By Timothy Kincaid
One aspect of war is dealing with enemies, those who seek to do you harm. And we all know that in war, enemies are to be destroyed without compassion or hesitation before they do the same to you. Millennia of warfare have shown that the best way to keep your troops willing to fight is to dehumanize your enemy. Don’t let your troops sympathize or see theirselves in the enemy or they may not be so ready to slaughter him.
Sadly, these rules of engagement also apply to culture wars.
We can readily see this tactic of dehumanization in the language adopted by ex-gay ministries and their anti-gay political allies. They portray gay people as unhappy, unhealthy sex fiends incapable of love who operate under an agenda to destroy the family and Christianity. It is easy to deny the depraved the same rights and priveleges you share.
Unfortunately pro-gay participants in this debate too often employ these tactics as well. We may stray from criticism of the message (and there is plenty to criticize) and begin to criticize the messenger. Such an instance occurred recently when Wayne Besen discussed the comments of Chad Thompson.
Not only does Chad dress like a slob and look like he needs to take a bath – he also speaks out of both sides of his hypocritical mouth.
This is, unfortunately, not the first time that Wayne had gotten a bit too personal about Chad. He has also said,
In his world, God judges a man by his pecs, not his prayers. If you are too old, fat or not cool enough, it appears you can’t get in his Bel Ami Bible Club.
You know what irritates me about Chad? On the front page of his website he dresses like he is a teenager at a rave. But if you go deeper into his website one can view crowsfeet on his face. He clearly is no longer a teenager. His fake rave boi act is just a cheap and tawdry way to recruit confused young men into his troubling ministry.
I do not agree with Chad Thompson’s theology or his ministry. To me, his idea of Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would includes social/cultural activism that is contrary to the teachings of Jesus. And it seems to me that this “loving” consists of little more than putting a pretty face on hateful anti-gay attitudes and behaviors.
Nonetheless, this does not warrant attacks on Chad’s friends, person, or appearance.
Chad’s sense of style may be more grungy than mine, but comments about his clothing choices are not appropriate. And perhaps I’m reaching the age where such comment rankle, but jibes about crowsfeet are just tacky.
Perhaps it seems that I’m picking on Wayne here. That’s not my intent. Wayne has probably been no more guilty of this than I have been at times.
But in this ongoing discussion about sexuality, freedom, equality, religion, values, and how they all impact the efforts some people make to change their orientation, I believe we are best served when we cease warring and begin communicating. And that is better accomplished when we challenge the message, and not the messenger.
I was wondering when someone was going to call him on it. I’m sort of notorious for my own acid tongue, and even I think he crosses the line between polemic and obnoxious far too often.
I agree his comments are not appropriate, although aside from the one from last week, none of those you mentioned are too recent, they’re from November 2005.
I think Thompson’s comments were very disturbing. Is he saying that he wants to eliminate the gay gene? And what is this “research” that he claims shows children of gay parents are more likely to have (fill in the blank problem)?
If he truly cared about tolerance then he wouldn’t use those kinds of questionable statistics.
Whether some sort of planned deception by Chad or simply the way he feels comfortable in public, I did scringe my eyes up at sections of those comments by Besen. Those comments could be acceptable if Chad was handing out fashion advice — ExQueer Eye for the Gay guy style. He hasn’t been. (not that we’d listen much to that, either)
But… the but… I have no qualms about someone calling Chad on the basic dishonesty of presenting himself to be other than he actually is.
And on that, frankly, presently your late-20s self as someone who’s hip to the lastest Christian “The Calling” boiZone fanzine is the least of Chad’s faults. If, in fact, it is one.
One does not — point of fact, Chad — “truly love” people that you wish to see completely eliminated. At least not in this Universe, time zone or morality.
Did you also know… racism would end in one generation if we could find a way to stop the Colored Folks from breeding? Or the White People. Or perhaps those Orientals. Doesn’t matter which get’s chosen. Whatever.
It may not appeal to everyone, but there’s a place for Wayne’s snarkiness.
Mel Brooks has shown the world the power of ridicule. All the research and reason in the world isn’t as devistating as one chorus of “Springtime for Hitler.”
I went to Chad personally and asked him if he indeed said what Wayne had reported on.
He wrote me back, but hadn’t had a chance to review his own statement.
I’ll stay on it.
I don’t care to EVER comment unkindly on anyone’s looks, nor does it impress me when someone else does it.
I do care that Chad address this challenge to his own statement.
He is, after all….putting himself in a place of influence. He addresses a number of people at a time and is invited to venues where he most likely WILL have the most influence.
I talked to Chad before about confusing the issue. That a minority of people, so often misrepresented, still haven’t the same options of SELF reporting to a respectful and believing audience.
Indeed, a minority that would be better off having the ability to be left alone to increase in number.
This is not possible with Chad encouraging anyone in this group to believe they EVER had a choice in the first place.
When reality is that honesty could get you destroyed…that is NOT a choice by any means.
And Chad and everyone else must be honest about that.
Commenting on a person’s fashion, particularly a public figure, is a proud American tradition. Nothing I said was worse than what I read in the New York Times each week. I wrote it on my personal site and I am entitled to my opinion.
I must have missed the new ex-gay/ex-ex-gay handbook on “inappropriate” speech. Sorry, but I don’t suscribe to the dry (and, quite frankly, boring) Victorian rules on political commentary. Nor will I in the future. If I think that Chad dresses like a slob and is seemingly unshowered, my readers want me to say so, without hesitation.
And, you must admit, that Chad Thompson is quite funny. Here is a guy whose gig is getting into schools. However, he is aging quickly and to extend his gig, he must fool teens into thinking he is still one of them. That is why – in my observation – he dresses and acts like them. Sorry, but this is damn amusing and most of my readers think so too.
Chad also purports to be ex-gay, yet his website is filled with pictures of him hugging or posing with hot twinks. He has admitted that this is his type. There are no girls in any of his pictures.
Sorry, but this is also quite funny and a lot more relevant and revealing than debating his shifty political positions. Often what is between the lines is more important than the actual lines on the ex-gay script that Chad reads from. Like scripture, literal reading on the ex-gay hoax often misses the larger (and greater) points.
Finally, if you can’t see the humor in this, that is fine. But to say with a straight face that comments on Chad’s wardrobe and hygiene are “destroying the enemy” – well, that is that is the funniest bit of hyperbole yet. My comments were delivered with a squirt gun, not an Uzi….it would be nice if you could actually tell the difference.
“They portray gay people as unhappy, unhealthy sex fiends incapable of love..”
Yes they do. In fact, I once heard Andy Comiskey of Desert Stream flatly insist during a radio interview that “gays are incapable or REAL love — it’s just immature lust and infatuation.” At the time, I was feeding, bathing and changing my lover’s bedclothes as he lay near death. “Incapable of real love?”
Hey, that’s a lot more offensive that saying someone is poorly dressed.
Michael,
I’m not sure but I don’t think Timothy’s purpose was to point out who is the more offensive, but to ask whether saying Comiskey looked like he needed a bath, for instance, would have been an effective response to his comments.
I agree that we should be careful about just how far we go in criticizing the leaders of the ex-gay movement. However, I think that the image that they use to push their agenda is fair game. If Chad Thompson is going to use pictures on his website of primarily very young stereotypical “twinks” having fun in an ex-gay ministry, he should expect to have that image questioned. He is supposedly marketing to young men who are tyring to get over their attraction to other men. If that is the case, why is he using a bunch of very cute, slim young men as a marketing tool to bring these struggling young men into his ministry?
I haven’t seen him in person, but his pictures do project the image of a very casual (?grunge) appearance. I find it strange and inauthenttic when adults try too hard to appear “cool” to teens. In my experience, teens are very suspicious of anything that they view as inauthentic. This would also apply to the very over the top image of the Lookaboo (?spelling) guy.
The ex-gay movement puts a great deal of energy into their use of language, and that is viewed as fair game for criticism. But the image they project isn’t accidental either, and they should expect to be scrutinized for that. Perhaps the real issue here is the tone of the criticism.
Wayne, I think you do some very important things, and your work is very important; however, when I read your book on exgays, I felt disappointed that I could not share the book with Christian friends. The book had too much vitriol, and I can understand your feelings, but the book could have been a book that many can share and learn from. In the end I felt I had to keep it to myself because of the sharp tongue. I agree that you are free to write in your book and on your blog what you want, but it is true that the other side will portray you as a hater, and then they do not pay attention to important aspects of your blog. Thanks for what you do, but I would like to see it toned down a bit.
How do we not know that this guy is recruiting cute, young “twinks” for his own (a-hem) personal “club”. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire….
Wayne has a dry wit and this was funny, as well as true. It’s really difficult to be dragged into someone else’s declared ‘culture war’ and not let your sarcastic comments bruise at an appropriate level.
The thing is, civil discourse has always included satire, parody and bitter swipes. That’s what makes it more fun than — and preferable to– real war.
I wish Wayne could talk to Iran.
Tim, great post…
I love Mel Brooks, more for Young Frankenstien and Blazing Saddles than for The Producers.
His irreverence is exteme (my goodness, he uses the ‘n’ word so many times in Blazing Saddles it is hilariouslly, exhuastingly obliterating of any racist residue left in the movie goer). He annihilates it with obsurdity. God Bless Mel Brooks.
Young Frankenstien is a delightful study in the obsurdity of making someone in our own image and how love finds a way to direct our lives…and the absurdity of the “mob.” (When your blue and you don’t know where to go to…). Man, what a gift.
Wayne Besen is not at that level. I think it is personal to Wayne and his “snarkiness” is demeaning and devaluing. I have seen the similar posts made about others in the the ex-gay movement…John Paulk is a good example, I think here on “Watch” the posts about him becoming a chef were particularly demeaning and devaluing (I don’t have the links to this, so I may have read it elsewhere and think that I read it here…let me know).
Narcissistic devaluing is a particularly exhilerating form of combat…quite gratifying to the attacker. My enemy ceases to be a complex human being and is merely the sum total of my negative views of him…then I am justified in killing him.
Sound familiar??
I am just a friggin’ Jesus Freak!
Taking the high road isn’t always the most popular, but as the Fray would say “sometimes the hardest thing and the right are the same”.
We cannot demand ex-gays start respecting us and stop trashing us when we are not willing to do the same for them. I am all for pointing out every piece of misused science, every law broken and IRS Code abused. But we must never sink to such low levels that we resort to personal attacks.
Plus, I don’t really care if Chad ever showers or what he wears. I care about the misinformation he is spreading about our families. I care about exposing the lies, but aside from all this, Chad is spiritually in the same place that Wayne once was. Fighting to reconcile his sexuality and his faith. Chad needs our compassion when we scold his misinformation or the scorn is more punishment than justice.
In the words of Gandhi, the idea is not to bring your adversary to his knees, but bring him to his senses. If we trash others for their hypocrisy just because “it is what our readers want” then we are no better than those we fight. I would rather win our rights through Justice than appeasement to readers.
David,
Our comments on John Paulk’s new career as caterer were posted here
Overall, while some were playful, they weren’t overly demeaning or devaluing. Mostly, we just wished him well.
David B, the post about John Paulk to which you referred is here. It’s a short two sentences and not particularly snarky to me, certainly not demeaning. Were you thinking of something else?
Update: Good grief Timothy, give me a chance to post now and then 😉
I’ve found that snarkiness (at leastwhen I try to practice it) is a difficult thing to pull off successfuly. I’ve tried humor, but when I do humor, it tends to depend a lot on tone of voice and facial expression. And since I don’t like to use emoticons when writing, I’ve never figured out how to pull it off successfully without posting massive warning signs.
I like snarkfests. They can be a lot of fun sometimes. But the question of whether to enter into one depends on why you would want to do it. If you want to do something that might change someone’s opinion about a given topic, I’ve found that snarkiness just doesn’t work that well. On the other hand, if it’s to rally the troops, then snarkiness can be very effective. But I’ve found that this goal generally conflicts with the first one and you wind up having to choose what it is you wants to do: Change minds or rally troops. I’m not convinced it’s possible to do both unless your last name happens to be King or Ghandi
A common characterization of gay men: we are inherently snarky. Asking a gay man to quit being snarky is like asking him to cancel his subscription to GQ and Vogue for Men or never setting foot again in an Abercrombie & Fitch; which is nigh on impossible.
See! I am being snarky (squirt squirt). (Thanks for the squirt gun, Wayne.)
Oh Cowboy,
must we gays be reduced to stereotypes of snarky? Must we buy into these stereotypes that demean us?
While you comment was witty and fun, it sounds like we should be proud to be snarky like we are proud to be gay. I feel that is just feeding stereotypes. If you would like to be a walking stereotype, who am I to stop you, but don’t count me in on the snarky thing. I politely refuse these horrid stereotypes no matter how amusing or laughable they may be.
For those who think I have no sense of humor, think again.
I politely refuse these horrid stereotypes no matter how amusing or laughable they may be.
As Joan Crawford would say, “well, get her!”
Wayne had a point about appealing to young folks. I know the best thing to do is be yourself.
And the rest does for itself. Young folks can spot a load of horse***t, from as far as you can smell it.
The insecure ones, who are feeling very stressed about their coming out, and who to trust is difficult as it is.
Trusting Chad…or any other person speaking on being less gay, ex gay…the last gay…whatever.
Puts themselves also in the position of not being there…when the betrayal of reality finally comes.
After all, coming out is part of the self detemining process. Honesty with oneself and lifting the burden that denial or deception is.
Isn’t it?
I see whatever an ex gay person is telling a vulnerable young person, however you package it, as very untrustworthy.
Y’all can correct me if I’m wrong.
David Blakeslee,
I’m going to take real issue with some of your language, and call you on it. I’ve noticed it more and more from you in recent times.
“Narcissistic devaluing” — lets not beat around the bush: you are inserting professional-sounding terms, yet, please let us know how you are in any position to make such an “analysis”?
How ironic. Wayne Besen makes comment about Chad’s fakeness, in part illustrated by his appearance. In our opinion they are likely accurate, but also neither relevant nor all that fascinating. Apparently unwilling to make an observation about Chad the professional exgay, you instead call Besen’s own undertanding of himself into question.
Shields makes comment about the fakeness of Haggard’s overnight “conversion”, or any claim to exgay “conversion” (such as Alan Chambers), and you “analyse” Shields as being unable to see the truth because he has some sort of psychological issue. Yes, I’m taking about these comments:
We here have a post about the new career of John Paulk — a “lying sack” if ever there was one — and the comments generally wish him well with his life, even while we maintain our complete disbelief he has ever changed his sexual orientation. This is “analysed” by you as us devaluing him for the same narcississtic reasons as Besen for Chad.
Frankly, but you too often appear to be all too willing to declare any gay person who speaks in public as having some sort of extra mental illness.
Look, buddy — we are not engaging in some sort of psychological defence simply because we have no desire to live or to lie in the same way Paulk does. Or Chambers. Or Chad. Paulk has been ridiculed for years because he attempted to make a career and a virtue out of lying, and caused enormous hurt and harm while doing so. The ridicule is not because he triggers a psychological defence in us. No — Paulk’s lying triggered a REAL defence of ourselves; partly done so by finding humour in the sad situation.
Better than you, we understand how easy it is to simply lie about one’s sexuality; and how readily some people will accept those lies. We know this better than you because — unlike you — we’ve all lied or mislead on this very issue. All of us did so before we came out, and from time to time it remains a perfectly valid option when it is too unsafe to be openly gay.
This lying and hiding you prefer to see as “choosing a valued life”. As if being bribed or frightened into deceitful conformity was a well-grounded decision to improve our lives.
Besen’s observation that Chad is a “slob” and a “lying sack” does not even come close to being as insulting or demeaning as your use of medical sounding but thoroughly displaced name calling.
I put it to you — plainly — that your all too frequent viewing of gay men and women and our lives through the filter of an illness model of homosexuality makes you a questionable judge of gay men and women. Your personal inexperience, and personal distaste, for the subject is no excuse for conjecture or invention; and swallowing a psychology text book along with your version of the bible did not make you an expert on homosexuality.
No: your ever readiness to stealthily refer to the illness model of homosexuality is simply your way of demeaning gay men and women in public. Frankly, I’d prefer if you simply used honest swear words.
(At least you described yourself accurately and am, in this instance, perhaps knowledgeable enough to make that assessment.)
Timothy,
If I’m not mistaken, Aren’t you a personal friend of Chad?
I recall a writer on this site having lunch with him.
Hi Franc — that was Daniel. And I think it was dinner, at night.
Not that having either with someone makes one a personal friend 🙂
Wow, suddenly I am the personal friend of some pretty important people, lol. You are correct, grantdale, it was Daniel and as far as I know he did meet him for dinner once though I’m not sure what purpose there was in mentioning it. Franc?
Wayne’s point is that on the frontline of the culture war, battlefield tactics are necessary and should be used. And he is correct.
Timothy’s point is that off the battlefield, in quieter moments, those same tactics are not as effective in communicating ideas and should not be used. He is also correct.
The point then is this: it’s not whether or not these tactics are appropriate in and of themselves but where and when they are appropriate. Something I think both Wayne, Timothy and all of us can agree on.
As Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 says, there is a time for everything…(well you know the rest.)
My point being that one tends to be more forgiving of an individual if one is a friend of said individual.
Just wondering kiddies…
I’m not sure that would apply, even if Timothy were a friend of Chad’s. The article is more about how we deal with people with whom we disagree, not any single individual.
Sorry about the misattribution to Ex-gay Watch about the snarky article and comments on John Paulk. It was a while ago and it is actually found in another Besen column:
“But this time, he is baking more than bullshit. America’s most famous failed ex-gay is now a personal chef in Portland and a graduate of Western Culinary Institute. He has opened an oh-so-gay catering business, with an oh-so-queer name – MEZZALUNA. You, go girl!”
Certainly snarky:).
Particulary interesting are some of the devaluing comments posted down the list. I am not sure how to link things through the comments section, so go the ex-gay watch link that Tim provided above and link the hat tip to Wayne Besen.
It can be found here: https://www.waynebesen.com/2006/02/john-paulk-cooking-up-more-than-lies.html
These are all my perceptions and for some it appears that using clinical language could be just as snarky…my apologies.
My point is to thank Tim for addressing this issue and to praise Mel Brooks :).
Perhaps Wayne could consult with Mr. Brooks and write the next great comedy that would cure the homophobic through exhausting, obliterating humor.
David Roberts,
Your kidding right? Is a racist point of view going to matter if was from one individual or a collective?
I love you Regan and I love this site.
Well, no I wasn’t kidding but I admit I have no idea where you are going with this. Somehow I doubt it has much to do with the topic, however, so let’s drop the tangent.
I think being ironic is different than being snarky. I can be a fairly cynical person, but I understand that if I attack a person with sarcasm, that I lose them. Sarcasm is gnerally seen as a weak form of irony. I do think many gay people use irony, but sarcasm is hurtful, and I don’t see a lot of gay people being sarcastic, but I am pretty isolated.
David B — now you’re “doing a Chad”.
Yes, you’ve found an article by Besen about Paulk. But you left out one important comment:
Besen said Paulk “was the king” (and now he’s not). He described him as a liar (in several ways). He drew attention to the utterly absurd comment by Paulk about how putting on weight made him ever less gay. And Besen again drew doubts that Paulk was actually straight (in several ways).
That doesn’t qualify as snarky. It was written in a racy, familiar way: but it also wished Paulk well in his new career now selling an honest product. It was probably more likely a last attempt to squeeze one more drop out of a high profile exgay that crashed and burned — and made Besen (mildly) famous.
You seem more concerned about the language that some people use, and avoiding the content.
And the content: Besen reminded his readers that some people claim to be exgay. That doesn’t mean they were either 1) gay to begin with or 2) not gay (let alone heterosexual) now.
———————————-
and (always interesting if sometimes mortifying to read one’s own comments from ages ago…). This was us, in that Paulk string:
Obviously it must have been us that provided the inspiration for Throckmorton’s latest “approach”. Quelle horreur!
Throckmorton may send the royalty cheques to PO Box…
I agree that battlefield tactics are appropriate in a battle. Diplomacy is not a cure-all.
I confess I’m having a bit of difficulty seeing humor in the latest slob/bath remark. Yet I agree with the essence of Wayne Besen’s previous comments about Thompson which are quoted above — Thompson has consistently fashioned an image around superficial, flimsy, misleading and self-contradictory representations regarding age, human rights, family values, and his own sexuality.
In short, I think some battlefield tactics are more effective than others.
Asking a gay man to quit being snarky is like asking him to cancel his subscription to GQ and Vogue for Men or never setting foot again in an Abercrombie & Fitch; which is nigh on impossible.
I hate to be stereotyped! It appears though that gay people are not immune to the stereotyping “gene”…even when talking about ourselves. I’m sorry, but the above comment by cowboy does not describe me. Being snarky sometimes describes me, just like it describes a lot of straight people. I remember a good friend telling me he was going to revoke my gay card because I wasn’t dialed in on the latest Babs musical or something equally ridiculous. I laughed, but the truth is, we are all unique and it isn’t fair to any of us to boil us down to a little stereotype.
I’m also going to take issue with this particular little article around Wayne Besen’s comments on Chad. I’ve been following both of them for a while and don’t quite see what the fuss is about. Perhaps Wayne got a little personal when he got to talking about Chad being hygenically challenged. I doubt whether I would have said that about Chad, but I do think that pointing out the obvious about his playmates was not snarky and served to point out the absurdity of what Chad promotes. I personally think Chad is a younger, somewhat hipper version of the old-fashioned snake-oil salesmen. He’s got a cure and he’s putting a cute little smile on it and some puppy dog eyes. It seems to be a disconnect and I’m not mad a Wayne for pointing it out. Sometimes showing the absurd focuses the light on the person behind the absurd.
j.
I was quite surprised to learn that Chad is 29. I was under the impression, perhaps intentional, that he was maybe 21. I would agree that he should perhaps act, and dress, his age. That he is marketing himself to very young men is certainly germane and worth emphasizing.
I’ve always given him some slack over his inconsistencies and lack of substance because of his age. It seems now that I was being too generous.
Wayne Besen has always had a tendency to get overheated in his observations, as if he didn’t trust the facts to speak for themselves, but his attack on Chad Thompson’s looks, dress, and supposed lack of hygiene virtually justifies an ex-gay momvement. Or to put it another way: Wayne Besen flaunts his good looks and his athletic build on his website. For him to then start attacking another guy for how he looks is the sort of repugnant gay bitchiness and narcissism that represents “the gay lifestyle” at its worst. I thought the clone fascists went out with the seventies, but it seems on this forum we have faggy fashion fascistas dictating how a man is “supposed” to dress when his is twenty-nine. It reminds me of one of the reasons I dabbled in ex-gayism, which was to get away from such bullshit and find an opportunity to relate to guys as fellow humans, not as competitive aspirants to a “Heathers” style clique.
Yes David “Call me Generous” Roberts…
It does make a considerable difference when you realise Chad has been “at this” for 12 years. (originally at Iowa Family Policy Centre — one of Dobson’s “branch offices”)
That’s also why we haven’t been prepared to cut him much slack with his constant “Oh, I’m sorry you must have misunderstood me.” way of dealing with people who point out his unsustainable “image around superficial, flimsy, misleading and self-contradictory representations regarding age, human rights, family values, and his own sexuality” (thanks for that Mike A!).
There comes a time when we all get called on immature behaviour, one example of which is not understanding or accepting what happens when people notice that you’re talking out both sides of your mouth. Chad’s long past an age when hanging on to a childish inability to accept responsibilty for your own actions is an attractive way of facing life.
Either that, or he is a sandwich short of a picnic. His call.
Not fussed about how he feels comfortable dressing though. For all we care he could run around in a “hawaiian” grass skirt AND a cowboy hat AND a spiderman t-shirt AND gumboots if he feels like it.
(That was the 5 year old niece, 2 weekends ago. She’s one to mix and match, unlike her oldest sister at that age. Ooh noo…, she had to either be a hawaiian dancer OR a cowgirl OR spidergirl — and never all at once! Cute how some core characteristics come out so early in life.)
And sorry Korry — understand what you’re getting out, but a tribal demand from some to look a certain “way” does not justify the exgay movement. Looking around The Gay Community(R) they don’t seem to have really convinced others in any case.
Quid pro quo: perhaps clones also like dressing that way. Perhaps Wayne Besen does. And had you noticed the equivalent — perhaps even more tribal — conformity in the way that exgays seem to dress? (basically: pleated pant and checked shirt. Upsized. That’s the men.) Sometimes a tribal way of dressing is just a way of identifying with and moving into a group.
It would take a whole lot more than some ditzy fashion nazi to make me question the worth of my own sexuality. Then again, neither of us are adolesents searching for a place and role in life either 🙂
“I confess I’m having a bit of difficulty seeing humor in the latest slob/bath remark. Yet I agree with the essence of Wayne Besen’s previous comments about Thompson which are quoted above — Thompson has consistently fashioned an image around superficial, flimsy, misleading and self-contradictory representations regarding age, human rights, family values, and his own sexuality.”
I think you’ve said it a hundred times better that Wayne did, Mike, and I think that’s one of the reasons that Wayne’s comments were inappropriate. A snark can be a great tool for getting a point across, but it can also get in the way of making the point. A lot of times, Wayne’s snarkiness does the latter. In this case, it’shard to see what Wayne’s point is through the insults. And like most modern readers, I’m not willing to invest the time and energy figuring out what he’s trying to say when he makes it so darn hard to do so.
What good does it do to ridicule somone? Think for a moment about when you were ridculed as a child how you felt? Sit back and close your eyes and feel what it felt like. It doesn’t matter if the person is right or wrong…from my perspective its wrong. I am just as guilty as any one who ridicules anyone. I believe if the gay community or any community that is being surpressed can apply these principles, I believe things would go better:
The Four Agreements:
1. Be Impeccable with your Words
2. Do not take things Personally
3. Do not make assumptions
4. Do your Best.
These are from the book “The Four Agreements” by Don Miguel Ruiz. This is an excellent read. The Christians can say all they want and do all they want but once we as a community put into place these principles and start looking at things more positively things will change.
I dunno. Personally, I believe that satire and ridicule are some of the most powerful weapons that can be used to unmask hypocrisy. Look at the exaggeration in political cartoons, and how effective they have been historically. Boss Tweed’s girth, Nixon’s 5-o’clock shadow, Poppy Bush’s invisibility, Bush TNG’s smirk… all exaggerations, all personal attacks based on appearance and all highly effective.
Some of the targets for Wayne’s message are our community, and the snark speaks to some of us. Others are more genteel in approach. When Wayne targets the general population, his rhetoric is less personal (Truth Won Out videos tend to be very factual).
There is a place for different styles and tactics.
The Christians can say all they want and do all they want but once we as a community put into place these principles and start looking at things more positively things will change.
Silas – are you talking about the Christian community or the gay community?
I doubt that the gay community will achieve equality simply by looking at things more positively.
If you mean the Christian community, from what I understand, Wayne isn’t a Christian. Many of us here are not.