Someone with the socialist yet anarchic name of Bakunin writes in with a link to an anonymous accuser who is linked to a second anonymous accuser:
It is also basic human decency not to lie, not to libel, and not to make false accusations.
For the record, Mr Bakunin, the words you are repeating are the answer to a specific question of what I thought the writers of LEGEND OF KORRA were thinking when they decided to use lesbians rather than male homosexuals as the couple of choice in a children’s cartoon to lure innocent and trusting kids into believing homosexuality is right and normal and ergo Christianity is wrong and abnormal.
But, oddly enough, you are only the second person, out of all of them who commented on that quote, to ask me about it.
No one else did me the courtesy of addressing a question to me. Technically, you did not either, but one does not expect a crow to lay the eagle egg.
So you are ahead of your peers in courage, or, at least, courtesy.
But it seems as if you did not consider the possibility that this quote should be read in context. If you read the question to which this quote is an answer, a reader is asking me to speculate on the motivations and thought process of writers supporting your position.
Yes, your position.
You see, your side, not my side, thinks of rednecks and conservatives and Christians as being obsessed with a psycho-pathological phobia and hatred of gays. Your side coined an silly term for the alleged phobia because it did not exist until you invented it: homophobia.
My question to you is this: do you believe that some, even most, hetero men have a visceral and instinctive desire to beat homosexuals to death?
If so, why is it bigotry if I report that your side believes this?
Why is it bigotry if I speculate that this belief in homophobia, fairly common among your side, was perhaps the reason behind the writers’ decision to use Korra and Asami as their couple of choice rather than, say, Aang and Sokka?
Let us suppose I shared your belief. Why is it bigotry when I report that heteros have this barbaric and grotesque instinct and not when you report it?
Answer: it is not. Which is why the opening part of the quote where I made that clear is missing.
I wonder at the rank incompetence of the dishonesty in which you are engaged.
Here you link to an anonymous writer who offers an edited version of the quote. The beginning part, stating the question, is missing.
The context is missing.
That part that makes it clear this is me impersonating your voice is missing.
But anyone bothering to click through the link provided can see the missing parts, and know what attempted deception you are practicing.
Your whole art and craft of Political Correctness depends on the bogus accusation. It depends on your victim being willing to cooperate by being willing trust you rather than his own eyes, and to believe your fake outrage is real. And it depends on your scapegoat being fearful or foolish enough to cooperate, and to offer up an insincere apology when your display your fake outrage.
Moreover it depends on your scapegoat to cooperate in an act of white blackmail, where if he actually were the type of evildoer you accuse him of being, he would not offer the insincere apology you crave.
By fake outrage I do not mean the emotion does not exist. I mean that it is all that exists. The emotion has no roots, no cause, no justification. There is no case behind it and no logic to it.
In this case, I am mildly amused and mildly sorrowful to come across one yammerhead yammering that I have never explained nor apologized for this quote. He fails to mention that no one has asked me for an apology or an explanation. I assume that an honestly offended person would honestly want to know what I said and what I meant. Logically, those who are eager not to know what I said and what I meant are not honestly offended. They are playing the game of fake outrage.
Here is the question from a reader I was answering:
He is asking why Leftist activist in the media think their audience is more accepting of lesbians. And here is the first part of my answer that was edited out:
I am not sure, but I have a theory:
It is because the two sexes differ.
Lesbians in fiction look like Asami Sato, young and pretty. Even guys who have no fetish for seeing pretty lesbians make out understand their attraction to each other, because we also are attracted to pretty girls. It does not trigger a puke response. Woman also can look at female beauty and see it, that is, see the beauty.
The reverse is not true. Men abhor homosexuals on a visceral level. While girls sometimes are attracted to them, they tend to be ‘bishounen’ rather handsome, if effete, men.
So a man who is attractive is attractive for his spiritual qualities of leadership, manliness, courage, and strength, even if his face is as pretty as that of Humphrey Bogart, who turns out to be homosexual is neither attractive to a male nor to a female general audience.
In any case, I have never heard of a group of women descended on a lesbian couple and beating them to death with axhandles and tire-irons.
Got that? I was asked about what I thought the thought process of “leftist creators and media outlets” and I answered with a theory about THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS.
Which was what I was asked.
So why is that part missing: the part that makes it make sense?
Is the misquote here coincidence? Innocent mistake? Or libel?
Nor, even without that context, does the quote in any way, shape, or form express approval rather than horror at the alleged revulsion. It expresses no preference. It merely says (sarcastically) that such an instinctive revulsion exists.
Even if you missed the sarcasm, any honest man would have to see that the words on their plain meaning express no approval. As if I reported the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, and you were to conclude that I applauded the attempt of the Nazis.
Anyone clicking through the link there will come to this:
- I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that homosexuals must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
- I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
- I believe, profess, and unambiguously support the view that These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
- I believe everything the one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic Church teaches.
So, from your reaction, I take it you did not click through the link.
You apparently did not even have the strength of character, or the strength of a finger on the keyboard, or the curiosity, to click through the link you yourself provided allegedly as proof of your accusation.
Ah, but what about the accusation that I changed the wording, out of shame and fear that my inner evils would be revealed?
This is a better lie than most, but still not convincing: I removed one part of the line of the last paragraph. A friend brought to my attention that, even as sarcasm, that clause contained swear word, which I do not allow on my blog, and which in any case did not show the respect, compassion, and sensitivity toward the homosexuals which I am obligated to show. I am not allowed to show them disrespect merely in order to show you scorn.
Did the removal of the clause change any part of the meaning?
Not at all.
Did the removed clause say homosexuals should be or ought to be beaten to death?
No. The meaning and the point is unchanged.
So why did I dare to change my own words on my own blog?
To remove a bad word, one which violated my own rules and sense of honor.
But the Internet remembers everything!
Be that as it may, I care not. If other people want to maintain bad words on their sites, they can answer.
But now John C Wright can be accused of being afraid!
I can also be accused of talking about myself in the third person. I can also be accused of being a flying purple people eater.
No one cares about your hooey accusations.
You and yours shower the same degree of defamation and contumely on writers who use the word ‘man’ for ‘human’ or who profess a belief that suicide is a sin and sodomy an abomination. Since I make no bones whatsoever about these beliefs of mine, why in the world, if I did hate homosexuals, would I bother to hide it?
I do not hide that fact that for all my adult life I was pro-gay and pro-libertine, until I was talked out of the position, step by step, rather late in life and every much against my preference and inclination, very much against my will. I can share the chain of reasoning to anyone curious enough examine it.
I do not hide the fact that my views on homosexuality were changed back I was an atheist. One reason why I became a Catholic was because I found logic alone, not belief in any god or gods, forces a belief in the virtue of chastity, and therefore that unnatural sexual acts are vice. I do not believe unchastity is wrong because I became a Christian; I became a Christian because logic convinced me unchastity is wrong.
Nor do I hide the fact that there was a death in my family due (I believe) to his uncontrolled gay lifestyle which you and yours always say is harmless. It was not harmless for him. And yes, I do blame you for your part, no matter how small, in creating the social atmosphere that led to his death.
If a family member of mine died in a plague, I would blame every disease bearing soul who broke quarantine and spread it. It is contributory fault.
I do not hide the fact that homosexuality is a sexual perversion, a neurosis, an objectively disordered sexual passion, and that indulging in the act is a sin, an offense against nature and nature’s creator.
I do not hide the fact that a visceral abhorrence to homosexual acts (albeit never to the person tempted toward such acts) is a rightly ordered and indeed a laudable reaction. All emotions, visceral or otherwise, should be ordered as nature and reason command.
A person who feels casual toleration of pederasty, bestiality, necrophilia, or other acts of wrongly ordered sexual passion, including sodomy, indulges in feeling that are not laudable. Such alleged toleration is in truth a slothful indifference toward what should be a matter of zeal. A wife who tolerates her husband’s mistress desecrates her marriage. Toleration in these cases is a sentry who sleeps at his post.
Whoever feels sex is sacred logically ought to feel the perversion of sex to be a desecration. What one tolerates to be desecrated, one holds not to be sacred.
Do I feel this visceral abhorrence? No, but I wish I did; for whoever loves a man hates his sins; whoever loves the sin hates the sinner. If my love for these sinners were not lukewarm, my hatred of this sin would be as hot as the wings of charity could fan the flames. For this flaw of mine I pray to be cured.
If you believe as a matter of dogma, you brainless addicts of hatred pretending to be ever so tolerant, that no one who believes homosexual acts are licit can be talked out of such a belief with a logical argument, but that the belief in chastity can only be motivated by hatred, ignorance, or bigotry, all I can reply is that your dogma is an arbitrary decision to hate and accuse the innocent.
As you have done here.
And when the accusations fall short, you lie, as your side has done for years to Orson Scott Card, by playing the trick of half-quote, half-truth, all lie.
As you have done here.