're going to take a direct swipe at me on your blog, that's fine. I love the give and take. But if you're going to dish it out, you better be prepared to take it.

adam brown said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Motheral said...

If it does not extend beyond the one incident of Matthew Shepherd (a past event), then in what sense is it a problem (present tense) in our world? In which case, I think you ought to answer my question: other than this one case, where is the evidence for this being a "problem"?

This is the most transparently lame and cowardly attempt I've yet seen to pretend you don't see a problem that's been well-documented, in both the MSM and the blogsphere, for many many years. At the very least, you know Ed Brayton discusses this problem in several posts; so you have absolutely no excuse to pretend you don't understand what we're talking about.

Also, I myself gave you an answer to the above question before you repeated it; and you completely ignored it.

It's perfectly obvious you lost this argument, and made an ass of yourself as well. No amount of diversionary word-twisting can cover up this fact. Give it up and move on.

Martin Cothran said...

Motheral,

I'm only too happy to provide you with forum where you can show up, post answers that are non-answers and then jump up and down and declare victory. I hope this process is fulfilling for you.

To my original question about the actual level of violence against gays the best you can do is a) Neglect to give any statistics about such violence in the U.S., and b) Talk about the treatment of gays in Iran.

You're not one of those people who were against Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia University, not because of his backing of terrorism, but because of his homophobia were you?

My original post had nothing to do with Iran. I don't care about Iran. I can't do anything about Iran. Besides, Iran has a lot worse problems than how gays are treated. How people can look out on the problems of this world--starvation, disease, and bloodshed--and somehow determine that homophobia is what we should be spending our time on is a commentary on how fixated some people are on this issue.

So let me be a little more specific: What is the data on violence against gays in the United States? Not in Iran. Not in Botswana. Not in Bangladesh.

Here in the United States.

Evil Bender said...

If it does not extend beyond the one incident of Matthew Shepherd (a past event), then in what sense is it a problem (present tense) in our world? In which case, I think you ought to answer my question: other than this one case, where is the evidence for this being a "problem"?

You might start with an obscure source I found called "wikipedia":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people

Which links to the (also publicly available) FBIs hate crime statistics. It also lists dozens of post-Shepard incidents of violence and murder where people were targeted because they were gay, or presumed to be gay. (There are sources and everything! That sure took me a long time to find.)

In 2006, there were a total of 1366 reported crimes targeted at actual or perceived homosexuals. There were 28 reported crimes targetted at actual or perceived heterosexuals.

I could go on, but it's obvious you simply refuse to believe that gay people are in any danger. Obviously in your mind they're too busy controlling the media to be the victims of attacks based on their orientation.

Yeah, check out your quote of my term "violent" (clearly meaning rhetorically violent) to give the impression that I said gays were physically violent.

Since you love taking my posts out of context, here's what I actually said: "Cothran loves rhetoric, so I have to wonder how he could be so blind to the realities of homophobia that he would accuse gay people of being “violent” in their disagreement–and this in a world where actual violence against homosexuals is a very real, very horrific problem."

I think that's pretty clear that my point is your rhetoric disguises the real source of violence by falsely equating disagreement with actual violence

I said it was "hard to be a conservative Christian." Never said it. It's actually pretty easy, especially when those who disagree with you give you so much ammunition.

No, you didn't say that directly. But you imply it clearly, over and over. It's the mean liberal gays controlling the media who have "tolerance police" out to keep religious conservatives down, preventing them from telling us all how much they hate homosexuality.

The difference, since you obviously don't get it, is that you suggested, without a shred of evidence, that I was attempting to silence free speech. I correctly identified you as trying to "protect" the heterosexual majority and those who hate homosexuality against an imagined homosexual lobby that controls the medi and the schools. I suggested that you were downplaying actual violence in an attempt to make anti-gay bigots look like victims and homosexuals looks like the perpetrators, when the opposite is true. Your post and all your comments have demonstrated I was absolutely correct.

I await your concession that violence against homosexuals is a real and continuing problem, one that didn't end with Matthew Shepard.

fMotheral said...

Besides, Iran has a lot worse problems than how gays are treated.

These problems are not separate; their violence and intolerance toward gays are symptoms of what's causing or exacerbating their other problems: rigid application of outdated rules; refusal to accept secular power or diminution of religious power; punishing innocent people for problems not caused by them...is any of this starting to sound familiar to you?

(Speaking of other problems, I've heard it said that those teenagers weren't actually hanged for being gay -- that was just the legal pretext. Their real crime was resisting sexual advances by older imams.)

Your inability to comprehend this basic fact proves, once again, that you really don't care enough to make any mental effort to learn anything before you preach.

To my original question about the actual level of violence against gays the best you can do is a) Neglect to give any statistics about such violence in the U.S., and b) Talk about the treatment of gays in Iran.

I also talked about the treatment of gays in America, and the rhetoric -- from conservatives "Christians" like yourself -- that fuels hatred and violence. You ignored it.

Bender has answered the question you directed to me. Now that your question has been answered, do you have any comment?

fMotheral said...

How people can look out on the problems of this world--starvation, disease, and bloodshed--and somehow determine that homophobia is what we should be spending our time on is a commentary on how fixated some people are on this issue.

"Some people" apparently includes you. I've been following your blog for several months now, and I have yet to see you post anything about those problems. Apparently you're too obsessed with phony stories of the "persecution" of white Republican creationists to bother with all that famine and war stuff.

Motheral said...

Okay, how the Hell that that "f" get in front of my handle both times? It's the new keyboard's fault...

Evil Bender said...

I notice you still haven't admitted that violence against homosexuals is a real and continuing problem. I'm still waiting for you to do the honest thing and admit you were wrong.