Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Thursday, November 19, 2009

Gay baiting is a common occurrence here on the DR. Questioning or insulting someone's sexuality is done both to deflect from a point another poster is making, or as an end in itself. Although it is predominantly done by rightwingers, it is a habit which certain posters from all over the political spectrum are guilty.

In almost all contexts, it is done to be nasty and derisive. As if a person is somehow flawed or weak based on sexual orientation.

As a liberal, I ask myself what is the proper way to respond. I am not gay, but by denying being gay in response to such taunts it is almost as if I am tacitly agreeing that there is something wrong with being gay. On the other hand, by remaining silent to such taunts, some casual readers might assume that I am gay.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

moder8

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Making it more complicated is the fact that even though I have zero problem with others being homosexual, I am uncomfortable with the notion that other people might assume I am homosexual were I to remain silent. Clearly, on some level which I have not been able to exorcise from my mind, I must have some residual homophobia which causes potential misperceptions about my sexuality to make me uncomfortable. I believe that as human beings, few chords strike closer to home (even on an anonymous political blog) than general issues of sexuality.

Now, obviously, this wouldn't be an issue if there weren't so many immature jerks who believe that attacking sexuality is a valid way to make a point. But such jerks seem to be a fixture. So, how to respond? Firstly, I think Rcade is correct to make explicit gay ad hominem attacks an automatic dump. But I would take it a step further. I would give a dump for any gay based attack no matter how humorously or politely phrased which does not address any issue in dispute. Sexual orientation has no relevance whatsoever to 99% of the threads on the DR. And yet orientation based comments seem to pop up frequently.

As I write this, my own personal resolution becomes clearer. Regardless of any discomfort I might feel about there being any ambiguity whatsoever about my orientation, denial should never be the response. It does play into the implicit idea that something would be wrong even if I were gay.

it seems like you are a little too worried about perception on a 'faceless' communication system.

I doubt that many here are actually as they appear here in print.

Now that you are on the record, how do you feel about name calling and degrading someone you don't agree with?

#1 | Posted by moder8

You frequently piss me off. I rarely agree with what you post.

I must agree with what you have posted here.
Well said.

One person's "degrading" may be another person's lame attempt at "humor".

That being said, context is everything. As a general rule name calling and degrading are weak. They tend to make the person who engages in the activity look bad. But there are so many potential exceptions to the rule. Also, name calling dircted at a group tends to be different in nature than name calling directed at an individual. Furthermore, 'degradation' is often dependent on the so-called "eye of the beholder".

It seems difficult to come up with general rules when there are so many potential exceptions to those rules. Maybe it is best just to approach the general notion of name-calling on a case by case basis.

And it is mostly on the Left side of the aisle I might add......

You know, the ones who champion all things diverse and perverse.

Thanks Moder8 for the message. It too feels like things go that way pretty regularly... and I can totally understand the pickle it puts you ally's into.

Fortunately, people try to degrade me every now and then, being a gay male with a sense of humor, I normally work it back on them making them look like a douchebag.

You know? Like the douchebag that goes, "So you like butt sex"... a response I'd make, "Yeah, you're missing out". It's irrelevant whether or not I do it, but it's relevant to point out that I show there is nothing wrong with it and it won't embarrass me if he wants to talk about it.

As a gay person, I've gotten to the point where I'm not embarrassed, I'll talk about it but won't without invitation or provoked.

Again, thanks.

Why not just admit you're gay and move on Moder8? I mean seriously, even your screen name screams "Show Tunes!!".

BTW, anoyone else think Mod and Danforth are married?

I'm just saying.

"Yeah, you're missing out".

Yeah, that's telling them!

FF.

#8 - #9 - I've wondered why the little ladies squeal so much when we're speaking of those who walk with a lisp myself...

"I've wondered why the little ladies squeal so much when we're speaking of those who walk with a lisp myself..."

Fake Christian Nanc never understood why white guys marched from Montgomery to Selma either.

"And it is mostly on the Left side of the aisle I might add...."

No shit?

The righties attempt a Constitutional amendment codifying gays as second-class citizens, and those stupid gays move left?!?

WTF are they thinking?

Again, gay bashing is disguised as a poor attempt at humor. I don't know why Nanc, Chapel and Chairborne have so much aversion and hostility toward gay people. I just know that they obviously do. There are many more like them on this blog site.

Case in point: Try discussing Barney Frank without the rightwingers making a bunch of tasteless and irrelevant comments about homosexuals.

I don't know why Nanc, Chapel and Chairborne have so much aversion and hostility toward gay people. I just know that they obviously do

As do the people on the left who call someone 'gay' or 'fag' or insinuate they are homosexual as an insult. I always find it funny that people of the "party of inclusion" do this.

Actually, I agree with you on this point Goatman. Gay bashing does transcend Party affiliation. Though clearly there is a lot more of it coming from the Right than the Left.

"As do the people on the left who call someone 'gay' or 'fag' or insinuate they are homosexual as an insult. "

If I ever do that, it's not because I think calling someone gay is an insult (its not), its because the person I'm calling it thinks its an insult. IMO an important distinction.

HC: Actually, I have been guilty of the same behavior as well. I am going to make an effort not do that anymore though.

If I ever do that, it's not because I think calling someone gay is an insult (its not), its because the person I'm calling it thinks its an insult. IMO an important distinction.

I'm sure gays who are offended when people make those remarks will understand.

"If I ever do that, it's not because I think calling someone gay is an insult (its not), its because the person I'm calling it thinks its an insult. IMO an important distinction."

Exactly. BTW, Joe is gay.

#20 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-11-19 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag: Tolerant; "Progressive"

If I ever do that, it's not because I think calling someone gay is an insult (its not), its because the person I'm calling it thinks its an insult. IMO an important distinction.

Using the same logic and all else being the same, you see no problem with calling someone "nigger" or "spic"?

This reminds me of the "Obama is a Muslim" discussions:

"Obama is a Muslim"

"No, he isn't."

"What, do you think there's something wrong with that?"

"No."

"Then why do you have to deny it like it's a big deal?"

"Because he's not a Muslim."

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

*sigh*

Joe: I did not mean to offend you in any way. I honestly did not know you were gay.

#20 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-11-19 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag: Tolerant; "Progressive"

#21 | Posted by JOE

Aren't you the douchebag who always refers to "Cock Starvis" and "Northgay3"? My apologies if I'm confusing you with someone else.

I'm sure gays who are offended when people make those remarks will understand.
#19 | Posted by JOE

I've had to explain myself more than once to my gay friends. 99% of the time I was good. They understand that I was trying to turn someone's homophobia against them.

"Using the same logic and all else being the same, you see no problem with calling someone "nigger" or "spic"?"
#22 | Posted by goatman

That's not the same because you can't imply anything with the statement. Calling a homophobe gay implies something unprovable. You dont have that with the other terms.

what is the proper way to respond

The "I know you are but wot am I?" response is largely ineffective.

Most people who delight in calling others gay aren't here fer a serious debate but simply are trolling for a flame war.

No response is a valid response then.

If you absoutely feel the need to respond then just do wot Spud does whenever Goat sez sommat st00pid.

/A not infrequent occurance.

Weaksauce is Weak.
Obvious Troll is Obvious.
Failtroll is FAIL.

Werks fer Spud! ^_^

Be Well.

/Outtie again
stage left.

Aren't you the douchebag who always refers to "Cock Starvis" and "Northgay3"?

Am I the one who claims to be "progressive?"

The easiest way to respond to make a joke about it back. Someone calls you gay, respond with a lisp and say they weren't complaining the night before. Shows that you aren't affected by the insult.

Easy.

If you get all butt hurt about it, it shows that you are really concerned and possibly questioning your sexuality.

Am I the one who claims to be "progressive?"

#29 | Posted by JOE

No, I don't recall you ever claiming to be a "progressive". Do you have a point, counselor?

What a fag.

#32 | Posted by JOE

What a lawyer, er, "counselor". lol

It would be a shame if this thread deteriorated into gay bashing. In a way it would sadly verify the idea I was attempting to articulate up at the top of the thread.

I don't think it's bashing, Moder8. Joe likes what he does.

The "I know you are but wot am I?" response is largely ineffective.

???

Then why is that one of your stock responses, deth?

stoopid

Oh, never mind. . . LOL

The point is, unless you are homophobic on some level there is no legitimate reason for ever bringing up another person's sexuality in 99% of the threads on the DR. It has nothing to do with anything. It is just a means of being mean spirited.
And given that there are so many other ways of expressing displeasure with another poster sans homophobia, there is no excuse for it.

... sez sommat st00pid. ...

Talk about the ultimate in self retorts! LOL

I admit it - I am mean spirited. Ask anyone.

If you get all butt hurt about it, it shows that you are really concerned and possibly questioning your sexuality.

#30 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE

If it hurts then you're doing something wrong...

Lol! Okay, Greeneye, admit it - you got off on typing that line didn't you? You can tell us, you know you're in a safe place here.
(By the way, apparently Joe is available if you're still looking for a place to put your pickle.)

#24 | POSTED BY MONTECORE

OMG! I didn't realize I wrote that. Sometimes I even impress yourself.

*myself

I admit it - I am mean spirited. Ask anyone.

#40 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2009-11-19 08:08 PM

Where do I begin? lol

The title of this thread is "Gay Baiting"

I've never see any guys have the color of their eyes be their username on a blog. Just curious -- would calling yourself "greeneyedguy" be considered a form of gay baiting? I suppose "greeneyedguy" would be the best one to answer that question. And no, this isn't gay bashing. I could care less what his preferences are. Just wondering about the rather flirtatious name -- especially for a guy.

Posted by greeneyedguy at 2009-11-19

I've never see = I've never seen

This whole thread is a bunch of nonsense. Everyone here on the DR takes heat for something or other politically, sexually or religously. Why should one group be hands off? Grow a layer of skin my gay bretherin and shut the fuck up!

Don't you think conservatives feel the sting? How about Christians? Catholics? Moslems? Tosser and Pakistan!

This is such a bunch of PC bullcrap!

I vote we dump Moder8 for being a world class hypocrical wimp.

Have a coke and a smile, suck some dick and SHUT THE FUCK UP!

And I say that fully acknowledging some of my own homosexual tendencies and in the most supportive way.

You want to get liberals to come after you and claiming you're gay? Use the word fabulous. They wig the fuck out.

BOOJBOY

"tendencies" ?????

Is you is or is you aint?

And I say that fully acknowledging some of my own homosexual tendencies and in the most supportive way.

#47 | Posted by boojiboy at 2009-11-19 11:57 PM

BOOJBOY

"tendencies" ?????

Is you is or is you aint?

#49 | Posted by Twinpac at 2009-11-20 01:12 AM


And even more importantly, do you tell the women you date about your "tendencies"?

I can't think of a more disappointing surprise to be dating a guy and really start to care for him only to find out he has "tendencies" to go the other way.

If it hurts then you're doing something wrong...

#41 | Posted by greeneyedguy at 2009-11-19 11:15 PM

Sorry man, doesn't resonate. I mean no offense, but the thought of sex, even heterosexual, with the part of the body that excretes poop just makes it go positively limp. To each his own. You might send Moder8 a private email, I think he some questions that need answering. LOL!

Speaking as someone who has the philosophy of "If they're gorgeous, I'll shag them, regardless of whether they're an innie or a tripod", let me say this:

Mod, I commend your attitude on that. I've always found the gay baiting as an insult to be the fall-back of someone who can't think of a GOOD insult.

Mod, I commend your attitude on that. I've always found the gay baiting as an insult to be the fall-back of someone who can't think of a GOOD insult.

Seconded on the commendation and agreed as to the "can't think" thing.

If they're gorgeous, I'll shag them...

Or as Spud sez.... "Don't let yer meat loaf!"

Be Well.

Well said, my tuberiscious friend.

Well said, my tuberiscious friend.

TY fer them kind werds, Reverend Darko!

KK. 'Nuff tutoring Goat in the Ways of Righteousness fer one night.

Be Well.

/As a Tater O' Doom like to do
stage left.

I think you two just made a gay love connection. Isn't revdarko too old for you?

I have a question about the thread headline.

Isn't gay baiting, similar to race baiting, when you attempt to draw out the homophobia of another person, tricking them into making a statement that they otherwise wouldn't and thereby outing that person as the homophobe?

BOOJBOY

"tendencies" ?????

Is you is or is you aint?

#47 | Posted by Twinpac at 2009-11-20 01:12 AM | Reply | Flag: I cant help myself. I have to admit that girl on girl action is titillating.

HC: I think you are correct. I think the title is incorrect. I should have put, "Gay Bashing". As it turns out though, maybe (unfortunately) the title has turned out to be unintentionally accurate.

actually I was thinking that you were talking about something like

putting out some 'chum' to attrack some gay poster

you know..baiting..

get it

okay so its not that funny...sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesnt

POSTED BY MODER8
"I am not gay, but by denying being gay in response to such taunts it is almost as if I am tacitly agreeing that there is something wrong with being gay."

Moder8, I could NOT disagree more.
Denying being gay is denying being gay, and that's ALL it is.

This is one of those "liberal guilt" things.
You're worried that if you say you're not gay, "someone" may think you're saying it's wrong to be gay.

But you're not. It's in your head.

If you have blonde hair, and someone calls you a brunette, is denying that you're a brunette a tacit agreement that there is something wrong with being brunette?

Absolutely not. See the difference?
Nope. Because there isn't one.

Some people DO think there's a problem with being gay.
But that's THEIR problem, not yours.

#59 You would agree that often the most vocal (and unprovoked) anti-gay people are harboring anger at themselves for being closeted homosexuals, right?

It's one thing to deny being gay when a comment is made at you but it's another to go out of your way to "prove" how straight you are by going balls deep in anti gay insults out of no-where.

TheTom: The problem is, given the traditional persecution experienced by homosexuals, feeling compelled to deny being homosexual is akin to feeling akin to deny being a Communist in the McCarthy '50s. The act of denial only gives more fuel to the Inquisitors.

Interesting that this was posted at this time. I was watching Chris Matthews the other night after Obama bowed to the Japanese Emperor. Matthews pointed out that Bush had walked hand-in-hand with the Saudi Prince. He kind of insinuated that this was less "manly" than bowing. I thought at the time that he was somehow trying to denigrate Bush by insinuating that he was gay or something. Why would Chris Matthews believe that is a bad thing? I found it interesting. I wonder if anyone called him on it...

Tom,

"Some people DO think there's a problem with being gay."

You know...I've worked with computers most of my career.

I understand the relationship between software and hardware. I've done my fair share of programming over the years.

The way I see it, computers and human beings have a lot in common.

Our physical brain is "hardware" and our life experiences and education, combined with a genetic deposition (firmware), is much like "software" that runs in a computer.

Anyone who has ever worked with software knows that code can (and frequently does) have "bugs". These bugs can be anywhere from code that generates totally wrong results (insanity), to minor glitches caused by unforeseen relationships between subroutines (obsessions...fears...anxiety.
..etc)

Then...there's homosexuality.

I have to wonder if it isn't a "bug" in the software.

There's nothing you can do about it. It can't be changed and most medical professionals believe it doesn't interfere with your ability to live satisfying and contented lives.

And...certainly, people who are gay feel like it's natural to them...well...because it is natural to them.

Still though....homosexuality is not the "norm".

Is homosexuality a "bug" in the software?

Actually the liberals here are far worse about this than conservatives. For example all the comments about wide stances, Mark Foley, etc.

For those on the left who are supposed to be tolerant they sure do a poor job of tolerance when it comes to those who have opposing views.

Am I the one who claims to be "progressive?"

#28 | Posted by JOE at 2009-11-19 07:05 PM

But you are gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Let's see, that's two things Billy J. doesn't like, gays and pot.

Lemme guess, you read your book of Fairy Tales at least twice a week.

I can't think of a more disappointing surprise to be dating a guy and really start to care for him only to find out he has "tendencies" to go the other way.

#47 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-11-20 01:36 AM |

When did the light bulb go on for you Chrissy?

Was it when he picked you for your date and he had a show tunes CD playing?

"Mod, I commend your attitude on that. I've always found the gay baiting as an insult to be the fall-back of someone who can't think of a GOOD insult."

Seconded on the commendation and agreed as to the "can't think" thing.

"If they're gorgeous, I'll shag them..."

Or as Spud sez.... "Don't let yer meat loaf!"
Be Well.
#50 | Posted by dethspud at 2009-11-20 06:54 AM

WOOF!:]

Tom,
"Some people DO think there's a problem with being gay."

You know...I've worked with computers most of my career.
I understand the relationship between software and hardware. I've done my fair share of programming over the years.
The way I see it, computers and human beings have a lot in common.
Our physical brain is "hardware" and our life experiences and education, combined with a genetic deposition (firmware), is much like "software" that runs in a computer.
Anyone who has ever worked with software knows that code can (and frequently does) have "bugs". These bugs can be anywhere from code that generates totally wrong results (insanity), to minor glitches caused by unforeseen relationships between subroutines (obsessions...fears...anxiety.
..etc)
Then...there's homosexuality.
I have to wonder if it isn't a "bug" in the software.
There's nothing you can do about it. It can't be changed and most medical professionals believe it doesn't interfere with your ability to live satisfying and contented lives.
And...certainly, people who are gay feel like it's natural to them...well...because it is natural to them.
Still though....homosexuality is not the "norm".
Is homosexuality a "bug" in the software?
#62 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2009-11-20 10:30 PM

Imo, the "bug" is up your ass, so to speak. Flag me if you must, but know that I don't appreciate you depicting anyone else as unhealthy or not "normal" enough. You're troublesome.

And...certainly, people who are left-handed feel like it's natural to them...well...because it is natural to them.
Still though.... left-handedness is not the "norm".
Is left-handedness a "bug" in the software?

See how silly it sounds when you put it that way?

In answer to yer original question?

No, homosexuality like handedness is an adaptation, a way of ensuring the species doesn't get "all lined up" and put all our genetic eggs in one basket so to speak.

Personally, Spud has a theory about gay folk.

Wanna hear it?

Here it goes...

Homosexuality is a built-in failsafe device to prevent the human race from breeding itself into extinction through over-population, over-predation, resource depletion and over-pollution.

The higher the worlds population goes the greater the number of gays per capita projects Spud.

Looked at in that sense Gays are not the disease that fundies claim, they are the cure.

K?

Got no hard data to back that up, you understand.

Merely a spuddish hunch is all.

Be Well.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable