The Great Denial

Douglas Murray writes, Most Western Gays Remain in Denial about Islam:

Most gay spokespeople continue to think that the political Right is the sole locale from which anti-gay sentiment can come. … But Pat Robertson just wanted to stop gays from marrying. He didn’t call for people to throw us off high buildings. … Despite the growing awareness that this was precisely what the Islamists wanted, gay “spokespeople,” publications, and groups went through the 2000s sharing the old leftish delusions.”

And they still do.

And from Warren J. Blumenfeld, How do we stop Islamic militants’ attacks on LGBT people? Letting go of the delusions of progressive cultural relativism might be a good start.

And then there’s this.

49 Comments for “The Great Denial”

  1. posted by Doug on

    In case you missed it Stephen, in the wake of the Orlando shooting there were more than a few so called Christian preachers applauding the killings and suggesting that more ‘perverts’ and ‘child molesters’ should have been shot.

    • posted by TJ on

      The KKK focused its violence against white liberals and racial/ethnic minorities. Yet, much like Neo Nazi’s, the KKK was committed to getting rid of gays.

      I thing that some crazy person shot people at a American gay bar in the early 1980s. It was right after the film Cruising was released.

    • posted by TJ on

      1. The gunman was a terrorist, he may or may not have actual ties to a terrorist group. An serious investigation will find out more information, in time.

      2. Being a Muslim, don’t make you a terrorist. Just like being a Christian don’t make you a terrorist.

      3. All religious fundamentalists tend to look at the secular, modern world with some disdain. They tend to have very rigid views on gender roles, and sexual identity.

      4. If a religious fundamentalist goes beyond the expressive rights protected by the first amendment, you can make a case for terrorism.

  2. posted by TJ on

    hmm.

    1. I’m pretty sure Pat Robertson did back Bowers v. Hardwick. So, he just wanted the gays locked up.

    2. ISIS is more like the KKK. Both have ties to religious fundamentalists and both use violence to kill a laundry list of people that they dislike. Pat Robertson was a religious fundamentalist and he probably didn’t object to anti-gay criminal laws, but he didn’t want say anything that crossed a line with mainstream press or CONSERVATIVE Republicans.

    It is not moral relativism to insist that terrorists be terrorists. Some on the political right want terrorists to be any tom, dick and harry.

  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Homocon insistance that “radical Islam” (that is, the fundamentalist Islamic sects purporting to follow a literal and originalist interpretation of the Quran, and seeking to base civil law upon those principles, such as ultra-strict Wahhabism) is qualitatively different than “radical Christianity” (that is, the fundamentalist Christian sects purporting to follow a literal and originalist interpretation of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, and seeking to base civil law upon those principles, such as the “Christian Dominionists”) can be sustained only by willful ignorance, ignorance that is inexplicable given the deep ties between some prominant Republican politicians (e.g. Ted Cruz, Rick Perry) and the Dominionist fringe. It is a form of “The Great Denial” no more palatable than the pollyanish views of a few on the far left who dismiss “radical Islam” as unthreatening as less fundamentalist forms of Islam.

    Douglas Murray’s comment about Pat Robertson (“But Pat Robertson just wanted to stop gays from marrying.“) is a good example of “The Great Denial” about the Dominionist threat to gays and lesbians. In addition to the obvious fact that Robertson and his ilk (Tony Perkins, Brian Brown, Bryan Fischer, et. al.) push for recriminalization of sodomy, bans on gay/lesbian adoptions, and much more, the comment ignores the serious attempts by the clan to export their Dominionist theology into other Christian countries, such as Uganda, Kenya and Guyana. Capital punishment for homosexuality was narrowly averted in Uganda and Kenya, and all three countries have remarkably harsh criminal penalities in place. Homocons subject to the “Christians aren’t like that …” form of “The Great Denial” are living in a fool’s paradise. Christian Dominionists are dangerous, determined and would, if they could, turn the United States into a hellhole for gays and lesbians.

    On a somewhat different topic, Republican insistance that our enemy is “radical Islam” rather than ISIS/ISIL and similar groups, the networks and cells maintained by those groups, and (and in particular) individuals directed or influenced by those groups, strikes me as dangerous, focusing on an ideology rather than upon a threat. I find it baffling.

    We have no more likelihood of eradicating “radical Islam” than we do of eradicating “radical Christianity”, and, at least in this country, given the First Amendment, we could not do so if we tried.

    We will never be 100% successful in eradicating terrorist attacks in this country, but we will be much more likely to reduce the number of attacks if we focus our resources on ISIS/ISIL and similar terrorist groups, the cells and networks developed by those groups, and the individuals directed/influenced by those groups, rather than on an ideology.

    • posted by TJ on

      Well, obviously when a Christian fundamentalist wants to kill/imprison “them gays”, it’s just, “religious liberty”.

      When Nancy Reagan passed away, their was an interesting news story about how – during the presidential campaign – very homophobic ads ran in the south. The Reagan campaign also assured voters that the Reagan’s son was “all man” and some sort of test had been done to prove it.

      So, “kill a queer for Jesus” don’t sound too far fetched in that environment

  4. posted by Kosh III on

    The head of the CIA told Congress that Islam, radical or otherwise was not the motivation for the mass murder so the gay haters and their homoallies will just have to fabricate another lie.

    And who on the left thinks that Islam is oh so pure and blameless?
    All one has to do is look at the bloody Saudi autocrats to know different. Yet that still didn’t keep Bush from kissing them sweetly on the lips.

    • posted by TJ on

      In Saudi Arabia, only one underground political party has expressed any support for gay rights. I doubt this party would have a snow ball chance in hell of winning elections, if such elections in existed.

      Otherwise, it’s run by the Saudi anti-vice squad and the press routinely publishes articles about the squad or police cracking down on the gays.

  5. posted by Kosh III on

    Some of us are old enough to remember the “Kill a Queer for Christ” slogan.

    We happened to be at a Southern Bigot Convention church the Sunday after Matthew Shepherd was murdered. The sermon started with a few platitudes about his death and finished with Leviticus.

  6. posted by Jorge on

    I’m not impressed by this observation. Most gays are in (D)enial about just about everything.

    Essays, bloggings, and more essays by the intellectual elite about just how WRONG the Democratic party and the progressive right are by their very nature, and how (R)ight Anybody Else But Bush is.

    Dears, how about we just focus on what the right ideas are and try to maximize each of our shares of the field? You dare to say you want your gay brother to not give into hate? I will endeavor to tell you and the bystander to consider that Taliban Dad (not even a slur!) should never have even gotten into the country. Nobody’s with me except the deranged psychopath, the token bureaucrat, and some soccer mom you’ve never heard of, but we’ll protect this country anyway. That’s how it’s always been, why stress over it?

    It is not moral relativism to insist that terrorists be terrorists. Some on the political right want terrorists to be any tom, dick and harry.

    I do not understand your point. Are you suggesting that there people who have committed or attempted murders in the name of ISIS, al-Qaida, or the national interests of Muslim countries who the United States has bombed, who are not terrorists?

    Homocon insistance that “radical Islam” (that is, the fundamentalist Islamic sects purporting to follow a literal and originalist interpretation of the Quran, and seeking to base civil law upon those principles, such as ultra-strict Wahhabism) is qualitatively different than “radical Christianity” (that is, the fundamentalist Christian sects purporting to follow a literal and originalist interpretation of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, and seeking to base civil law upon those principles, such as the “Christian Dominionists”) can be sustained only by willful ignorance, ignorance that is inexplicable given the deep ties between some prominant Republican politicians (e.g. Ted Cruz, Rick Perry) and the Dominionist fringe. It is a form of “The Great Denial” no more palatable than the pollyanish views of a few on the far left who dismiss “radical Islam” as unthreatening as less fundamentalist forms of Islam.

    I can “explicate” the willful ignorance very easily: 9/11.

    In fact, I seem to recall Bill Maher (who was not part of the right) repeating an argument that Islam is the same age Christianity was during the Crusades and the Inquisition, and is for this reason engaging in very similar behaviors.

    On a somewhat different topic, Republican insistance that our enemy is “radical Islam” rather than ISIS/ISIL and similar groups, the networks and cells maintained by those groups, and (and in particular) individuals directed or influenced by those groups, strikes me as dangerous, focusing on an ideology rather than upon a threat. I find it baffling.

    I think it’s very logical when you consider that more of the terrorism is a result of not only world-away foreigners’ reaction to the principles and policies of this country, but also due to generations of radical religious education in majority Muslim countries, and recruitment and radicalization of disenfranchised Muslims in the West.

    I suspect I probably have watched more hours of extremely pessimistic ex-Muslim panelists than you have, and I certainly do think Hillary Clinton’s “jihadi terrorism” (i.e., radical Islamic terrorism) is more accurate.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I can “explicate” the willful ignorance very easily: 9/11.

      The 9/11 attacks (and several sophisticated multi-targeted bombing attacks in Europe) were the work of a highly organized, well-funded, disciplined, skilled organization, now disrupted and superseded. At present, we aren’t seeing anything like that in the United States.

      What we are seeing is a series of low-skilled, uncoordinated attacks, like the Boston bombing and the Orlando shooting, executed by ISIS-inspired individuals and small groups.

      We’ve seen that level of attack from the Christian fringe — abortion bombings, the Olympic Centennial Park bombing, bombing of gay/lesbian bars/clubs (Atlanta’s Otherside Lounge comes to mind, but there have been attacks). Actors on the Christian fringe were responsible for the Britton/Slepian/ Tiller murders, the Tennessee Valley church shooting (2 dead, seven wounded), the Brookline PP bombing/shooting (2 dead, several wounded), and the Colorado Springs PP shooting (3 dead, nine wounded), and other acts of domestic terrorism.

      The Christian fringe is no stranger to deadly-force, domestic terrorism and mayhem, Jorge. Granted, the Christian fringe isn’t Al-Qaeda and so far has not carried out large-scale attacks. Yet. Be glad for that, not smug.

  7. posted by Doug on

    ‘Most gays are in (D)enial about just about everything.’
    With all due respect that is just pure unadulterated bull shit. But I’m sure you yourself are included in that statement.

    • posted by Jorge on

      Thank you. I’m glad you understand. And you’re right, I used to be a liberal as well and I still believe a good number of liberal ideas.

  8. posted by Lori Heine on

    I think I know enough conservatives to figure out what’s going on here. This is a pivot. Many of them are heartily sick and tired of social conservatism, and have been looking for a way to shake off their iron-fisted rule for a long time. They see this as the time.

    I’ve been reached out to very warmly by a huge number of straight conservatives since Orlando. And I think they’re sincere. I would like to ask them a few pointed questions about what the hell took them so long to decide that we’re worthy of being reached out to. But I recognize what they’re doing.

    They’re trying to save face. They want to rid themselves of the fleas they picked up from having rolled around with the dogs for so many years. Should we let them do it?

    I refuse to let them get away with claiming that they ALWAYS really did support us. They most certainly did not. As far as I’m concerned, they ought to be embarrassed that they let the anti-gay crowd boss them around for so long the way they did. But I will accept their apology because, quite simply, IGF is right that we’re better off having support from both Tweedledee and Tweedledum rather than being supported by just one and viciously opposed by the other.

    We’ll see how that goes. I will believe it when I do see actual change, and not just hear a different tone from some people.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      I agree. We’re seeing a lot of this over the last week including the Lt Gov of Utah. We are justified in being angry but remember that we had every little support in the 90s. Look at how voted for DADT and DOMA. It wasn’t just Republicans and it certainly wasn’t just the far right. People voted for DOMA who are now strong allies on gay rights. People can change and we have to let them. If we will only accept people who were for us all along we’ll never get a Congress who will vote for us on anything. We have to allow people to realize they were wrong and change.

      That said. It’s got to be more than just words. Words are cheap. Actions are what counts. We’ll see if they’ve really changed. The Utah Lt Gov claims to have had a change of heart on lbgt issues. Just about a month ago he was endorsing Ted Cruz for president. That’s an awfully fast change (and who’s to say he can’t change back just as fast). I’m all for letting people like that into the club, but they don’t automatically get elite status.

      • posted by Wilberforce on

        One of my first thoughts at hearing the news was that their deaths would not be in vain. They would make people see us with more sympathy. I don’t like the thought because it seems like celebrating the atrocity. But I think it is true.
        On the political question, I think both sides are at fault. Bleeding heart liberals prefer multicultural, earthy crunchy feel goodisms rather than confront the facts, what the Koran actually teaches, and what opinion polls tell us about what people across the Muslim world actually think. Republican gun nuts have blocked common sense restrictions. The GOP has done everything it could to demonize us. And law enforcement are sitting on their hands, even when there was more than enough evidence here to produce an ongoing investigation of the nut job. Oh, but that would be a ‘police state’, or offend our sacred vision of human rights.
        Many of us knew this would happen sooner or later, because we know what people in the Muslim world think and believe. But that didn’t prepare us for it. At brunch that day, we wept openly. If only the tears could make both sides stop going for cheap political points and do something about the problem.

    • posted by JohnInCA on

      I’ll add this to the long list of “this time they’ll change” that I’ve been hearing since the mi-2000s when I became politically aware.

      And I’ll treat it with the same indifference I did after the first few: I’ll believe it when it lasts.

  9. posted by Lori Heine on

    Moreover…Donald Trump? Yuck. They’ve got to be kidding me.

    • posted by TJ on

      I know quite a few conservatives who dislike, even loath Donald Trump. They were backing a different candidate during the GOP presidential primary, and now they are stuck with Trump.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      If Trump’s victory in the primaries surprises you, then you don’t know any people typical of the GOP base. I do unfortunately. It was just a matter of who went for Cruz, who went for Trump and who went for Huckabee or Carson. Add all that up and you realize what a tiny portion of the primary voters were what the country club set likes to think is the mainstream of the party. That crowd is actually the fringe and has been for quite some time. Will 2016 be the year they wake up and realize the monster they’ve created by pandering to racist, sexist and homophobic voters? Or with they just down a few martinis and stay in denial. We’ll see. I am not optimistic but will be pleased to be proven wrong.

      • posted by Wilberforce on

        The country club set have always known quite well what kind of monster they were creating. And they could care less. To paraphrase the great Zapa, they’re only in it for the money.

  10. posted by TJ on

    Donald Trump recently said that he is better for women voters and LGBT voters then Hillary Clinton. A quick Twitter-sized post illustrated how wrong this is.

    • posted by Jorge on

      Donald Trump is better for women and LGBT people than a lot of progressives. Whether or not Hillary Clinton is one of them depends not on her own policies and competence–for then Clinton would win in a walk–but on her ability and willingness to lead the country as a whole, and the progressive movement in particular. In general I am of the view that a firm repudiation of progressive excesses is a necessary precondition to safely installing a progressive government.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      The most recent poll showed 86% support among lbgt people for Clinton. As I know a lot of gay conservatives who are claiming they will vote for Johnson and never Trump, I found Trump’s comment bizarre. But as I have worked for the 1% I know why he thinks that. Trump, like other CEOs, lives in a bubble where everyone he meets is kissing up to him for a donation or to invest in something. So I’m sure he meets all kinds of gay people looking to raise money for a charity or with business deals who tell him how great he is. Maybe they mean it or maybe they are blowing smoke up his ass. But in any case, that’s not a representative sample. Trump is delusional and if I were a Republican I’d be horrified at what the party has done. But Republicans by and large seem to be on the Trump train now. Baffling.

      • posted by Jorge on

        Trump’s appeal is different to everyone.

        There was a great article on the internet not too long ago that talked about what polling studies have found about voters who eventually became Trump supporters during the primary. It’s well-known by now that they were more likely to be white, male, struggling, uneducated, and anti-diversity than the average Republican voter, as well as less conservative. But the typical Trump voter tended to possess only one or some of these qualities.

        What I don’t understand so well is the indecisiveness of the conservative and Republican factions. First his opponents all raised their hands and said they’d support Trump as the Republican nominee, then Paul Ryan’s hesitating to endorse him, then he and a whole slew of Republicans are condemning or abandoning him. I suspect the change happened when several columnists broke the 12th Commandment of the Republican party and wrote, “Hillary’s not that bad.”

        • posted by Jorge on

          “conservative and Republican factions”… hmm, I get a little indecisive about who Trump’s opposition on the right is.

    • posted by Doug on

      Trump would be better for LGBT community so he appoints gay-haters Reed, Dobson, Falwell to campaign advisory board. Give me a break.

  11. posted by Jorge on

    I think I know enough conservatives to figure out what’s going on here. This is a pivot. Many of them are heartily sick and tired of social conservatism, and have been looking for a way to shake off their iron-fisted rule for a long time. They see this as the time.

    I wish the conservatives I paid most attention to reflected that right now. But they have already made their move; they are not the reactive type. It is hard for me to make sense of the mass “catch up”, if that is what it is.

    They’re trying to save face. They want to rid themselves of the fleas they picked up from having rolled around with the dogs for so many years. Should we let them do it?

    One of my old middle school enemies is currently running for public office. This was quite possibly before I even was gay, but I hope you understand I am being extremely diplomatic. So I spoke to him briefly before this candidates’ forum began (in my appearance and choice of subject matter it would have been difficult to dismiss the likelihood I was gay), and then during the forum I asked the candidates a question on a local LGBT issue. He’s the establishment Democrat, and he spoke like one. It was all positively “normal.” Except, if I had not been there, there may not have been any accountability.

    In order to prepare for “normal”, I wrote a graphic journal entry imagining myself being forced to watch straight pornography and other explicit horrors, in order to find a place to put my disgust. That was necessary to support my commitment to refrain from disgraceful conduct. I also ignored him three straight times when I noticed him campaigning.

    You know what the right thing to do is, Lori.

  12. posted by Jorge on

    One more thing.

    I also helped tremendously that I lobbied his predecessor on school bullying. Do not depend on the goodwill of any particular person to accept what is rightfully yours.

    • posted by Lori Heine on

      Yes. I’m a libertarian partially because I don’t trust politicians of any stripe. I don’t even trust libertarian politicians.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        No politician should ever be trusted. Our Constitution includes checks and balances on political power for a reason.

  13. posted by Clayton on

    I am not in denial about ISIS, and I do not think homophobia is solely the province of the political right, but I do think many on the political right are using ISISvfor political cover, A year ago, Cruz said gays were waging “jihad”?on Christians (his word) and said Obergefell marked one of the darkest days in American history. A few months ago he was running ads about the threat transgender people were posing to women and children in restrooms. After Orlando? He claimed there never would have been a problem if only people had listened to him about ISIS! That f—er has been putting targets on our back every chance he got. To claim now that he has our interests at heart is disgusting

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I am not in denial about ISIS, and I do not think homophobia is solely the province of the political right, but I do think many on the political right are using ISISvfor political cover …

      Exactly. Anti-equality conservatives are using the classic wife-beater ploy: “I didn’t kill you, you stupid bitch! What’s your problem?”

  14. posted by TJ on

    Jorge;

    Do you have a learning disability? Maybe a type of autism?

    • posted by Jorge on

      Just an allergy to bullcrap.

    • posted by clayton on

      I was typing on a cell phone with an outdated pair of glasses. Sorry for the multiple typos. Thank you for your expression of concern.

    • posted by clayton on

      I was typing on a cell phone with an outdated pair of glasses. Sorry for the multiple typos. Thank you for your expression of concern.

  15. posted by TJ on

    I can’t seem to find anything from President Reagan or the administration about the Bowers decision in 1986.

    I would have thought that the press would have asked for a comment from the white house after the decision.

    Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer both supported the decision. Reagan had previously said that being gay was a illness and should be illegal, but not much official seems to have come from the white house about Bowers.

    • posted by Lori Heine on

      “Reagan had previously said that being gay was a illness and should be illegal”
      — Citation, please. Quote this and list where you found it. If possible, provide a link.

      Also please explain Governor Reagan’s opposition to the Briggs Amendment. In light of your claim, it makes little sense.

      “Do you have a learning disability? Maybe a type of autism?”

      If someone here has said something with which you take issue, TJ, is it possible for you to simply deal with what they said, instead of making bigoted an un-evolved remarks about learning disabilities or mental health issues?

      I know many people on the left are trying to define “progressivism” down to the point where it merely means waving blue pom-poms instead of red ones. But you’re not making your team look very good. Perhaps you ought to bench yourself.

      • posted by JohnInCA on

        http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/06/05/op-ed-gay-truth-about-ronald-reagan

        https://igfculturewatch.com/2004/06/10/reagan-and-gays-a-reassessment/

        Former says he referred to gay folks as “sick unfortunates”, later says he had “the common view of his time that homosexuality was a sickness”. The advocate article also cites the Advocate as having given him flak over sodomy laws in the 70s, but I can’t find anything specific on that.

        Take it or leave it, but there’s no call for getting insulted because someone isn’t as charitable to the man that brought the religious right into mainstream politics.

      • posted by JohnInCA on

        Well, I don’t know about TJ, but I tried to provide some sources for why people might think Reagan thought gay people were diseased. Apparently it’s been “awaiting moderation” for days, presumably because it includes links. But I did quickly find articles on both IGF and the Advocate that attributed such beliefs to Reagan. Which really shouldn’t be shocking: the man was born in 1911, well before the DSM removed homosexuality from it’s lists and over fifty years before Illinois repealled it’s sodomy law (the first state to do so).

        Speaking of sodomy laws, again, couldn’t find much. Reagan left the governorship of California in early 1975, and California legislatively repealled it’s sodomy law months later. But I did find multiple references to the legislative battle being a long and contentious six-year battle, putting the bulk of it during Reagan’s term. So with the few bits I did find obliquely referencing contemporary sources that called Reagan to task for opposing repeal, I’m not sure it’s unfair to believe he supported the laws.

        As for the Brigg’s initiative… don’t know, don’t care that much. Actions speak louder then words and all that jazz. If you’re interested in why a man that opposed the repeal of sodomy bans would oppose the Brigg’s Initiative, I’m sure there’s plenty of Reagan apologists who would be happy to explain it.

        Take it or leave it, but there’s no call to act like people believing Reagan was anti-gay are unreasonable. Especially when pretty much all contemporary sources, during both his governorship and presidency, on all sides of the aisle, agreed on it.

        • posted by Lori Heine on

          John and TJ, I don’t spend all my time fawning over those in power, so I don’t hang on every word any politician–of either Team Donkey or Team Elephant–has ever uttered. I was under no impression that Reagan was a brave pioneer, blazing a bright trail for LGBT rights. But given the wild claims continually made by both sides about what some emperor on the other has supposedly said, my skepticism is certainly understandable.

          I don’t trust any of them. I hope that clarifies my opinions.

          But again, why are we even still haggling over what a president who’s been dead for over a decade, and out of office for much longer than that, may or may not have said or done? Why was the first response of our self-appointed elites to spin the narrative on Orlando in a way that–surprise, surprise–gave them even more power?

          I don’t expect an answer, because I won’t get one. Someone else will probably be slimed as “autistic” or even “mentally ill” for saying anything that upsets the applecart. Par for the course.

          • posted by JohnInCA on

            “But again, why are we even still haggling over what a president who’s been dead for over a decade […]”
            Wouldn’t that question have been more appropriate before you demanded more information on Reagan?
            I mean seriously, you’re the only one “haggling” here.

            “Why was the first response of our self-appointed elites to spin the narrative on Orlando in a way that–surprise, surprise–gave them even more power?”
            I’m curious who the “self-appointed elites” you mean are. But as for the elected “elites”, because that’s what politicians do. They push their favored policies and laws (be they gun control or surveillance state), and take advantage of current events to support those policies and laws.

  16. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Most gay spokespeople continue to think that the political Right is the sole locale from which anti-gay sentiment can come.

    I wonder if the homocons who endlessly chide us for not focusing our attention on Islamic “anti-gay sentiment” instead of the US “political Right” ever consider how much work the homocons and their religious/political allies give us on the homefront. I don’t know about others, but I’ve had my hands full for years fighting for equal treatment in the United States, and fending off attacks on equality from the “political Right”. That doesn’t mean I’m ignorant of, or indifferent to, the “anti-gay sentiment” of Islam, but it does mean that I’m focusing on what most affects gays and lesbians in the US. I suspect that is true of most gays and lesbians, however much homocons may chide them for not focusing elsewhere.

    Somewhat related (and mindful of my caution in the earlier thread about leaping ahead of the facts before the FBI/OPD has finished its investigation), a complex picture of the Orlando killer is starting to emerge, which calls into question whether the killings (and his selection of Pulse as target) were a simple case of “Jihadism”. See “Troubled. Quiet. Macho. Angry. The volatile life of the Orlando shooter.“, Washington Post, June 17, 2016, and “‘Always Agitated. Always Mad’: Omar Mateen, According to Those Who Knew Him“, New York Times, June 19, 2016, and other similar articles.

    And then there’s this.

    LOL. You must sit up nights (hopefully half drunk so that it won’t be total waste) to dredge up obscure crap like this.

  17. posted by Jorge on

    Somewhat related (and mindful of my caution in the earlier thread about leaping ahead of the facts before the FBI/OPD has finished its investigation), a complex picture of the Orlando killer is starting to emerge, which calls into question whether the killings (and his selection of Pulse as target) were a simple case of “Jihadism”. See “Troubled. Quiet. Macho. Angry. The volatile life of the Orlando shooter.“, Washington Post, June 17, 2016, and “‘Always Agitated. Always Mad’: Omar Mateen, According to Those Who Knew Him“, New York Times, June 19, 2016, and other similar articles.

    You beat me to it. My citation was going to be a tiny blip of a NY Post article quoting a prior companion as saying he hated (really hated) Puerto Ricans because of an experience with an HIV+ man.

    I agree this point is somewhat related to your earlier point.

    Converting people from gay progressives to gay moderates is a lost cause, much less progressive to conservative. And besides, I’m not sure a change in the balance of power would be particularly helpful. In matters like the War on Terror, it would be better for gay rightists to join forces with other right-leaning forces and compete rather than cooperate with gay progressives. A certain amount of minimally disruptive competition is needed in order to bring unpleasant truths to light.

    I think conservative straight Republicans should be lecturing progressive gays that Islam hates them, and using progressive gays as political pawns to look good before straight moderates. If conservative straight people dared to lecture progressive gay people more often, the Anderson Cooper WTF backlashes that followed might make this country a slightly better place. We might even begin to see conservative straight people make sense more often.

    • posted by JohnInCA on

      “I think conservative straight Republicans should be lecturing progressive gays that Islam hates them […]”
      A necessary first step is for them to repudiate the Christians that hate gay folks.

      Until conservative straight Republicans are doing that, any attempt by them to paint Islam as anti-gay bigots will smack of rank hypocrisy and opportunism, and nothing more.

      • posted by Jorge on

        A necessary first step is for them to repudiate the Christians that hate gay folks.

        I fully realize I’m going out on a limb, and I would like to point out that your response has shades of, “If you’re not a pedophile, you need to disavow NAMBLA before we accept you.”

        If you give people a list of preconditions and unacceptable mistakes to avoid before they can even speak to you, how can you expect to build enough of a rapport to create allies? Instead of telling people “check your privilege at the door”, it is better to call people out on their privilege and mistakes, to demand better, not perfection.

        In order for someone to be motivated to change how s/he looks at and treats other people, s/he has to be able to have some sense of identification with them. You’re presenting a straight conservative someone with an unpleasant task: disavow your own religious community. Are you asking the straight conservative person to do this for a friend who s/he has met and sees as himself? Or as you asking him or her to do this for the sake of some statistical gay people s/he read about in a newspaper article?

        That is why I would rather see straight conservative people have actual conversations with gay people first, and then be confronted with the accusation that they are hypocrites. You get more powerful persuasion that way.

        (The danger is that this effect works both ways.)

        • posted by JohnInCA on

          I think it’s telling that you think “not seeking the endorsement of folks calling for our deaths” is too high a bar to ask.

          Many religious leaders don’t do that. In fact, very few in America do that. You have to really try to find American religious leaders that call for our deaths.

          So if that bar is too high for Republicans to meet, that says way more about them then it ever will about me.

  18. posted by Jorge on

    The New York Post is going on a rather notable “ISIS hates gays” theme today.

    First an article about a Syrian refugee who is one of the parade’s grand marshals (wait, the Post is pre-observing the day of the pride parade?), then an opinion column by James Kirchick. There is a numbing sameness to both pieces. It is not simply that the Middle East is oppressive toward gays, which is insidious enough; the Islamic State has purged its own character of all hints of decency.

    And look at how sensationalist NYC’s conservative paper is: a picture of a cage of men barely peeking over the water, a man in an orange jumpsuit held by a masked man with a knife, a firing squad facing a row of people mostly laying down.

    It is not unreasonable that many of not most of this country’s gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community rejects these kinds of appeals as insulting and demeaning toward their own experiences of oppression, experiences which have almost never been taken at face value. These sorts of stories blithely embody the very sort of social inequality these LGBTs are fighting against.

    Oh well.

Comments are closed.