So I see the anti-GLBT contingent's latest tactic is to point to Melissa Etheridge

[Maven]

and the fact that she acted civil to Rick Warren at a public event.

I had to sign out to see many of the posts because they were by people I had on ignore. Including one provocateur who should've gotten a ticket back to the comedy circuit a long time ago.

[liberalmuse]

1. Well, if Melissa Etheridge talked to Warren and signed an autograph for him...

then it goes to follow that it is perfectly okay for him to have a highly visible part in Obama's inauguration. :eyes: :sarcasm: :crazy: :banghead:

[Behind the Aegis]

2. What they fail to see...

...it is HER actions which are an appropriate response to "reaching across the aisle." When she let's him get on stage at her concert as an opening act, THEN there will be a problem. It is so simple to see the difference, unless one is mired in bigotry and stupidity.

[gcomeau]

3. Meanwhile certain other people stick to the same tactic...

...painting everyone who disagrees with them personally on this one freaking issue as "anti-GLBT". As if everyone who thinks Obama might have a valid reasons for picking Warren is waving "We hate Gay People" signs and marching in the fucking streets rather than pointing out that Obama specifically told the entire goddamn country he DOES NOT agree with Warren on gay rights issues and is doing this for perfectly valid reasons of effective governance.

I came in here yesterdays and asked one simple question about this issue of another poster... a question that in absolutely no way even suggested I was in any way opposed to gay marriage (I'm firmly in favor) or any other gay rights initiative (see last comment) or gay people in general (wash, rinse, repeat)... and the immediate responses I got was multiple accusations I was an anti-gay bigot.

Give it up already, it's infantile and beyond counter-productive. If you insist on defining anyone who disagrees with a gay person over any matter of political strategy as being "anti-GLBT" you're going to find yourself with no goddamn allies pretty freaking quick. It's idiotic. It's like a whole contingent of people here are on a "let's alienate as many people as we possibly can" holy crusade or something. And to be perfectly clear, that "whole contingent of people" is not referring to "teh gays" so don't even start. It's referring to individuals presenting a certain specific line of argument... be they gay or not. Get it? I'm not presenting an argument here against gay people... I'm presenting it against YOU. You happen to (at least I'm assuming based on available evidence) be gay, but those two things are unrelated. Understand? Just like if someone disagrees with ME about whether it's approprate for religious figures to be involved in these events at all they are not anti-atheist fascists... they just happen to freaking not agree with my personal opinion.

[Creideiki]

4. Hey, I agree he has valid reasons for picking Warren

It's to show the right wing that we're going to spend 4 more years getting screwed over. Nothing makes the conservatives ("D" or "R") happier than punishing someone not like them.

Meanwhile, I still just want Obama to be compassionate and negotiate our transfer to a country that wants us.

[Zuiderelle]

5. What was your one simple question?

Leaving that out of your post is pretty misleading. And calling us infantile and idiotic in our own forum is condescending as hell. I for one, won't tolerate it.

[gcomeau]

6. Did you even think about what you were posting?

"Calling US idiotic and infantile on OUR own forum"?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had wandered into the "People Who Think Everyone Who Disagrees With Us On Obama And Warren Are Ant-Gay Bigots" forum. I THOUGHT I was in the GLBT forum, and I sure as hell wasn't directing my comments to the GLBT community in general. Did you even bother reading the whole post before hitting reply? I went so far out of my way to make that clear it defies belief you could have finished the entire thing and not realized that.

And I would repost the question... but the subthread it spawned last time got so filled with bile the entire thing was deleted by moderation and I doubt they'd think highly of kicking it off again.

[Zuiderelle]

7. Yes, I absolutely did read your whole insulting post...

Meanwhile certain other people stick to the same tactic...

...painting everyone who disagrees with them personally on this one freaking issue as "anti-GLBT". As if everyone who thinks Obama might have a valid reasons for picking Warren is waving "We hate Gay People" signs and marching in the fucking streets rather than pointing out that Obama specifically told the entire goddamn country he DOES NOT agree with Warren on gay rights issues and is doing this for perfectly valid reasons of effective governance.

I came in here yesterdays and asked one simple question about this issue of another poster... a question that in absolutely no way even suggested I was in any way opposed to gay marriage (I'm firmly in favor) or any other gay rights initiative (see last comment) or gay people in general (wash, rinse, repeat)... and the immediate responses I got was multiple accusations I was an anti-gay bigot.

Give it up already, it's infantile and beyond counter-productive. If you insist on defining anyone who disagrees with a gay person over any matter of political strategy as being "anti-GLBT" you're going to find yourself with no goddamn allies pretty freaking quick. It's idiotic. It's like a whole contingent of people here are on a "let's alienate as many people as we possibly can" holy crusade or something. And to be perfectly clear, that "whole contingent of people" is not referring to "teh gays" so don't even start. It's referring to individuals presenting a certain specific line of argument... be they gay or not. Get it? I'm not presenting an argument here against gay people... I'm presenting it against YOU. You happen to (at least I'm assuming based on available evidence) be gay, but those two things are unrelated. Understand? Just like if someone disagrees with ME about whether it's approprate for religious figures to be involved in these events at all they are not anti-atheist fascists... they just happen to freaking not agree with my personal opinion.

What on earth did you think in the above that I did not read? It's all a huge, run-on insult.

[bluedawg12]

8. This is valid: what was your question?

You opened the door and made comments about another thread from another day and made generalizations about all GLBT's based on a response to your question yesterday.

When someone asks you to clarify your reply here, you jump to:

"I didn't realize I had wandered into the "People Who Think Everyone Who Disagrees With Us On Obama And Warren Are Ant-Gay Bigots" forum." - gcomeau

More generalizations.

BTW- YOU did say infanitle and idiotic:

"Give it up already, it's infantile and beyond counter-productive... It's idiotic." -gcomeau

What was the question? The thread link? Facts to back up your generalizations about all gays and your spin in all of our tactics all of the time?

[gcomeau]

9. Holy crap...

First I deal with one person who clearly doesn't read my post before responding... then when I point it out I get a second person who doesn't read the post OR the reply before responding to that. This is just brilliant. Let me see if I can explain this in the simplest possible terms.

You opened the door and made comments about another thread from another day and made generalizations about all GLBT's based on a response to your question yesterday.

Oh really? Is THAT what I did? Because you see... when I said this in my first post:

"And to be perfectly clear, that "whole contingent of people" is not referring to "teh gays" so don't even start. It's referring to individuals presenting a certain specific line of argument... be they gay or not. Get it? I'm not presenting an argument here against gay people... I'm presenting it against YOU. You happen to (at least I'm assuming based on available evidence) be gay, but those two things are unrelated. Understand? Just like if someone disagrees with ME about whether it's appropriate for religious figures to be involved in these events at all they are not anti-atheist fascists... they just happen to freaking not agree with my personal opinion."

What in the hell did you interpret that to mean? Because you see, when I say I'm not referring to gay people I mean I'M NOT REFERRING TO GAY PEOPLE. And when I say I'm not presenting an argument against gay people I mean I'M NOT PRESENTING AN ARGUMENT AGAINST GAY PEOPLE. But apparently when you read those words they mean "Oh, and I'm actually talking about the entire GLBT community here because this is Bizarro Discussion Forum and everything I say means the opposite of what you might think it would mean if you looked the words up in a dictionary."

And what was the thread link? Did you not see the "the moderator deleted the subthread"? But hey, here you go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=100689&mesg_id=100689

I hope you find the "Deleted Sub Thread" next to "name removed" in response to post #13 incredibly enlightening.

And yes, I did say that the line of argument I was responding to was infantile and idiotic. Because it is. What's your point? I did NOT say every gay person on the planet, or even every gay person on these forums, or even every gay person on these forums I have recently conversed with... was using it. Did I?

But this is accomplishing one thing at least. It's proving me really, really right. Because I posted an observation that there seems to be a tendency on the forums lately for a lot of people (and when I say "a lot of people" I mean "a lot of people"... not "everyone in the GLBT forum". Get it?) to turn every expressed disagreement or criticism on this particular issue into an assault on the GLBT community... in a message I loaded down so thickly with "and no, I'm not directing that at all gay people" disclaimer statements you would think they would present a choking hazard to anyone trying to navigate the post... and what did I get in response? Three messages implying I'm attacking the entire GLBT community with the message I spent half my text explaining wasn't even directed at the GLBT community. Genius. Really.

And on a final note:

"I didn't realize I had wandered into the "People Who Think Everyone Who Disagrees With Us On Obama And Warren Are Ant-Gay Bigots" forum." - gcomeau

More generalizations

That wasn't even close to a generalization. THAT was something called sarcasm. I know the internet has this famous sarcasm deadening effect, but considering the context of the statement I'm having incredible difficulty believing any honest attempt to seriously read the post it was contained in wouldn't have picked that up. You see... the person I was responding to had done the exact same thing you did. Declared my post was an attack on "US" in "OUR" forum. Seeing as my post was actually an attack only on people using the specific line of argument I had listed the only way their accusation could be true would be IF this was the "People Who Think Everyone Who Disagrees With Us On Obama And Warren Are Ant-Gay Bigots" forum. I was not actually suggesting I thought that was an accurate description of the forum since that would have rather defeated the purpose of the post entirely considering that would have made the first respondent correct when they were clearly... what's the word.... not.

[bluedawg12]

11. Is there a point to this rambling rant ?

[gcomeau]

12. You'll find it cleverly hidden in all those words.

Try something new, read them before hitting that little "reply" link.

[bluedawg12]

13. Too many words and too rambling to be clever.

[gcomeau]

14. Gotcha...

..I'm attempting to have a discussion with someone whose attention span would be challenged by a book one and a half pages long, the approximate length of the post you find of too daunting a length to make it from the beginning to end of.

Thanks for letting me know I'm wasting my time, considering I don't speak bumper sticker. That does at least explain your initial response.

[bluedawg12]

16. You are attempting to talk to someone

that I can see.

It seems like something happened yesterday and you have a grievance about the way someone replied to you.

I don't know the thread or the issue and it doesn't matter as I don't think you are talking to me about yesterday.

My suggestion to keep it from being confusing, is to either directly address whom ever or PM them.

It depends on your goal. If it's to resolve the matter and move then speak with them.

[MNBrewer]

10. Obama and Warren do have a significant point of agreement with respect to gay rights

No Marriage for Gays

[enigmatic]

15. It's an idiotic leap to jump to for them

People get duped all the time by those who deal in snake-oil, no matter how reasonable it sounds when the snake-oil salesmen say it. Especially if it involves religion.

I'd really like to hear Melissa's word on Warren; I'm hoping she's not as gullible as this.