Opinion of TJ in Cleve

[Antonio the Sixth]

You didn't "try", Snowguy. Your post was a rapid succession of misinterpretations (I won't call them strawmen because I want to leave open the remote possibility that you're being in good faith) that had nothing to do with anything I said or believe.

If I had the time and energy, I would be happy to clear things up with thoughtful, well-meaning posters like Scott, Kalwejt or Afleitch, but I certainly wouldn't waste any time on you.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You didn't "try", Snowguy. Your post was a rapid succession of misinterpretations (I won't call them strawmen because I want to leave open the remote possibility that you're being in good faith) that had nothing to do with anything I said or believe.

If I had the time and energy, I would be happy to clear things up with thoughtful, well-meaning posters like Scott, Kalwejt or Afleitch, but I certainly wouldn't waste any time on you.

Okie dokie.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Like I said, I wasn't trying to chastise you or make you feel bad or anything, Tony.  I know you support gay equality and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

Anyway, this thread has certainly gone downhill, so I'm going to hold my peace now.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Knowing Antonio I don't think he's an actual homophobe. At most he haven't given the issue as much thought as it deserved.

[windjammer]

To the defense of Antonio. He lives in a country where this issue has been settled for good, the right isn't going to repeal SSM or tries to pass rabid homophobic laws. In the USA, if democrats didn't exist, gay sex would still be criminalized, gays would be discriminated because of muh "religious beliefs" and they couldn't serve in the military either.

If he doesn't give more importance to gay issues, it is because it is settled (mostly) in France.

[Ban my account ffs!]

To the defense of Antonio. He lives in a country where this issue has been settled for good, the right isn't going to repeal SSM or tries to pass rabid homophobic laws. In the USA, if democrats didn't exist, gay sex would still be criminalized, gays would be discriminated because of muh "religious beliefs" and they couldn't serve in the military either.

If he doesn't give more importance to gay issues, it is because it is settled (mostly) in France.

1. He lives in the USA at the moment.
2. If the United States didn't exist, France would be a province of Nazi Germany and I doubt they'd be too keen on SSM.  If this argument sounds ridiculous, it's because it is.  But it is my comeback to your "if the Democrats didn't exist" argument.

If that's all you have to defend a caustic, insulting, nasty poster like Antonio in the face of many gay posters who have known him for a significant period of time and either disagree or feel insulted by his haughty dismissive and hostile attitude towards them even after they called him out for it...

Then my argument stands.  Antonio is a guy with latent homophobia who perhaps desires not to be...and addresses it by wrapping a thin, transparent blanket of pro-lgbt language around himself.  But it's not enough to let the real problem shine through.

[windjammer]

To the defense of Antonio. He lives in a country where this issue has been settled for good, the right isn't going to repeal SSM or tries to pass rabid homophobic laws. In the USA, if democrats didn't exist, gay sex would still be criminalized, gays would be discriminated because of muh "religious beliefs" and they couldn't serve in the military either.

If he doesn't give more importance to gay issues, it is because it is settled (mostly) in France.

1. He lives in the USA at the moment.
2. If the United States didn't exist, France would be a province of Nazi Germany and I doubt they'd be too keen on SSM.  If this argument sounds ridiculous, it's because it is.  But it is my comeback to your "if the Democrats didn't exist" argument.

How this argument is ridiculous? Well yes, had the USA not liberated France, we would be likely under a nazi regime and SSM wouldn't be legal. That's true.

But anyway, that wasn't the main part of my point you intentionnally ignored. Antonio has grown up in a country where one of the major party, while their position on gay rights could be much better, well, isn't as bad as pro anti-sodomy laws GOP. If he struggles to understand how it is to be gay in the USA, having literally a massive homophobic party controlly most of the political offices right now, I think one of the reason is because in the country he has lived most of his life there isn't a so big problem regarding homophobia.


Antonio has his defaults, but being homophobic isn't one of them.

[DavidB.]

I think Antonio tends to see LGBT causes or the advocates of LGBT causes (i.e. the gay community) as "bourgeois" (by the lack of a better word) and insufficiently progressive on economic issues, and that's why he talks about it like this. That is unfortunate. Accusing him of homophobia/homophobic tendencies, however, is almost certainly a stretch and therefore unfair to him.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I admit I can't be fair to Antonio because I dislike him.  But if someone sees the causes of the LGBT community as "bourgeois", they are, in my opinion, homophobic.

Homophobia comes in many shapes and sizes... from tolerance but personal disapproval (how many gays on here have experienced this from close family and friends?  Still feels pretty awful!) to outright discrimination to subtle things like minimizing, dismissing or deemphasizing the causes of the LGBT community.

There is a deliberate pushback from Antonio on this issue.  A deliberate minimization and de-emphasis.  And he is saying this to gays on this forum.  He is arguing that gays should be less concerned about their own marginalization and discrimination and more concerned about something else.

What is bourgeois here is the reality that living in a country where many of the causes of the LGBT community have been achieved and aren't under threat allows you to minimize or deemphasize the causes of the LGBT community elsewhere.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'd also like to point out that I could simply be too sensitive to such matters.  I don't think there is malicious intent on Antonio's part.

I bring this up because I see the same pattern of behavior in myself towards race issues.  I can be dismissive or wish to de-emphasize race issues because I don't understand what it is like to be a racial minority.  I especially struggle with racism towards blacks.  I've had some bad experiences of homophobic slurs and threats from a small handful of black men and it has made me scared of them.  I am trying to get over that and I tell myself everyday that these people do not represent the black community... but I still struggle with it and passive racism still comes out.

I'm not just being this way to get a one-up on Antonio. 

[TDAS04]

According to Antonio's logic, it would have been "bourgeois" to fight hard for the rights of blacks to sit where they wanted to on the bus during the 1950s, because it would have taken away emphasis on economic justice.

Telling someone to sit on the back of a the bus is a message that they are "inferior", just as it is to gays when you tell us we can't marry someone of the same gender.

[DavidB.]

Thank you for these good, honest posts, Snowguy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sure, guys, keep theorizing and speculating about my supposed views on LGBT issues. It's not like I've made them clear many many times over.

[Antonio the Sixth]

OK seriously, what the actual f**k is going on in this thread?

I make a simple post wondering if maybe, just maaaaaaaybe support for SSM isn't the only morally relevant litmus test among current political issues, and all of a sudden, "I don't care about LGBT rights", I have "contempt for SSM", I think it's a "bourgeois" issue, and maybe I'm even a little homophobic, who knows?

Have you all actually gone insane?

[Foucaulf]

OK seriously, what the actual f**k is going on in this thread?

You were the one who first derailed this thread by dissing Hagrid instead of addressing the substantive issue he raised.

You were the one who responded flippantly to long posts with the purpose of helping you understand another perspective.

You are the one who accused others of "misinterpreting" you when a simple apology from the start would have made your intentions clear.

You are the only person swearing in this thread.

At this point, you are so involved in this argument that you sound more contemptuous toward LGBT rights than you have before. When not even the right wingers are backing you up on your concerns, that should've raised an alarm.

I'd be all up for locking this thread, and maybe you would too. I mean, TJ could be the one to do it himself.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Loving this.

[Torie]

OK seriously, what the actual f**k is going on in this thread?

I make a simple post wondering if maybe, just maaaaaaaybe support for SSM isn't the only morally relevant litmus test among current political issues, and all of a sudden, "I don't care about LGBT rights", I have "contempt for SSM", I think it's a "bourgeois" issue, and maybe I'm even a little homophobic, who knows?

Have you all actually gone insane?

Perhaps maybe there is a diplomacy problem here. Surely there was a way to communicate that you are less inclined than some others to give more of a pass to those who are wrong on bread and butter issues, as compared to equality for gays, without this kind of blowback don't you think?

I dissent from the whole notion that one should be tarred with character flaws over their beliefs on an issue (even if absolutely wrong), if held in good faith for reasons not animated by animus or hate or anger, but rather because weight is given to aspects as to which others don't give that level of weight (often involving a priori assumptions). That is what opened the Pandora's Box here in my view, and then lack of diplomacy caused the skid down into the abyss.

That's my postmortem!  And TJ is still great. Period. So says this Godless gay man.

[Green Line]

Who knew that Antonio was so far right on social issues?  I expected better.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You were the one who first derailed this thread by dissing Hagrid instead of addressing the substantive issue he raised.

And I already said I regret it. This doesn't change the fact that nothing I said in that post in that post justifies the deranged accusations and insinuation people have started throwing out here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Flippantly? What I said was that I wanted to respond in more detail but just didn't have the time. How is that flippant? It's just true. I'm in the middle of a quarter where I'm TAing for the first time and have to deal with a methods class far too advanced for my current level. Whatever free time I have goes into election news and polls and trying to maintain the semblance of a social life. Responding to a series of four or five effortposts is just not feasible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Believe me, I'm not the kind of person who refuses to apologize when he's done something wrong. If anything, I'm prone to apologizing way too much. It's something most of my friends tease me for. If I felt like I had anything to apologize for, I would have.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I tend to react badly when people baselessly accuse me of bigotry. I'm weird like that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

Can someone cite one thing, one thing I've said here that implies contempt? Because all I've seen is people repeatedly throw this word (and worse ones) around without backing it up with anything.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Perhaps maybe there is a diplomacy problem here. Surely there was a way to communicate that you are less inclined than some others to give more of a pass to those who are wrong on bread and butter issues, as compared to equality for gays, without this kind of blowback don't you think?

The fact that the tone of my post was a bit acerbic doesn't say anything about its content. There is, again, no way people can jump from my posts to the kind of assumption they're making here.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This is going too far now. I did disagree with a particular line of argument Antonio used, but having known him for seven years, I simply won't agree he's a homophobe or someone who doesn't care about equality.

Usually for Atlas, this thread went beyond control. I know our gay posters are sensitive on the issue for obvious reasons, but I also have an impression many people who posted didn't bother to actually read the whole conversation, just jumped the bandwagon. Also, attempts at "analyzing" Antonio regarding supposed homophobia is a bit... weird.

I guess Torie was the closest to the truth. We seems to have more of a communication problem than anything.

[DavidB.]

Fwiw I came to Antonio's defense when he was called homophobic, and none of my posts were mean-spirited or intended as cheap shots. Neither were other posters', like Scott and even Hagrid. Antonio trying to frame it as some deliberate, deranged attack on him does not do justice to the content of our posts. I understand why Antonio isn't happy with the way this thread turned out, because the homophobia accusation (with which I really disagree) is pretty harsh, but Foucaulf is right: he was the one bringing up this issue.  It wouldn't be damaging to try and see the issue from "our" perspective and some more introspection wouldn't be bad.

Perhaps it is also good to say that while I have had many disagreements with Antonio, I greatly value him as a poster and often find it worthwhile to get to know his perspective on issues, and it is exactly therefore that I am somewhat bewildered by the attitude he has shown toward LGBT issues not only in this thread, but also elsewhere.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

TJ's brand of Republicanism is the type of brand that spiraled out of control and gave us the more annoying elements of the Trump movement. I don't think he gets a pass for being a "reasonable Republican" when he represents politically the worst leftovers of the Bush decade.

I'm kinda curious what this post could possibly be about

I think he's trying to say neocons and/or socons screwed up in office, which combined with Obama-liberalism made Trumpism possible?

Yes. The Trump movement is largely a reaction among Republicans to people like Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, etc, spoon feeding us this same toxic combination of social and neo-conservatism/"Reaganism" garbage year after year. People are so sick and tired of these kind of out of touch Republicans (almost all of whom are in reality no more right-wing than, say, Jeb Bush or John Kasich), and if the candidate most outspokenly and directly in opposition to that happens to be a borderline racist/probable rapist/philandering, orange skinned, loud mouthed, arrogant jackass mascot for a shadowy real estate conglomerate with exaggerated profits that he barely runs, then so be it.

The Trump movement isn't about Trump. Yes, it is probably true that only a man like Donald Trump could have been able to so expertly tap into that wellspring of disillusionment, but these "deplorables" that TJ in Cleve so detests are in reality the people who until now have carried his outdated, collectivist, bigoted vision of the world on his shoulders just like Atlas carried the world on his.

If Atlas were to shrug, as Ayn Rand wrote, then the world would fall apart. The Trump movement is Atlas, and we're shrugging off TJ, Ted Cruz, my grandma's brother-in-law, the GOP staffers and most of my former campaign friends. We're not going to toil for their vision of the world anymore. Now its their turn to carry us. I don't view any Johnson or Clinton supporters with any contempt. I understand their position. But every #NeverTrump Republican, the people who once called Ron Paul a terrorist sympathizer, the people who declared Gary Johnson the next Ralph Nader in 2012, only to hijack his candidacy four years later, destroy it, and then get on the McMullin bandwagon-these people are unforgivable. These people are the real Republican deplorables.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Like, of all the people to attribute this to (from among the FC), TJ seems an unlikely candidate. MasterJedi, Inks, the legitimated (((neocons))), etc., would probably be better targets of rage. TJ is actually conservative to some extent.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

To the defense of Antonio. He lives in a country where this issue has been settled for good, the right isn't going to repeal SSM or tries to pass rabid homophobic laws. In the USA, if democrats didn't exist, gay sex would still be criminalized, gays would be discriminated because of muh "religious beliefs" and they couldn't serve in the military either.

If he doesn't give more importance to gay issues, it is because it is settled (mostly) in France.

Don't really want to get involved in this crapstorm, but Tony is Italian right?