Censored (The American Conservative – Dreher – WaPo: ‘Error Has No Rights’)- Denials and more denials of levels of LGBT violence

Another day, another ignorant commenter throwing out ad hominem attacks when faced with the ugly reality of LGBT violence. This reply was censored at the American Conservative thread. Ignorant liberal who knows nothing about the subject questions my “mental sanity” for presenting data that his lack character cannot acknowledge.

The censored comment below:

Heather said: If you think that having 40% of homosexuals and bisexuals perpetrating intimate violence, plus an equally large number of them perpetrating sexual harassment of heterosexuals and others is “being treated as equals,” you certainly have a very flawed concept of equality.

Franklin Evans says:    Zero credibility and some concern for your mental well-being if you can’t provide citations for those claims, Heather. And I assure you, offering a religious indictment as your citation will get you nothing but derision… and as you might imagine, I don’t expect you to provide anything but that.

Franklin, calling other people mentally ill is rather low in a debate.  I don’t think throwing out such cheap ad hominem attacks demonstrate an ethical frame of mind.

But since you would like to make this a competition about who is more mentally disturbed, let’s see, then, first all, how your mental well-being is doing. What stats do you have for intimate violence and where do they come from?

Why don’t we ask Thomas Andrews? I’d love to see his answer first of all. And then we can judge who is more mentally disturbed, more fanatical, and more ignorant – the crowd on TAC which normalizes homosexuality or the ones who don’t.

Or are you questioning my “mental well-being” based on nothing more than your imagination? If so, that would make yours a very foul imagination – and your attacks irrational. Irrational attacks are not exactly the domain of the sane, you understand.

So let’s see what is the knowledge base that you operate from. What data do you have that makes you stoop down to saying that I would be  “mentally unwell” if I couldn’t  provide citations?

…………………………………….

Unfortunately, since Rod Dreher censored my comment, Franklin Evans will not have to answer to the questions I asked him above.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Censored (The American Conservative – Dreher – WaPo: ‘Error Has No Rights’)- Denials and more denials of levels of LGBT violence

  1. Pingback: Reply to Franklin Evans at The American Conservative – Denials and more denials of levels of LGBT violence | Reflections, Reflections by Alessandra

  2. Off topic. Just to let you know:

    1. I have been banned from Rod Dreher’s site.
    2. I believe the individual responsible for the tendentious editing of the comments sections at the Institute on Religion and Public Life (has happened to your’s truly as well) is named Katherine Infantine.

    • Hi,
      Why were you banned at TAC?

      I don’t have any time to blog right now, but hopefully next month, I’m going to write a post about Rod and having banned me when I criticized him for being gross with his enjoyment of homosexual harassment/assault.
      I hadn’t been following TAC for long, but everything he writes now sounds so hollow after his giggly post on homosexual sexual harassment.

      While it seems he does a good job in denouncing the corruption in the CC regarding their abuse cases, it also seems that he isn’t any different from them when the context changes to lay society.

      TAC is certainly not a socially conservative site. I think what they care about is the subscription money of liberal conservatives/libertarians.

      Another group of junk conservatives.

      • Dreher did a superlatively bad job of critiquing the Catholic hierarchy during the years running from 2002 to 2007 and was deaf or defiant in the face of complaints about how he was misconceiving the problems. The bishops were commonly facing complaints filed 10, 15, 25, or 40 years after the fact and complaints which had little or no corroboration. Coming to a fair resolution in these cases is difficult, but Dreher was just irked with anyone who brought that up. Also, Dreher never articulated any set of criteria by which the bishops or anyone else were supposed to evaluate complaints. He just took at face value any accusation and seemed to think that displays of emotional freight were probative. That is not serious, but then he isn’t.

        Dreher offered no explanation whatsoever as to why my posts were sent to the discard bin (which is characteristic of his correspondence with me, not with others). I am fairly caustic about the palaeoconservative nexus and regard very few of its denizens as purveyors of serious topical commentary. I take it he did not care for me calling his friends ‘clowns’, but that’s what they are.

        The American Conservative is the most weirdly other-directed opinion magazine currently published (of any of which I am aware). They have something in common with The Nation and some other leftoid publications in that they are primarily defined by their aversions. They exist to bash prevailing currents of thought on the starboard spectrum but have little of their own to offer. The editor is a young man of astonishing hauteur considering that he is a person of quite unremarkable accomplishment. So is everyone associated with the publication other than its proprietor and Andrew Bacevich. The previous editorial troika was worse. It consisted of a screwball trustafarian , a young women whose most notable feature was a loathing of George W. Bush, and a leftoid, eventually disaffected. An account of their efforts is offered here:

        http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0705.konetzki.html

        If I had to guess, I would say roughly 2/3 of Dreher’s commenters were leftoids, and Dreher is quite effusive in his appreciation of them. Another 25% were the usual palaeo crew, babbling about “The Empire”, or there to re-argue the historiography of the 2d World War or complain we’re “fighting Bibi’s wars for him”. Anti-semites and cranks who fancy Franklin Roosevelt Jedi mind tricked the Japanese government into destroying most of the Pacific Fleet are not beyond the pale. People who ask Dreher what a better alternative to the current situation in Iraq would look like are beyond the pale.

        What is more troubling is the current editorial regime at First Thoughts. Fr. Neuhaus and his associates generally did not have much to say about topical political questions. His successor, J. Bottum, added a crank business columnist (Spengler) and incorporated an extant Republican blog, Gateway Pundit. Neither were appropriate selections, though the problems with each were very different. Then the editorial board canned Bottum (by some accounts, for over-running the budget) and persuaded Fr. Neuhaus deputy to come out of retirement and resume the editorship. Then they hire this fellow Reno, who is evidently a theology professor in the midwest, and now you have a different set of problems, among them an inane blog on topical political questions two of whose three contributors are incorrigible know-it-alls; this young woman Infantine, who cannot employ a consistent and defensible set of standards to save her life; and now something Fr. Neuhaus’ never would have tolerated, a set of contributors who just feel compelled to make a public point of their homosexuality (for the edification of whom? go figure).

  3. If I had to guess, I would say roughly 2/3 of Dreher’s commenters were leftoids, and Dreher is quite effusive in his appreciation of them.
    ==============================
    It seems that way to me too – first that there are so many liberals – and second how Dreher defers to them and just loves them to pieces – while being quite hostile to many social conservatives. Which gives the impression that he is more talking than walking the talking.
    What does Dreher want? As I said, I haven’t been following these sites for long, especially TAC, but I think Dreher just wants to have an easy and comfortable life writing. He has an audience for his semi-conservatism which pays his salary – that’s what he wants – money – to subsidize his flippant comfort.
    Not having followed his TAC site/writing during the years you mention, I sympathize with his efforts on the CC abuse scandal nevertheless. The CC has been exposed as being profoundly corrupt, outright evil regarding the issue. If Dreher has overdone it, while problematic, it cannot be judged in the same way as if he had brashly accused a clean institution. But then, given how he thinks homosexual molestation is a funny matter, is he all that different than the institution he attacks? One wonders and I imagine he has more in common with the clergy he criticizes than he will ever acknowledge.

    ………………………………..

    “What is more troubling is the current editorial regime at First Thoughts.”

    Again, I had been commenting on FT for only a couple of years so I don’t know much of the past. By the time I was participating, David Nickols and Boonton had already infested the comments with their liberal/homosexual agenda – with clear and full support of the editor(s) and writer(s). While conservative commenters were systematically censored, Nickols and Boonton just blabbered away. I began to notice a pattern – a conservative article would be posted and immediately Nickols would comment on it attacking the conservative point endlessly. If you tried to argue back, you were often censored. It completely skewed the “debate” because the arguments were being censored on one side only. A rigged political site pretending to be conservative while letting its professed conservative viewpoints to be demolished in the comments – by outright censorship.

    What was also suspicious was the timing – Nickols was often the first to post a comment on every article dealing with homosexuality/sexuality. (Did he sit 24 hours in front of his computer? or did he know in advance that the post was going to be published? One or both of the Matthews (writers) just gush over Nickols- aside from the fact that I see plenty of articles written by people acknowledging they are homosexuals on FT – why are they given so much space and others are not?)

    And then there were other FT blog posts that were clearly very liberal/pink oriented – one example: saying men wearing tights and being metrosexuals was all very Normal. A post by a man promoting men wearing metrosexual tights -on FT? On Slate, the New Yorker Mag, sure – but what is FT about then? Some people have a very steep homosexual/liberal agenda in the FT ranks – and I bet it’s because they have a homosexual problem. My bet is on the Matthews.

    Very recently – maybe a few weeks back? – they changed their commenting policies once again. First they limited the comment length – thankfully – and it seems they might be limiting the number of times that a person can respond to others. Although there was again one thread where Nickols just went off his homosexual agenda claptrap – so maybe not.
    Another suspicious comment from Nickols was when I first got banned posting as “Alessandra” – he used to insist in his comments that FT was not promoting a homosexual agenda because no one ever got banned – and the editors obviously wouldn’t let anyone who had been banned confirm they had been banned!
    Then I started commenting under another name “Heather” – and Nickols acknowledged he knew Alessandra had been banned. But how could he know? Given how the editorial staff just privileges his comments, just how much of a friend is he with the editing staff- especially some of the “men”? (I just saw today some awful new commenter using the name Heather btw)

    Douglas Johnson, a commenter you might have noticed at FT, although he doesn’t post that often, tried to get a forum started where only socially conservative commenters would come together and discuss topics without the comment section being infested by the likes of Nickols, Boonton, and to some extent Ray Ingles. And where socons wouldn’t be systematically censored – but the forum didn’t take off.

    Yet, I think such a space is sorely needed.

    Kind of like “Public Discourse” with a comment section only for socons. That would be one wonderful site.

  4. There were particular dioceses in the Catholic Church in the United States and Ireland that were severely corrupted. Boston was one and San Antonio was another. I think the problem in the Church was that the social process which attracted some men to the priesthood, repelled other men, and which educated and formed aspirant priests produced in the social and cultural context which obtained after 1925 a corps of homosexual men who sought their pleasures with available objects. You can see retrospectively an escalating problem with the priest corps at its worst with the 1970 ordination cohort and an escalating problem with ill-behavior which was at its peak around about 1980. The frequency of the problem appears to have dropped like a stone after 1990. The thing is, incidents were reported so infrequently prior to about 1982 that bishops and superiors would likely have believed that they had a spot problem with a few rogues and not a systematic problem which implicated a couple dozen priests (on average) in each diocese. The abrupt (6 fold) increase in complaints ca. 1982 changed that, but the limited corroboration of complaints and the time lags made the work of a diligent bishop quite difficult. Again, Dreher never acknowledged that, or that when the complaints were hitting the bishops’ desks en masse in 1985 and 1990 and 1995 the damage had already been done. The picture is confused somewhat because certain bishops (e.g. Tshoeppe of Dallas) cultivated a repulsive institutional culture and certain bishops (e.g. Grahmann in Dallas and McCormick in Boston) responded to complaints about particular priests in an appalling manner. How many bishops responded to complaints embarrassed the Church retrospectively, but the problem was seldom the bishop; it was bad priests who flew under the radar for decades. Dreher has never understood that.

    My suspicion about Dreher is that he is a highly other-directed man and that his public stances on matters religious, cultural, and political are a public manifestation of an abiding sense of personal inadequacy. He really has no politics. The American Conservative is not a serious publication, so he is well-adapted to it.

    Re First Things: they had one problem commenter named John Lewis who (in that forum and others) offered prolix and disjointed observations. Instead of dealing with that problem, they imposed an arbitrary limit on everyone else. I had noticed that David Nickol produced a great deal of verbiage on every thread which touched on certain topics. I had not realized that the replies of multiple people were being deleted. It is you and me at the least. The Institution on Religion and Public Life has had problems in the past with moles in its tiny organization (e.g. Damon Linker). It looks like they have another one.

  5. Pingback: Commenter on FirstThings blog exposes the lies by Melinda Selmys and David Nickols regarding John Jay study | Censored at First Things – First Thoughts

  6. Pingback: Rod Dreher at The American Conservative teaches by example how to be a hypocrite regarding freedom of speech | Censored at First Things – First Thoughts

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s