Instead of being a stand-up guy, and recognizing that his contributions here are unwelcome, because of both their tenor and lack of factual basis, G.C. has chosen instead to accuse me of shutting him down because of his dissenting political views.
Most recently, G.C. has asserted in his defense:
The "straight pride parades" comment was meant to make a point. I (and many other citizens of this great country) find "gay pride parades" very inflammatory and offensive, but that's life. Get over it.Here is my response:
Yes, I admit that I did not know of any such "straight" parades. I stand corrected.
Why is it that if any counterpoint to a "gay" topic comes up people shout "you are out of line. I find "gay marriage" equally lambasting the straight community. I think that is out of line. The argument can go both ways. I'm sorry for the ill-informed comment, but the point still stands.
A) How is a gay pride parade inflammatory and offensive?
B) Why do you repeatedly accuse me and my readers of being ill-informed when you have yet to catch me reporting any unverifiable information, and yet I have on many occasions forced you to admit you "didn't know about" something?
C) Gay marriage cannot "lambaste" the straight community. (Do you even know what lambaste means?) Here, let me help you out:
lam·baste
1. To give a thrashing to; beat.
2. To scold sharply; berate.
To say a straight pride parade is about lambasting the LGBT community is to suggest that it is organized with the express purpose of berating gays and lesbians. The parade itself does not lambaste; the people involved do. Concepts and institutions, like gay marriage, cannot lambaste anything.
D) You seem to be resolutely confused about the concept of open debate, complaining about having people respond to your “counterpoints” with counterpoints of their own. You have expressed on a gay-friendly blog that you are against gay marriage and, in fact, any expression of gay pride and solidarity. What do you expect? That people return with an argument to your beliefs is not an attempt to squelch dissent, but a key component of debate. If you want to be able to express your views without anyone expressing an alternative opinion, then you need to start your own blog and disallow comments.
----------------
There are two reasons I am posting all this on the main page. First, because I want it clearly noted that I do not resent G.C. sharing alternative political views; it is the means by which he expresses them that I find objectionable. Secondly, I want G.C. to take this opportunity to mount his defense in this comment thread, because it is his last chance to convince me and everyone else at this blog that I should continue to allow him to be here.
I have been asked to ban him, and until this point I have not, because I do believe in free speech and because I pity him; he’s obviously a very lonely and unhappy person, and I’m not sure he has much meaningful connection with other people. But in addition to my belief in free speech, and despite my feelings of sympathy, I also believe strongly that this blog is a community, and when there is a disruptive element in any community, it is the job of the community leader to take action to protect it. Opposing political views are welcome; people who intentionally hurt feelings and act in a manner contrary to the goals of the community are not. So we have reached the Last Chance Saloon.
G.C., this is it, buddy. Give me a reason to let you stay, or you’re gone.
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus