Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Next time someone says you hate homos just because you are anti-homosexuality, here´s a jiffy answer. It´s specially sweet if your aggressor, besides being snotty and self-righteous, is straight:
What are you? Underestimating me? I don´t hate homosexuals, I hate pro-homosexuals. It´s a lot more encompassing and broad-minded, and guess what? It includes you.
[You can imagine the dumb look that materializes on their face at this moment.]
You can then add a nice icing on the above answer, if you´re talking to one of those sanctimonious, fanatical creatures and you´ve had an especially hard day:
If a homosexual is not pro-homosexual, I don´t hate them, and if a straight person is pro-homosexual, I hate them. Such people are just part of a larger group that I have come to hate, called liberals (which regarding this subject includes certain conservatives), who are a part of an even larger group of people that I have always hated, the stupid. And actually I don´t hate them all the time, it´s just when they remind me how much they refuse to evolve, and how much they love violence and degradation, while covering it up with a flimsy little speech in the name of liberty, that´s when I hate them.
As you can see, I am getting tired of this cheap shot insult that homo activists have taught society to throw at anyone who does not fall for their destructive social engineering tactics, and today, alas, a neat little answer came to mind.
This is the interaction that followed the above post.
Someone left this comment:
I find it interesting that the anti-gay community always feels the need to defend against the claim that they don't like gay people. It seems to me that if they didn't know that they were wrong, they wouldn't feel the need to justify it.
As if we invented the slur ourselves. [I´m having trouble editing the comments on my site, that´s why they still appear doubled. Will look into it.]
Looks like I had an illiterate visitor drop by. First, I´m not part of the anti-gay community, I´m part of the anti-pro-homosexual community, which belongs to the anti-librel community, which is encompassed by the anti-stupid community.
I think it is important to not only defend against the slurs that homos attack anti-pro-homosexuals with, but to teach such ignorant people that their cheap, snotty attitudes and behaviors towards anti-pro-homosexuals have got to go.
I won't be returning, but I think it important to at least note that my post was in no way rude or offensive, yet you have replied in an immature, agressive manner. Your tone (as well as the overall tone of your website is very telling. I wish you the best in the future, and will continue to hope for you to change. What you're carrying around is not good for you.
Your post said if someone gets slapped in the face gratuitously, they have no right to defend themselves, because if they do, it shows they deserve receiving the violence in the first place. That´s all! Not only is that very offensive and rude, but it shows your true colors, how you lack accountability about your own attitudes.
And this is what is so the problem with pro-homosexuals, they are mostly a profound combination of being sanctimounious with being a bigot.
A note on tone:
Tone is something very interesting, because it speaks so much louder than content. Which is sad, sometimes, because it exactly allows for people with nice tone and evil content get away with so much. The opposite is also true, if you have something important to say, but your tone gets aggressive at times, you will only speak to a converted audience.
I do think this guy went for the “tone” jab, because he can´t argue the content. Has to pick on something else, it´s a little variation on the “you´re-so-full-of-hate-everytime-I-lose-the-debate” cheap shot. Hey, I like that, it rhymed! :-)
Also, one thing that is so "cute" is how pro-homosexuals just hate anti-pro-homosexuals, and the venom and the violence just oozes out of them. They self-entitle themselves the right to perpetrate any violence to anyone they wish.
A debate with such people usually starts with them manifesting their inflated self-righteousness, which comes from having a mindset such as: "I am right about everything and I am talking to some beneath contempt right wing bigot." That is the initial tone and initial intelligence with which they approach the debate.
Once the arguments start to be put on the table, the tone majorly changes. It starts with "I am not accountable for anything, I am in denial of all the violence problems in the world, except the one I care to look at and make a huge circus about, which inflates me as the world´s biggest victim, and if you don´t submit to what I am telling you, you are evil and I´m going to get violent" jabs, and they start losing the debate, then their tone starts to change. It morphs into nothing more than, "hate, hate, hate, and I HATE you." Since they continue to not be able to argue, then if the debate is not stopped there, they increase the violence, and bring in the swear words insults. I was reminded by my question regarding the anthropology-in-the-twilight-zone discussion, can you win a discussion with a person that has wiped out 99% of reality? And thinks they are not self-righteous?
Sometimes you interact with these people and you can feel the hate just simmering there, right beneath a "civil" tone. That´s what I felt with this last guy.
Anyways, tone is very important. But this is just my scratchpad, will worry about it later.