On Being Conservative and Gay

Point:

Counterpoint:
And this hateful response from the left.

22 Comments for “On Being Conservative and Gay”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    DECEMBER 14 UPDATE: FRAUDULENT POSTS ROADMAP as of 9:57 am GMT, December 14, 2018:

    My heartfelt thanks to the IGF volunteers who removed 85+/- fraudulent posts published in the last several days.

    I have been reading and commenting on IGF since 2004. IGF offers a unique forum for discussion of the issues raised on it from time to time. I hated watching IGF’s long-standing reputation being destroyed by the fraudulent posts.

    And, on a personal front, my children and my grandchildren could have stumbled upon the fraudulent posts, which were virulently anti-Semitic in nature, and been distressed to read them. It will not be too many years before Kaddish is sung for me, and I will not be on this earth to explain the origin of those posts. It is best that they are gone from the face of the earth.

    It means a lot to me that you did the work. I am grateful to you.

    As of this morning, just two fraudulent posts remain outstanding:

    (A) Kevin Hart and Apology Politics, by Stephen H. Miller on December 9, 2018

    FRAUDULENT COMMENT: 300946
    DATE POSTED: December 11, 2018
    PURPORTED AUTHOR: Tom Scharbach
    CONTENTS OF FRAUDULENT COMMENT: “At least African-Americans won’t have to kiss the ass of that dirty Jew Norman Lear for much longer.”

    (B) Trans Orthodoxy vs. Lesbian-Feminist Heresy, by Stephen H. Miller on November 30, 2018

    FRAUDULENT COMMENT: 300774
    DATE POSTED: December 1, 2018
    PURPORTED AUTHOR: Tom Scharbach
    CONTENTS OF FRAUDULENT COMMENT: “Transcult transcult über alles Über alles in der welt!”

    All fraudulent posts have been removed from the following threads:

    (C) Challenging P.C Group-Think, by Stephen H. Miller on December 7, 2018
    (D) Gay Youth at Risk, by Stephen H. Miller on December 6, 2018
    (E) George H.W. Bush, Remembered, by Stephen H. Miller on December 4, 2018
    (F) Racism and Political Correctness Have Much in Common, by Stephen H. Miller on November 24, 2018
    (G) Who Are the ‘Haters’?, by Stephen H. Miller on November 20, 2018
    (I) DeVos–and Due Process–vs. the ACLU, by Stephen H. Miller on November 18, 2018
    (J) Hate Is Not a Virtue Because You’re a Progressive, by Stephen H. Miller on November 12, 2018
    (H) The LGBT Vote, by Stephen H. Miller on November 7, 2018
    (K) Both Sides Lost, by Stephen H. Miller on November 7, 2018
    (L) Reshaping the Judiciary, by Stephen H. Miller on November 3, 2018

    I will continue to monitor IGF for fraudulent postings going forward and will alert you if and when additional fraudulent posts are published.

    Reply
  2. posted by Kosh III on

    Ooo, the poor little snowflakes, getting a taste of what conservatives have been dishing out in heaps for decades. Clutch the pearls baby!

    Reply
  3. posted by Jorge on

    Yes, I heard. But didn’t I read the first article already?

    Clutch the pearls baby!

    Clutch them upside down and vote for Donald J. Trump.

    “To be a conservative means to be forced to choose when to speak and when to remain silent, since offending someone on the left, even mildly or by accident, is a social battle you may not be able to win.”

    Oh, please. This is just the mewling of internalized oppression by liberal women.

    Repeat after me: I am the voice that matters.

    Women have tits.

    You Muslims are

    I am racist.

    I don’t give a fuck.

    Now that you can say shocking things without choking, say them sparingly, only when you have to.

    Reply
  4. posted by David Bauler on

    Gay conservatives have a role to play, potentially. So do gay liberals and centrists.

    Reply
  5. posted by JohnInCA on

    For someone so afraid to speak his conservative opinions, he sure seems to regularly write politically conservative articles for a politically conservative website, often getting thousands of comments.

    And whataya know, he’s got an active Twitter feed too.

    So I’m going to have to beg forgiveness, but even as he claims he is oppressed, he has a platform. Even as he claims he is censored, he speaks vitriol. Even as he claims he is ostracized, he gets attention.

    Further, I’ve found plenty of stuff that’s pretty firmly anti-anti-discrimination. So he thinks that yes, employers should be able to disassociate with him because he’s gay, but he’s mad that liberals might disassociate with him because he’s conservative.

    So yeah. If he wanted to show that there’s actually a problem, or for me to care about his plight in particular, he failed.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      Further, I’ve found plenty of stuff that’s pretty firmly anti-anti-discrimination. So he thinks that yes, employers should be able to disassociate with him because he’s gay, but he’s mad that liberals might disassociate with him because he’s conservative.

      So what?

      One’s a matter of moral judgment on one’s personal behavior and values. Such judgment might be right, might be wrong; one is free to associate with people who are right. The other is a social judgment on one’s ability to think and reason for oneself. One is not free to even be a person of one’s own thoughts, let alone associate with others who are right.

      All one asks for from liberals is the ability to be second-best some of the time (around liberal-majority groups), first-best other times (around conservative-majority groups), and the right to be left alone the rest of the time. Is that an acceptable offer to liberals? Or is their endgame to break into the private bedrooms of every right-leaning person in America, publicize their lives, and make them unemployable pariahs? I thought Lawrence v. Texas banned stuff like that.

      Since that’s that not too far from the liberal endgame, one must put forth defensive measures: talk to people and say “I’m here! I matter.” People who know the truth and employ measure designed to make their ideas immortal instead are prime targets for intense social targeting.

      Reply
      • posted by JohnInCA on

        If I very publicly called your boss and said “you know, it’s totally chill with me and everyone else if you fire Jorge. Not for reasons of performance or merit, just ’cause. M’kay, talk to you later”, you might be mad. If I did this over and over again, you might be pissed.

        And if I then said “Hey Jorge, want to get drinks later tonight?” you would be entirely justified if you said “fork off, JohnInCA”

        Freedom of Association does not mean that others have to associate with you, especially after you very publicly attack them, over and over again.

        And that’s got nothing to do with “social judgement on one’s ability to think and reason for oneself”, that’s 100% judging a guy for his personal behavior and stated values.

        In short, if you don’t want people to think you’re an ass, don’t act like an ass.

        As to the rest, no one is trying into his private bedroom. They’re criticizing him for his public behavior. There’s no reason to confuse the two.

        Reply
        • posted by Jorge on

          …And if I then said “Hey Jorge, want to get drinks later tonight?” you would be entirely justified if you said “fork off, JohnInCA”

          That is not the issue. If I am one whose values you do not approve of so much that you would act against me directly, there would be no invitation by you for association in the first place.

          This would make it all the more unjustifiable for one does not even know you or me to seek you out and cause violence and harassment onto you.

          This seems a fair opportunity to point to a statement in Mr. Greene’s article:

          “Despite the wide range in differences in style, subject matter, and presentation between Milo and many of us on the right, the left does not see much distinction.”

          Now, why do you think he wrote that? Where is this idea of “acting like an ass” coming from? I don’t think you really believe those two are the only asses on earth.

          “If the left believes surrounding the homes of political figures and threatening their families is justified protest, what would happen to a person with far less of a powerful voice to fight back? Everything I was told to fear about being openly gay has become a reality in being openly conservative. The fear of being fired, harassed, called dehumanizing names, bullied, and denied access to public life (even violence) are all realities I face today as a conservative.”

          Who among the people who interrupted Ted Cruz’s dinner with protests was anyone that Senator Cruz invited for dinner? Tell me, that I may understand. Or do you think “Well, doy! Ted Cruz” excuses it?

          If freedom of association means anything at all, it means the right to be left alone.

          Reply
          • posted by JohnInCA on

            That is not the issue.

            I’ll concede it’s not the issue in this article. But “why don’t liberal gays like me?!” is a common refrain in similar posts about how being conservative is worse then being gay, including in prior articles by this guy. He very much does want to regularly malign the “gay community” but still get invited to the parties.

            As to

            “Despite the wide range in differences in style, subject matter, and presentation between Milo and many of us on the right, the left does not see much distinction.”

            That’s a claim without evidence. He claims folks don’t see much of a distinction, but Milo lost book deals, lost access to many people, and so-on. Greene has not.

            Now, why do you think he wrote that?

            Because it fits his narrative.

            Where is this idea of “acting like an ass” coming from?

            His other articles.

            And of course we have this lovely gem:

            “The fear of being fired, harassed, called dehumanizing names, bullied, and denied access to public life (even violence) are all realities I face today as a conservative.”

            He works for a conservative publication and he’s worried about being fired for being conservative? That, if sincere, is paranoia. If they fire him, it won’t be because he’s conservative.

            To the rest, while there has been some cases of violence against random conservatives, it is still less then the violence seen by random LGBT folks. And seeing as there are vastly more conservatives then LGBT folk, that makes it quite clear that no, it’s not more dangerous to be conservative then LGBT, despite whatever his personal experiences are.

            And finally,

            If freedom of association means anything at all, it means the right to be left alone.

            Sure. If you actually took the time and effort to full disassociate yourself from others, then you could be reasonably upset if you run into someone that’s upset with you. But that’s not something any of these people have done. They complain about liberals, and then live in “liberal” places They complain about Mexicans, and then hire Mexicans to tend their lawns. They complain about gays, and then want to go to our parties.

            So to the degree you are right, it doesn’t apply because the people in question are, quite simply, not willing to exercise that level of disassociation.

            Or to put it another way… I can disassociate from a church by not going. But so long as my house has a publicly accessible driveway and path to my door, I don’t get to claim a violation of my rights when the church ladies come to my door every week trying to talk to me about Jesus. I don’t get to claim the cute Latter Day Saints boys are violating my rights when they try to talk to me on the sidewalk. I dont’ get to claim the crazy street preacher is violating my right when he hollers about the end times in my vicinity.

            Freedom of Association does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that people are obligated to ignore you when you’re in public places.

  6. posted by Kosh III on

    “Or is their endgame to break into the private bedrooms of every right-leaning person in America, publicize their lives, and make them unemployable pariahs?”

    This is what gays have been saying for years while Conservatives/GOP/Theocrats have cheerfully and persistently done that: Kill a Queer for Christ, GotAidsYet etc etc

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      Conservatives/GOP/Theocrats…

      I’ll wait for the next “Stigma of being gay in flyover country” article from Huffpo.

      Reply
      • posted by Kosh III on

        Not Huff Post but more GOP hatred of gays. I thought Trump was the greatest most fabulous ever President for lgbt rights.
        https://www.vox.com/2018/12/17/18140798/lgbt-eeoc-mike-lee-chai-feldblum-discrimination

        Reply
        • posted by Jorge on

          The EEOC and the Senate at first glance seem to be about as far from flyover country as one could get, and I hardly think opposition to same sex marriage counts in the same universe as hatred toward gays.

          The veiled swipe at her ethnic-sounding name and the not even remotely subtle broadside at her gender tell me that this is more about power and control toward political ends than about any anti-gay animus. A highly counter-intuitive argument, but I’m sticking with it.

          (That’s because you’re overly sensitive to murder. You ignore any sort of oppressive hierarchy that respects life.)

          Fair. Next.

          Reply
      • posted by Kosh III on

        Come out of your cushy blue and safe world and hang out your rainbow flag and pink triangle in Oneonta, Al or attend the Southern Baptist church in Scooba Ms.

        Reply
        • posted by Jorge on

          The only think worse than a local bigot is an off-tempo bigot with an accent?

          Probably true. They’re harder to calm down.

          Reply
  7. posted by Jorge on

    I’ll concede it’s not the issue in this article. But “why don’t liberal gays like me?!” is a common refrain in similar posts about how being conservative is worse then being gay, including in prior articles by this guy. He very much does want to regularly malign the “gay community” but still get invited to the parties.

    –That’s a claim without evidence. He claims folks don’t see much of a distinction, but Milo lost book deals, lost access to many people, and so-on. Greene has not.

    –Because it fits his narrative.

    –He works for a conservative publication and he’s worried about being fired for being conservative? That, if sincere, is paranoia. If they fire him, it won’t be because he’s conservative.

    You have laid that out very well and persuasively while giving me enough wiggle room to keep to my own perspective. Very well, I agree.

    To the rest, while there has been some cases of violence against random conservatives, it is still less then the violence seen by random LGBT folks. And seeing as there are vastly more conservatives then LGBT folk, that makes it quite clear that no, it’s not more dangerous to be conservative then LGBT, despite whatever his personal experiences are.

    No.

    (No?)

    Danger is a subjective term. For reasons I don’t understand immediately (probably internalized oppression), my acceptance of a risk makes me conclude a situation is less dangerous than an equal situation I have not accepted the risks for. That’s why being a motor vehicle passenger is safer than bungee jumping. Only one is an assault on the core of your being.

    Dismissing other people’s personal experiences was an overreach on your part.

    There are other things that strike me as not-quite. It is simply that “danger” encompasses more than violence, more than one person’s life and death. It encompasses larger social trends, intangible freedoms, things that go beyond statistics and are captured in one’s value and self-identity. One may value the history of this country more than the history of homosexual humanity, or see one as under threat and not enough.

    Freedom of Association does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that people are obligated to ignore you when you’re in public place.

    Harassment is a crime.

    This one was fun, Mr. John.

    Reply
    • posted by JohnInCA on

      Harassment is a crime.

      Only in extreme cases, and that bar is set pretty darn high.

      For reference the Westboro Baptists, despite going to much greater lengths then any of these conservatives are complaining about, have never crossed that line.

      Reply
      • posted by Jorge on

        For reference the Westboro Baptists, despite going to much greater lengths then any of these conservatives are complaining about

        I am not accepting the premise here.

        Reply
        • posted by JohnInCA on

          Accept as in “denying that it’s true” or accept as in “denying it’s moral/ethical”?

          Because the later is your call.

          But the former? Sorry, but no. Free Speech is very broadly protected in non-commercial interactions in America, and that includes a great deal of behavior that constitutes “harassment”. The bar for harassment to become criminal harassment is ridiculous.

          You don’t have to accept that as morally/ethically correct, but you should still accept that it is true.

          Reply
          • posted by Jorge on

            I fail to see what the Westboro Baptist Church has done that is comparable to interrupting famous Republicans at dinner and showing up at their homes shouting.

          • posted by JohnInCA on

            That is, of course, your decision.

            But since I have zero faith that I can actually persuade you of the relevance, I’ll err on simply telling you about the law.

            So long as you are in a public-ish place, you can yell, shout, scream, use a bullhorn, play obnoxious music, rev your motorcycle engine and so-on to your black-little heart’s content. That is your right.

            Similarly, it is the right of the owner/manager to evict you, telling you that if you do not leave you will be guilty of trespassing.

            But if the owner/manager declines to do so, then you are within your rights to continue shouting at whoever you want.

            As far as going to someone’s house, same rules. Stay on the sidewalk or street and you’re on the right side of the law. Step onto their lawn and they can tell you to get off.

            Due to conservatives like the Westboro Baptists and anti-abortion protesters, these boundaries are well established. That you do not see the connection is irrelevant.

            So again… the bar for harassment to become criminal is ridiculously high, and I have not heard of any recent case that crosses that line.

  8. posted by Jorge on

    I hated watching IGF’s long-standing reputation being destroyed by the fraudulent posts.

    Truth. I’ll admit a temptation to just up and leave.

    Reply

Leave a Comment