"I am a gay American. Also, I hate the Muslins." Oh dear, what mixed feelings we are having upon finding out that Jim Hoft, AKA The Gateway Pundit, AKA The Stupidest Man On The Internet, is a card-carrying You So Gay! On the one hand, we do not come to act all high 'n' mighty 'n' liberal, and suggest that somehow Hoft is not a
So, a couple of hours ago I was reading a Wonkette discussion on Breitbart and decided to jump down the rabbit hole and visit that site for the first time (I've never been to Breitbart, but I occasionally hate-read Drudge, Free Republic, and Fox News). I want to post my findings and observations, but couldn't find the original comments, so I'm posting here:
1) Trump supporters apparently believe in a violent, pro-Mexican gang called 'The Raza', which they view as the latino equivalent of the Black Panthers. This bit of misinformation undoubtedly came from Trump, who accused Judge Curiel of belonging to a hate group called La Raza. Many Republicans have attacked the National Council of La Raza, when in fact Judge Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyer's Association. Neither group is a hate group. La Raza simply means 'The People".
2) A large minority of commenters apparently only read headlines. This comes from the comments to an article entitled "Indignant Obama Scolds Drumpf for ‘Radical Islam’ Taunts". The article itself is fairly objective, and accurately quotes much of what Obama said. The comments section, however, is filled to the brim with postings by people who clearly didn't read the article. Popular comments include the long debunked idea that Obama is a secret Muslim, as well as many people claiming Obama is 'apologizing' for America (Seriously!? READ THE ACTUAL FRIGGIN ARTICLE FIRST!).
3) Breitbart commenters are a lot like us. Now, don't get me wrong, the level of hate speech is elevated way above what you see at Wonkette. Every third comment insinuates or flat out declares that Obama is a secret Muslim or is willingly in bed with ISIS. But some wonkette commenters also have a lot of hate buried under the snark. The only difference I see between the two groups is that Breitbart commenters subscribe to the reality that has been presented to them via Right Wing media, whereas the rest of us subscribe to the actual real reality.
How do we reasonably debate with these people? I don't know. It would be one thing if we were arguing for different ideologies; ideologies can often exist side by side. Instead we're arguing over the nature of reality, and reality is immutable and nonsubjective.
If Wonketteers have hate under the snark, it is hatred for the intolerance, stupidity and hate-based violence and discrimination of major assholes against people just trying to live their lives. There's a difference, Dubs, a big difference.
I'm not trying to create a false equivalency here. The point I was (rather inelegantly) trying to make is that I'm obsessed with understanding and debating the Conservative mind. And I'm evidently not very good at it, because the closest I've ever been to understanding the mindset of a Republican was when I was tripping on mushrooms.
I still distinctly remember seeing the Westboro loons at the Chicago Gay pride parade a few years back. There were 6 or so Westboro members, about 24 police cordoning them off to keep them safe, and tens of thousands of people passing them by without a second thought. No jeers or insults. None were necessary. To me it was the perfect repudiation of their ideals: they had their free speech, but their voices were alone and unheard in the massive outpouring of love that the crowd was giving.
I'm young and naive, so I still believe that most people can be reasoned with. But I'm not so naive that I don't know there are people that are simply beyond reason. I'm not trying to understand Ted Cruz or Westboro; that's a long wait on a train aint never gonna come. I want to find the portion of conservatives who are still capable of reason and figure out what makes THEM tick.
Hi, My name is Matt, and i've been appointed by the Super Secret Board of Directors of All Homosexuafaggoqueerness (Have you seen our agenda? Check it out!) - to say, officially: No thank you sir! Please climb back in that closet.
While the Board and I condemn gay conversion therapy as perverse torture, in this case, Mr Hoft, why don't you give that one a shot? Maybe it'll work. We can only hope, in your case. Because really, we don't want you, and we don't really have the bandwidth to deal with you. Someone already accidentally approved Milo Yiannopoulos’s application, and we're really still trying to deal with that. (said form (A45436-stroke-haaaay) is being redesigned by the Forms Committee as we speak)
Oh, and please watch out for our announcement emails - in which we plan to announce a Dick Embargo (not to be confused with our esteemed board member's drag king persona) for Jim Hoft. We feel it's in the interest of society that he not be allowed to get off within at least 100 yards of a warm male body.
Seconded. It feels like as this comes into resolution, this was a last ditch effort to try and reject his own gayness by committing an act of "proof" - like closeted pols who push anti-gay legislation as a way of convincing themselves they're on the "right side" - Mateen's "pledge to ISIS" was about finding ways to reenforce his imaginary straight bona-fides.
I believe the Lysistrata Accord, signed in secret by the Hon. Representative of All Women and the King of the Gays in 1972 agreed that a Dick Embargo would be respected by all sides, in what was described by the Secret Gay Press (now on iOS!) at the time as the "NATO of sexual frustration"
I'm gonna say Busey, because he's 100% nuts.
(Okay, peanuts aren't nuts, but I didn't think anyone would get the reference if I called him a goober.)
Based on some recent details about Mateen, I'm think he was fighting an internal battle about being gay.
So, a couple of hours ago I was reading a Wonkette discussion on Breitbart and decided to jump down the rabbit hole and visit that site for the first time (I've never been to Breitbart, but I occasionally hate-read Drudge, Free Republic, and Fox News). I want to post my findings and observations, but couldn't find the original comments, so I'm posting here:
1) Trump supporters apparently believe in a violent, pro-Mexican gang called 'The Raza', which they view as the latino equivalent of the Black Panthers. This bit of misinformation undoubtedly came from Trump, who accused Judge Curiel of belonging to a hate group called La Raza. Many Republicans have attacked the National Council of La Raza, when in fact Judge Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyer's Association. Neither group is a hate group. La Raza simply means 'The People".
2) A large minority of commenters apparently only read headlines. This comes from the comments to an article entitled "Indignant Obama Scolds Drumpf for ‘Radical Islam’ Taunts". The article itself is fairly objective, and accurately quotes much of what Obama said. The comments section, however, is filled to the brim with postings by people who clearly didn't read the article. Popular comments include the long debunked idea that Obama is a secret Muslim, as well as many people claiming Obama is 'apologizing' for America (Seriously!? READ THE ACTUAL FRIGGIN ARTICLE FIRST!).
3) Breitbart commenters are a lot like us. Now, don't get me wrong, the level of hate speech is elevated way above what you see at Wonkette. Every third comment insinuates or flat out declares that Obama is a secret Muslim or is willingly in bed with ISIS. But some wonkette commenters also have a lot of hate buried under the snark. The only difference I see between the two groups is that Breitbart commenters subscribe to the reality that has been presented to them via Right Wing media, whereas the rest of us subscribe to the actual real reality.
How do we reasonably debate with these people? I don't know. It would be one thing if we were arguing for different ideologies; ideologies can often exist side by side. Instead we're arguing over the nature of reality, and reality is immutable and nonsubjective.
Breitbart didn't die, he just went to Planet 10.
If Wonketteers have hate under the snark, it is hatred for the intolerance, stupidity and hate-based violence and discrimination of major assholes against people just trying to live their lives. There's a difference, Dubs, a big difference.
Agreed.
True, Ser Brown. Very true.
I'm not trying to create a false equivalency here. The point I was (rather inelegantly) trying to make is that I'm obsessed with understanding and debating the Conservative mind. And I'm evidently not very good at it, because the closest I've ever been to understanding the mindset of a Republican was when I was tripping on mushrooms.
I still distinctly remember seeing the Westboro loons at the Chicago Gay pride parade a few years back. There were 6 or so Westboro members, about 24 police cordoning them off to keep them safe, and tens of thousands of people passing them by without a second thought. No jeers or insults. None were necessary. To me it was the perfect repudiation of their ideals: they had their free speech, but their voices were alone and unheard in the massive outpouring of love that the crowd was giving.
I'm young and naive, so I still believe that most people can be reasoned with. But I'm not so naive that I don't know there are people that are simply beyond reason. I'm not trying to understand Ted Cruz or Westboro; that's a long wait on a train aint never gonna come. I want to find the portion of conservatives who are still capable of reason and figure out what makes THEM tick.
Hi, My name is Matt, and i've been appointed by the Super Secret Board of Directors of All Homosexuafaggoqueerness (Have you seen our agenda? Check it out!) - to say, officially: No thank you sir! Please climb back in that closet.
While the Board and I condemn gay conversion therapy as perverse torture, in this case, Mr Hoft, why don't you give that one a shot? Maybe it'll work. We can only hope, in your case. Because really, we don't want you, and we don't really have the bandwidth to deal with you. Someone already accidentally approved Milo Yiannopoulos’s application, and we're really still trying to deal with that. (said form (A45436-stroke-haaaay) is being redesigned by the Forms Committee as we speak)
So yes. On behalf of the Board: Gurl, no.
Oh, and please watch out for our announcement emails - in which we plan to announce a Dick Embargo (not to be confused with our esteemed board member's drag king persona) for Jim Hoft. We feel it's in the interest of society that he not be allowed to get off within at least 100 yards of a warm male body.
Seconded. It feels like as this comes into resolution, this was a last ditch effort to try and reject his own gayness by committing an act of "proof" - like closeted pols who push anti-gay legislation as a way of convincing themselves they're on the "right side" - Mateen's "pledge to ISIS" was about finding ways to reenforce his imaginary straight bona-fides.
Remember the time that idiot and mental midget Jim Hoft swore up and down that Darren Wilson aka Michael Brown killer - received an "orbital blowout."
Can we safely say that one Miss Hoft is one YUUUUUUUGE drama queen now that we have more information?
Ah so. And the closest the conservative mind will ever be to understanding us is if it is tripping balls on some excellent acid.
but... that might drive him to try to sex on a lady and that might cause him to reproduce. That would be very bad.
I believe the Lysistrata Accord, signed in secret by the Hon. Representative of All Women and the King of the Gays in 1972 agreed that a Dick Embargo would be respected by all sides, in what was described by the Secret Gay Press (now on iOS!) at the time as the "NATO of sexual frustration"
Jim Hoft: Proving that unfuckability is contagious.