Saturday, June 11, 2011

In Response to Gerard

Over at A Calm Voice in the Storm, the author Gerard is a good writer with some very valid points to make. Because I am twisted and a complete egomaniac, I was flattered by his article yesterday in which he expressed that he enjoys my blog and then seemed to rake me over the coals about some of my ideas. This is not meant to be combative or anything like that, but I think perhaps Gerard has misinterpreted some things I’ve said.

First, about the liberal Hollywood “myth,” it’s not really a myth when several movie and TV executives admit, on camera, that there’s an agenda that they themselves are pushing. Now of course I understand that it’s not the only voice in entertainment, and I know that not every person that works in the industry is a liberal, but I hardly think that the notion of that particular industry being dominated by liberals is refutable.

Secondly, in no way do I believe that any American citizen should be denied any rights due to him or her. Rights are based on personhood, not race, class, or gender. How can you say that I want to deny rights to the disenfranchised? I advocate for gay rights, I’m pro-Choice, and I think that we need to fix the American education system so that everyone gets a high quality education.

As for trying to make everyone think the same, I fully recognize the fact that people can and should reject the ideas I put out. Of course it would be nice for people to agree with me, but they don’t have to. I’m not trying to pull anyone into a specific “conservative,” line of thinking. In fact, if you read the comment sections on my blog there are plenty of my conservative cohorts that disagree with me on a lot of stuff. The purpose of my blog is not to promote a specific political agenda, but rather to advocate a more political rather than ideological view of politics.

I also take huge issue with the assertion that I am factually inaccurate, which I’m guessing is in reference to my Liberal Hollywood article. Unless those interviews with the Hollywood executives, including the guy that actually said that there is a barrier in the industry for conservatives, are complete fabrications then I’m not sure how I’m being factually inaccurate. I also don’t recall saying that there are no conservatives in Hollywood, just that it is dominated by liberals. How is it a myth when the people in question admit to it being true?

As for my comment about letting idiots be idiots, that’s a blanket statement that doesn’t apply to only or all liberals. In fact, I've written about how dumb and inconsistent the Republican Party has been.  I’ve said countless times that not all beliefs are indicative of a lack of intelligence. I might disagree with someone, but I won’t call that person stupid simply because we disagree. Do I agree with limiting sodium content in food? No, but I also don’t think that people who take that position are stupid. Do I think the guy that people who believe homosexuals are going to hell and that it’s the duty of the “virtuous Christian,” to cause misery for grieving families at funerals are idiots? Yes.

And at no point did I suggest Americans need to be “educated by the Right.” Partisan education is ridiculous and counter-productive. In fact, in my article today about religion, I mention that the only good education that involves religion is one that is unbiased and objective. Political indoctrination, left or right, is wrong. Period. And seeing as how I wrote an article lambasting my party for being filled with unthinking morons, I would hardly consider that a call for people to be “educated by the Right.”

And Gerard, this rebuttal is not a dig on your intelligence at all. You’re not the first person to misunderstand me. The problem that I run into with this is that I try to keep my articles fairly short while at the same time presenting some fairly large ideas. Because I try to keep the length down, that leaves my explication on some ideas severely lacking. This is why I’m very glad that some of my readers actively comment and take me to task on things because that gives me the opportunity to clarify what I’m trying to say.

Some people immediately and completely understand my message right off the bat, others don’t. I don’t think less of the intelligence of those who don’t get my meaning because I expect people to not understand it right off the bat. I’m not in this to convince anyone of anything other than being more thoughtful. I personally don’t care what conclusions people arrive at as long as they’re not harmful, hypocritical, or based on shitty logic.

Lastly, as for the Stalin photo, that was purposely meant to be over-the-top.  Christian Fearing God-Man is not meant to be partisan politics.  It's meant to shit all over partisan politics in the hopeless hope that something positive can actually get done.

Gerard, there are no hard feelings from me, and if only blogger didn’t suck so much ass I’d be able to comment on your blog. I particularly liked your article about the therapists who try to “treat,” homosexuality. Cretins. Thank you for reading, I hope you continue to read, and I’ll definitely be reading your blog daily.

Oh, and should I be able to comment once blogger gets their heads out of their collective ass, I always clean up my language and presentation for other blogs, as I respect the decorum and standards that they wish to maintain. I don’t wish to bring others’ patch of internet space down into the gutter with mine =)

3 comments:

Harrison said...

There's no gambling at Rick's Casino and Hollywood doesn't have a Liberal bias.

Silverfiddle said...

nice rebuttal, but I can't believe you spent so much time an effort to rebut a piffle like that guy's blog.

It's standard liberal boilerplate: Conservatives are indoctrinate by talking points, the only real thinkers are the liberals, bla bla bla...

His essay on homosexuality was very thoughtful, I agree. The problem with it and with Cooper's piece is that it is agenda-driven (attack the gay hating rightwingers).

The real problem with such psychology also afflicts the gay agenda aimed at our youngsters: Children are not sexually developed, so such aims to peg them feminine or masculine are tragic and bound to screw the kid up.

Adolescents (teens) are just discovering their sexuality, and such manipulations, again, can really screw someone up for life.

Before our culture was hyper-sexualized, teen sorted this stuff out without the constant bombardment. Some ended up straight, a small percentage gay, and another small percentage disordered.

Jack Camwell said...

Well I try to respond to everyone, especially people who seem to have misunderstood me. I have some weird compulsion about making sure that everyone who reads/listens to what I have to say understands exactly what I mean.

Besides, the response didn't really take all that long.