Hastur, buddy. Wake up and smell the coffee, this is not the first thread that has been started about you in this forum since I became a member basically complaining about the same thing. The way you are so quick to insult people you think are being insulting. And this is also not the first time you have leapt to call someone a bigot. You did it here to Freedom as well and the general consensus of that thread was that you were wrong in your accusation. Now when one poster calls you oversensitive you can question it but when a couple of dozen others get in on the act you really have to start to wonder if that first guy had a point. Now, I personally have a lot of respect for what you say. I agree with about 90% of it but you would get your point across a lot better of you weren’t so frigging rude all the time. Just a thought.
I have to pipe up again. december is very consistent - he is a thoughtful conservative. I think that one of the underlying reasons that this happened is the distressing tendency on this board to group and demonize those who disagree with you.
In this thread the OP asked whether the Bush Administration’s conduct was OK. december posted immediately, saying that the Bushies had acted badly. Later on, december got slammed by a poster, who hadn’t bothered to read what he said. Why? 'Cause december’s a conservative - he must br evil. It’s the same here - “conservative? Must be a homophobe.”
Well, it’s wrong and it’s stupid. I go to GD to talk to people like december - people with whom I disagree, but who are willing to talk about an issue.
Hastur, I can’t deny that you were insulted by what december wrote - that’s your feelings. I do submit that, in this case, you are wrong to feel that way. What december wrote, by the definition you provided,
was not homophobic.
Sua
Thank you, Jodi. I couldn’t have said it better.
I dissagree, I didn’t even think december was a conservative untill very far into the post. However the way december used the cite to me showed inconsistency. The cite is obviously homophobic and does not even try to show the number of gays there are and yet december uses it as such. The cite does not even claim that gays exist, only that they are self-alleged in their “orientation”.
I believe that he made no comment on schools as a whole, merely the school in the report. Yes, he got his facts wrong, and read his reports from biased sources. This is a message board that purports to fight ignorance, not call people who are ignorant of certain facts homophobes. There was no indication that december was interjecting any homophobic opinions into the argument, at least under any reasonable definition of “homophobic”.
He made no attempt to deny widespread aggression against gays, but was merely skeptical of the 2 million number, as it would seem to require that aggression against gays is more than universal. He also added that he was aware of places where there was very little aggression against gays.
He “jumped track” to defending himself against your accusations of homophobia after you made them. If you didn’t want him to defend himself against these claims, you shouldn’t have made them. They certainly didn’t help the debate.
I think you’re full of shit. I have never seen a post by him that seems at all contemptuous of gays or lesbians. Yes, he does seem to read conservative publications, and they tend to provide a biased accounting, but while he may be mistaken on certain factual matters, he does not seem to have formed the same opinions as they have.
No. You want certain things. You have opinions on specific ideas about how to reach those goals. If people disagree with you on various details about gay rights, you assume that they are not in favor of gay rights, and that they therefore are contemptuous of gays.
I can read and form opinions. You seem to be perfectly capable of forming an opinion of Phyllis Schaffly simply from what you’ve read of her. Incidentally, I’ve thought you were an asshole ever since you called Triskedecamus a liar. When I got to this thread, it didn’t have any replies, so I figured I’d toss my two cents in. I see I’m not exactly alone in seconding the OP.
Howdy, folks… I’m Bob the Cross-Builder, from Big Bob’s Cross Emporium. I build crosses for all occasions. Big crosses, little crosses, wide crosses, criss-crossed crosses. I’ve been provided martyr-wannabes with crosses for the past twenty-five years. In fact, I would like to introduce you to my best customer, Hastur.
Hastur:
I’ll offer a well-meaning suggestion. It seems that this particular problem occured because you interpreted posts in one thread according to a preconception about the poster that you carried with you from another thread.
This is not an uncommon thing to do.
I’ve been trying lately not to do this, and if I have negative thoughts about a poster, I try to start fresh when I meet them again. The exception of course would be trolls.
I find that holding a grudge usually means that I lose.
As a matter of fact, I’ve been through this with you.
You may recall a spat we had in the past (I was absolutely blameless of course 
)
You said some things that made me decide to wash my hands of you.
Later I decided why deprive myself of threads I might enjoy just to avoid you?
I got into some interesting threads about neo-paganism where you were very informative, and later learned you knew everything there was to know about Wonder Woman.
It wouldn’t have happened if I’d held a grudge.
So, knowing that advice helps only he who gives it, let me offer you some. Consider the possibility that you flew off the handle not because of what was said, but because of what was said somewhere else. If you consider that to be the case, than the error here is yours.
My suggestion is that if upon consideration you think you acted too soon, or were holding a grudge, than you might want to apologize and move on.
And I also learned that you could be a pretty decent and considerate guy when you wanted to.
I hope Hastur won’t mind my jumping in here:
First, Apologia Pro Hasture–guessing that Hastur is a 3rd declension noun.
I admire his fire and passion in defending himself. As a gay man, I have always found it easier to just blend into the crowd and try to avoid conflict, and seeing him stand up for himself and what he believes in earns a salute.
Contra Hasturem
Dude, you seriously got to learn to pick your battles. If you snarl at everyone indiscriminately, you risk having your valid points drowned in a sea of bile. You are quick to hurl invective at posters who offend you. Diane is sharp as a new pencil with an keen wit and a generous heart;Jodi is also smart and a good judge of people; ditto for Sua Sponte, who actually offered you constructive criticism. I know they all despise me, but I think they are even-handed and highly insightful posters, so you might want to step back and think about how harsh
you’re being. I really don’t see December as being a raging homophobe, either. He’s no rainbow flag waver, but he’s not a hater, and I can smell a 'phobe at 100 paces.
Diane… vindictive much?
Whenever you reference me or join a thread about me, you are the first to attack and the first to be hostile.
Paranoia would show that I have some concern for you. Disdain and contempt are not concern. Your shrill, belittiling, and hostile voice does join in the fashion of a twisted greek chorus where I am concerned.
Go hijack someone else’s thread. You’re good at that.
No, please… after you.
While I was on the opposite side of the debate from december in at least one of those threads, I didn’t get the impression that he is personally a homophobe. Part of the problem might be some of his sources. The impression I get of december, the person, is that he feels homosexuality is morally wrong, but he is still tolerant of it (december, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong). Some of his sources, on the other hand, have quite a bit of vitriolic content. As a liberal, some of my sources are just as tilted, so I try very hard to find other evidence to back them up.
december and I rarely agree on much of anything, but he seems to try and attack the issue, not the person. He also seems willing to concede when the evidence seems to clearly disagree with his premise. He’s one of the few people on the “other side” that I could possibly learn from.
Hastur may have jumped the gun a bit, but I’ve never been in his shoes. It can’t be easy to be considered “morally bankrupt” by a significant portion of the population, purely on the basis of who you find yourself attracted to. If I was gay, I might have a chip on my shoulder the size of a Mack truck.
How dare you tell me what I want. How presumptuous!
You are incorrect on BOTH points.
Gay people do not have equal rights and should.
And because someone disagrees with me, doesn’t mean I jump to the conclusions you ascribe.
As a side note to other remarks made in this thread, I will point out that I have stood up for both Scylla and SPOOFE in threads where I felt they were wrongly attacked or criticized. In spite of often disagreeing with Scylla and disliking SPOOFE, contrary to popular opinion, I am very reasonable.
A few of these slams on me are not.
Oh! Oh! Hastur! Me next! Me next!
Come on, flame me!
:rolleyes:
I’ll wait until shit stops spewing from every oriface in your body, hand you a breathmint and maybe then we can talk.
The real problem with throwing charges of homophobia ( or racism or misogyny or whatever) into a debate is it not only derails that particular thread but it leads to a situation where everyone participating in similiar threads in the future feels obligated to spend a bunch of time waving around ther PC credintials before getting involved. You know the spiel: I’m not a homophobe, my sister is a lesbian, I marched for Gay Civil Rights in '78, I wrote my thesis on the Application of Queer Theory in Little Women, I have every episode of Ellen on tape, if they had a pill to make you gay I swear I would take it, therefore I am qualified to have an opinion here." And it’s all a bullshit waste of time. There is no way for anyone to “prove” that they aren’t racist or sexist or homophobic–they can say whatever they like. There is no way to prove that a person’s intentions are pure or or that a person’s intentions are bigoted. And frankly, argueing about whether or not a particular poster qualifies as homophobic strikes me as being ridiculous. (Let’s see, they get points for being pro-civil rights, but they like “civil unions” not marriges, that’s a -2, um, how many times have they said “gay lifestyle”?)
Furthermore, even if we did have a litmus test for “homophobe”, what would that show? Nada. Zip. Their
arguements are still there, and still need to be addressed. If they can’t be answered any better than with “God, you’re a homophobe if you think that” well then, we have a problem.
The terms homophobic, racist, mysogynist–all of these can be useful to describe certain personality types. So can the word “asshole”. But just as calling someone an asshole serves no role in debate except to inflame and distract from the issues at hand, so is “homophobe” a red herring whether or not it is true. What we owe each other is the benefit of the doubt–assume that your fellow posters are open-minded and willing to debate ideas freely. Don’t assume that they are bigots trolling for more proof to justify thier bigotry.
Lastly, Hastur, you seem suprised by hte notion that many people avidly follow threads without posting. You might find your SDMB experience more fufilling if you follow this example–I’ve found that the lower my post/read ratio, the better my posts. You are not obligated to have something to say about everything, and sitting back and watching discussions that you, yourself, have no stake in really teaches one alot about arguements.
With a remark like that, it will be a cold day in Hades before I would talk to you. Perhaps I’ll reconsider when the shit stops spewing from your fingers, theoretically draining from your head.
Goboy wrote:
Say what!?!?! I hope I have never given you the impression I don’t like you, let alone despise you. I don’t! In fact I like you quite a lot so I am surprised that you feel that way. If there was something I may have said in the past to make you think I don’t like you, I apologize, it was unintentional.
Hastur whined:
Whenever? You mean like the TWO whole times (including THIS thread)? And you wonder why we have an impression of you being an over-reacting whiner?
Are you trying to tell me that all that hard work of searching through the 400 threads you participated in since December 5, 2000 for examples of me “following you around the board just to throw insults at poor little” you was all in vain?
There were TWO, including this very thread, where I initiated the first post of a soon to be flame war with you.
Either you have a very bad memory, don’t have the brains to do your own search of posts, or you are jumping at yet another chance to make you appear the pathetic little victim. I’m guessing it is a combination of all three.
Again, claim all you want that I follow you around the boards to take pot shots at you, but it only takes a person with more than one brain cell and the ability to click on the search button to see that you are a liar.
Huh? That makes about as much sense as your “hypocrite” comment. What dictionary do they use there on Planet Dumbass?
You know, this little exchange couldn’t have made more sense had you said, “I know you are, but what am I”.
Not to state the obvious, but didn’t you just respond to him?
Hastur said:
Ya mean the same way you claimed to be able to perform magic and then threw a massive temper-tantrum when someone took you up on the offer to come to you so you could prove it?
Now THAT is the definition of a hypocrite! I suggest you take note.
If you are not defending December, does that mean you are agreeing that what s/he wrote included homophobic content to which Hastur’s offense is understandable?
You know, I’m one of the people that has been lurking on this thread, not posting, lurking. I don’t have a huge stake in this, but I basically have to side with Sua and goboy and the rest. (And I thought Manda JO makes some great points.)
The thing I’ve noticed, Hastur, is that in the last few hours, many posters here have offered thoughtful, reasoned posts, explanations, pretty civil explanations about what they feel. And while you may have not had time yet to address them all, I am struck by who you pick to respond to first, in this latest volley of replies. Some of the people you replied to had throwaway lines, and you had time for THEM. But no time for goboy, and Manda JO, and others? How weird.