Saturday, April 28, 2012

Gay Anti-Bullying Speaker Promotes Bullying of Christians

Tolerance has never been the goal. As Mark Shea now and then says, LGBSA and like organizations do not want tolerance. What they want is praise - and they want anyone who would ever criticize their acts to be bullied, shamed, shunned, fired from their jobs, or worse. This video shows some of this in action - along with the great hypocrisy of an anti-bullying speaker bullying others and encouraging them to do the same. Naturally, everyone who disagrees with him is automatically considered a bully in his mind.

And this just helps to highlight why "dialogue" is something I don't regard as valuable. People always forget that what makes dialogue possible is shared values - and even then, there has to be enough shared values present to foster mutual respect and understanding. With many people, particularly nowadays, dialogue is not possible. There's not enough common ground.

That doesn't mean conversation or debate isn't possible. It just means that there's no actual dialogue or interaction had, or even desired.

10 comments:

Ephram said...

What's striking is that the gay little Caesar literally has no clue he's done anything wrong (hence no apology). Savage, like many liberals, no doubt thinks that the complaints from the Christian teens regarding his recent "bullying" have no more validity to them than those of teenage Nazis claiming to being "bullied" by a tirade against Nazism. Go figure.

And - no surprise - the pestilential Gnus have swarmed out in full support of him, oblivious to the fact that if a Christian speaker had deliberately used a high school journalism convention to berate non-believers, they'd have been bitching for weeks on end.


(I gotta admit though, in light of the fact that this clown is an ardent apologist for sodomy, I got a laugh out of his "pansy ass" remark.)

Crude said...

I'm not sure they're even oblivious. These guys know when they're being hypocrites half the time, I think - they just don't care. It's an "ends justifies the means" thing.

James said...

About myself you said this on Triablogue: "Just as it's clearly fine by James and others that Dan Savage says what he does"

Is it? Reference, please? I've said in several instances I would not have used the language he had. You're also missing an important difference: as obnoxious as Dan can be, he's not looking to criminalize Christianity as you are the relationships of people you've never met (well, at least the gays ... I doubt you have any interest in regulating the remarriages of adulterous Republican heterosexuals, but I'd be happy if you were at least consistent.)

While we're on the topic of Dan Savage, though: do you not agree with his statement that Christians have come to completely different conclusions about the morality of American slavery (and slavery, in general) than our forefathers, the founders of the SBC, the apostles in the Didache and Paul?

Crude said...

I've said in several instances I would not have used the language he had.

Why? Because of the backlash? Because it makes it harder to do exactly what Dan wants to do - namely, ostracize, intimidate, and bully people who disagree with you?

One of these days, a Christian kid may well put a gun in his mouth and blow his brains out because of this sort of shit if they haven't already. And you know what? I really get the impression that if and when that happens, the response behind closed doors from guys like Dan - and perhaps yourself - will be, "Good riddance. One less bigot." Regardless of whether said kid bullied or would have bullied anyone.

Dan should be denounced. He's not - you're strategically backing him. And that, my friend, is rotten. And it ensures that discussion is nearly impossible about these things.

You're also missing an important difference: as obnoxious as Dan can be, he's not looking to criminalize Christianity as you are the relationships of people you've never met

What makes you think I've never met any gays? Hell, how do you even know my sexual preferences? Because oh wait, I'd certainly be marching in lockstep with you otherwise, right?

"Criminalizing relationships" is bullshit. No one is suggesting, certainly not me, that homosexuals should be thrown in prison just for being homosexual, or even for having a relationship. Gay "marriage" not being legally sanctioned is not tantamount to criminalizing gay relationships - and it's exactly this sort of lying, maudlin crap which absolutely plagues the LGBSA style movement.

I can't fault them because hey, it works, and that's all they care about. But most thinking people know better.

Further, "Dan's not out to" make these things illegal? Bull. Shit. Look at the hate speech laws we see debated around the world. The only reason Dan isn't pushing for that is because right now, it's not politically feasible. He'd love it if it were.

I doubt you have any interest in regulating the remarriages of adulterous Republican heterosexuals

Considering my opposing to no-fault divorce and my view that marriage among heterosexuals is very often a joke, you'd be wrong. I love the 'Republican' slipping in there, though. It's all about the political tribe at the end of the day.

do you not agree with his statement that Christians have come to completely different conclusions about the morality of American slavery (and slavery, in general) than our forefathers, the founders of the SBC, the apostles in the Didache and Paul?

Yes, I disagree with it because it's borne out of complete intellectual and historical ignorance. American slavery was chattel slavery with a vicious racist component. Do your damndest to square it with Christ's teachings, even Paul's teachings - you will try in vain. That some Christians hypocritically, insincerely twisted passages in the bible to justify it no more impresses me than a court lawyer's ability to twist the Constitution to mean something utterly other than what it intended.

"Slavery, in general", is a different beast, precisely because it's not clear where and how those lines should be drawn. Regardless, Dan is full of shit, and the problem wasn't merely his being full of shit - it was his bullying teenagers in a public forum, while supposedly being a big campaigner against bullying.

I deplore anyone who bullies anyone just because of perceived same-sex attraction, femininity, or just for being fat or even stupid. Likewise, I deplore any adult who bullies teenagers or younger from positions of authority.

That means I deplore Dan. And if you were consistent, you would too. But you won't be, because your little LGBSA social circle is more important to you. Keep his back guarded, James. Gotta have your priorities straight (ha ha) after all.

James said...

I appreciate your honesty and passion.

Look, I *have* critiqued the far-left gay activists on several of their own blogs. Some just go too far, whether it's an effort to silence opposing view points or suing small businesses or hacking NOM's website. I've condemned these behaviors consistently.

I've also critiqued those in the gay community who blame others while not sufficiently responding to the AIDS crisis by modifying their own behavior. I DO know stable and committed gay couples. It can be done, whatever Dan happens to think about it. At this point, there's little excuse.

So, to insist that I'm willing to excuse anything the gay community does is just untrue.

People like Dan and Chris Hitchens (a far more eloquent and persuasive speaker, I might say) are/were overly moralistic in a way, despite their anti-Christian viewpoints. In a way, their causes arouse a certain sympathy: can anyone deny the abuses of organized religion and its adherents in the past 2,000 years? Anyone capable of self-reflection sees some truth in their words (just as there is some truth in the propaganda put out by groups like the AFA and the FRC). Unfortunately, their fervor sometimes pushes them into the type of rhetorical excess that they so often critique.

Generally, I prefer Andrew Sullivan's approach to Dan's. As a Catholic, he's far more sensitive and conscientious about his words. Dan did have some valid points. They were just lost amid the ego and vitriol, unfortunately.

Crude said...

Look, I *have* critiqued the far-left gay activists on several of their own blogs.

That's small shit. The test is being willing to oppose activists when they are out in public and they've pulled the "man the battle stations, this one's for the cause" routine. Anyone can do the dissent dance when it's 'some wanker on a nowhere blog'.

You know your actions better than I do, but in terms of the community? There is no moderate voice on these topics anymore. Any move to recognize those who disagree as reasonable is regarded as the act of a traitor.

I've also critiqued those in the gay community who blame others while not sufficiently responding to the AIDS crisis by modifying their own behavior.

Have you noticed that this is a view which is out and out forbidden in public discourse? While I appreciate you taking this line - and sure, I'll grant that you take it - there's a reason it's basically unheard of in popular media, outside of conservative (and typically, way outside the 'gay community') circles.

Said community - not the people, the community - has become a social monster.

In a way, their causes arouse a certain sympathy: can anyone deny the abuses of organized religion and its adherents in the past 2,000 years?

Yes, I can deny it, because at this point the abuses 'organized religion' is accused of are often downright mythical, oversimplified, or sometimes simply made up. Crusades, inquisition, Galileo and more, as topics, have been warped to the point of non-recognition.

I'm sure the North Koreans have some legitimate criticisms about the acts of the anti-communist nations, past and present. But at this point they are buried under so much insanity and lies that even talking about a 'kernel of truth' is itself more deceptive than just saying, 'no, that position is bull'.

Unfortunately, their fervor sometimes pushes them into the type of rhetorical excess that they so often critique.

Man, we are way, waaaaaay past rhetorical excess talk. We're living in a world where hate speech laws are getting put up so merely criticizing the any aspect of a modern LGBSA lifestyle opens one up to legal and financial pressure in some countries. You see the New Jersey case where some idiot kid engaging in a stupid joke now is facing deportation and prison time because the 'gay community' never passes up the opportunity to claim a martyr and make someone else a demon?

Generally, I prefer Andrew Sullivan's approach to Dan's. As a Catholic, he's far more sensitive and conscientious about his words. Dan did have some valid points.

"Having a valid point." is piddling - just about any psychotic can have one. This wasn't an "oops, I called people coloreds but the proper word nowadays is black" bit. This was out and out bullying teenagers, getting a crowd to turn against them, and then defiantly sticking to his guns after the fact - because he knew he could do so with no repercussions.

And Sullivan? Sullivan's out there defending Dan, and he's been as extreme and crazy on these issues as one can be. The fact that he does so with more of a smiley face on the end of his rants doesn't make him more reasonable. It makes him the good cop to Savage's bad cop - and part of the same corrupt apparatus.

I say again: shit like this is going to one day result in Christian teens blowing their brains out, even if they'd never think of bullying. And that's when the Dan Savages will say "Good, one less bigot", and the Andrew Sullivans will go "well, I think Dan's rhetoric is a bit overblown, but if you turn your head and squint and think of another subject, you can see he sorta has a point".

Cale B.T. said...

Hi Crude, sorry to resurrect this thread but I thought this was just too terrible not to share:

http://i.imgur.com/u9OGB.jpg

Crude said...

No problem at all. I've seen as bad - in fact, I was just about to write up an entry on a recent Funky Winkerbean storyline that did pretty much the exact same thing as seen in that comic.

Cale B.T. said...

Oh and speaking of being "waaaaaay past rhetorical excess talk" have you ever visited http://www.facebook.com/beingliberal.org ?

Crude said...

Never even heard about it. I just took a glance at it - funny how the people who accuse everyone else of being a sheep 9 out of 10 times marches lock-step with this kind of thing.