In response to my piece yesterday defending Matt Sanchez and taking certain “progressives” to task over the utter baldness of their hypocrisy, the self-proclaimed “outer” himself, Tom Bacchus [link not safe for work, children, or other living things], appeared in the comments, filled with the same hatred that dripped from his original piece, and dropped the following verbal turd:
Dude, he’s a whore. He was a gay whore, now he’s a Rethug whore.
For someone who “doesn’t give a flying fuck,†you sure worked yourself into a frenzied circle jerk.
First things first: anybody else find it a total surprise that Bacchus would show up here and immediately raise the specter of a circle jerk? Must be more of that in-your-face edginess he thinks his angry Queer persona permits him—though my guess is it has more to do with the fact that he secretly bumps his tuber to “Republicans Gone Wild!†Makes him feel all dirty.
And of course, Mr Bacchus completely mischaracterizes my not giving “a flying fuck,” which was directed at two disparate facts—first, that Sanchez did gay porn 15 years ago, and second, that Jeff Gannon liked to shave himself smooth as a seal and have himself photographed with a stiffy. Because in truth, neither of those things had anything whatsoever to do with their political positions—unless you believe, as people like Mr Bacchus invariably do, that one simply cannot be an “authentic” gay unless one first adopts certain political realities, foremost among them that one must, at all times, support the grievance group orthodoxy to which Bacchus and his fellow progressives adhere like so many self-serving and self-righteous rainbow barnacles.
Which is an identitarian maneuver that I find both dehumanizing and anti-liberal.
Consequently, what I do give a flying fuck about are miserable little gits like Bacchus presuming to “out” people with whom they disagree politically, for reasons I make clear in the post—and to which arguments Bacchus naturally refuses to engage.
Fascinating, really: the “gay rights” movement is predicated on this idea that normative values are injurious to gays—or, to put it more directly, it is based on the increasingly dubious idea that heterosexuals oppress, injure, and hate homosexuals—and yet ostensible gay rights advocates like this Bacchus poser, when they have an opportunity to do so, immediately do everything in their power to try to force that kind of (largely imagined) reception on “one of their own”, simply because he disagrees with them about public and foreign policy issues, and so must be punished as a heretic.
Ironically, the “Rethugs” that swim like moralist sharks through the muck of Bacchus’ fevered imagination don’t seem nearly so bothered by Sanchez’ having done gay porn 15 years ago as Bacchus and pals do that the guy had the audacity to wander off their grievance plantation. He was supposed to come running into their arms, but instead, he embraced a political position that champions the liberal concept of individual primacy, eschewing identity-based totalitarian positions like the one favored by Bacchus, Aravosis, and a host of other petty ideological tyrants who, while they like to fancy themselves ultra-liberal, are in fact filled with the very kind of hatred they project onto their perceived enemies. Being gay, to these people, is no longer an ontological or experiential condition that can exist outside of politics; it is, instead, tied inextricably to their political beliefs. Which is why those gays who don’t adopt the proper politics are to be savaged, while those who do adopt the prescribed positions dictated by the group are granted its protections.
Take the oath, become part of the family; reject the offer, pay the price. Like the mafia, only with nicer shoes and a whole lot less Drakkar.
Bacchus, for all his bluster, is different from fellow Democrat and homophobe Fred Phelps only insofar as he discriminates based on a fundamentalist reading of party politics rather than a fundamentalist reading of scripture.
Sadly, though, only Phelps is marginalized as a dangerous, self-serving crank.
Oh, dude. You should have this one bronzed. My favorite bit:
I almost squirted hot, green tea out through my nose, reading that. I know: real men drink coffee, but I’d hit the point where I start having unpleasantly DT-like shakes.
The rest…well, I think on average, it was probably 11 or 12 out of 10.
I’m a Korean War vet, now past 70. I am always amazed at how every post 50s generation people view us, since they don’t have a clue.
Awake! In my unit we had three gay guys. We all knew they were gay. Nobody beat them up, laughed at them, or did anything else to them. They were “queers,” they did shit to each other and never bothered any of us. As far as any of us were concerned, they did their jobs, didn’t shoot at us, cause us to come under hostile fire because they were blowing each other, or do anything but behave as combat people are supposed to. One of them won the Navy Cross for something or other.
I have never talked to a vet of my era that has any other experience. It wasn’t that we were “liberal” it’s just that we didn’t know shit and didn’t want to know. Period.
That is not to say they weren’t victimized by the same thugs who victimized the rest of us; bullies who got really drunk all the time and carried guns on their hips (combat zone); dangerous motherfuckers to everyone, gay or not.
The fifties were more Happy Daze than Sappy Daze and we were as hip as anyone.
Come on, Jeff, admit it. You worked some kind of Hebrew Kabbalah voodoo on Mademoiselle Bacchus to make the little bitch show up in comments and leave that self-parodying, quintessential lefty hate-filled non-response, didn’t you?
As I always say, you can’t make this shit up.
So does that make Bacchus some sort of post-modern Simon Legree?
.
.
.
TW: property73. CUT THAT OUT, JEFF!!!
Way OT, but this is big:
http://instapundit.com/archives2/003206.php
By the way, is there going to be a Hoover Hog Bacchanal at the Goldstein residence tonight? If the little guy don’t dance, maybe it’s time to show him pics of <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charango>Charangos.</a>
Just sayin’.
TW: perhaps83 that will change his mind.
More evidence that there is nothing but irrational hatred – any actual ideas are long since lost – among the liberal / left.
Damnit, I always screw up the HTML on this site.
TW: students11 years old can code better than I can.
Oh, Lordy!
Pick a bale o’ grievance.
Oh, Lordy!
Pick a bale a day.
Bacchanalian Bullshit, dude. I hate to say it, but the guy sounds like some kinda fag to me, y’know?
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!! (TM)
it’s because of the hypocrisy that bacchus & co must scour every second of every gay porn film ever made and make potential matches with those that do not share their politics.
Well, that and b/c they’re sick, twisted freaks who are (judging from Bacchus’ blog entries) unable to limit their gay porn viewing to less than 22 hours per day.
Regards,
St Wendeler
Another Rovian Conspiracy
He says that like it’s a bad thing……Quick, who would you rather get butt-fucked by: Don Rumsfeld or John Murtha? Rudy Guiliani or Barak Obama? Hillary Clinton or Newt Gingrich? Dick Cheney or Al Gore? John McCain or Ted Kennedy George Bush or Satan?
Hah, I got you. That last one was a trick question. George Bush is Satan.
Follow up question. Would your selections be affected by the fact that you will not be recieving the common courtesy of a reach around?
How can that be off topic, if it’s about guns and it’s big?
Howard,
My dad is 78, former Army 11th Airborne… Japan occupation Army two years, DI at Camp Cooke during Korea and, yes, his experience was the same. He always knew who were the gays in the unit and as long as they did their job, BFD.
Aww…how cute for Bacchus. He got his moonbat wings by “attempting” to drop a bomb at PW. Once again, one of their troops failed, however. It’s kind of sad to be them.
On to this “rethug” comment. WTF does this even mean. If they already see me as a “thug” can I just start to fulfill their perception? I really don’t think they want that.
Anyhow, nice job as usual, Jeff.
Allow me to reiterate that Bacchus is a textbook homophobe, as he is scared to death at the specter of a gay person that doesn’t fit into his myopic view of what a queer is supposed to be, and feels compelled by that fear to attack. I wonder what Matthew Shepard’s politics were.
SHUN YOURSELF, BACCHUS!
The Progressives demand of utter and umwavering fealty to their “agenda” by gays is consistent with their treatment of conservative blacks and conservative women who have faced similiar criticism for years, being branded as “race traitors” or “gender traitors” respectively by the hard leftist apparatchniks.
Nothing new here, just another example of how illiberal the “progressives” have become.
It’s ironic that the very people that accused conservatives of being “haters” during the Reagan years now warmly embrace hatred as their single greatest unifying force. The again, given how often they have proven ignorant of the lessons of history, perhaps it’s not surprising that they’ve forgotten their own recent past.
Heh. You said “crank”.
I think ‘rethug’ implies that one is not just a thug, but a thug twice over.
NB: the people who shrug at the idea that someone can have a past they may not approve of, can move past that, and still appreciate the person they’ve become, are the “thugs”.
The people who attempt to destroy that person? Who dig dirt on people receiving acclamation for exercising their basic rights? Not thugs.
Wasn’t that a Uriah Heep song?
And exactly, what would those positions be?
BTW, Tommy Marx of “Confessions of an Amateur Queer” whom Dan linked in regards to the kerfuffle over Bill Maher’s remarks regarding the suicide bombing in Afghanistan that coincided with the visit of VP Cheney has a post about this Cpl. Sanchez incident.
It’s quite the reasoned antidote to the noisome screed of Baccus.
The Price Of Being “The Enemy”
Worth a read.
“unless you believe, as people like Mr Bacchus invariably do”
“group orthodoxy to which Bacchus and his fellow progressives adhere”
“miserable little gits like Bacchus”
“ostensible gay rights advocates like this Bacchus poser”
“champions the liberal concept of individual primacy, eschewing identity-based totalitarian positions like the one favored by Bacchus, Aravosis, and a host of other petty ideological tyrants”
“Being gay, to these people, is no longer an ontological or experiential condition that can exist outside of politics; it is, instead, tied inextricably to their political beliefs.”
Jeff, these quotes all kind of jumped out at me, not because I particularly disagree with any of the sentiments expressed, but because it appears that you are yourself engaging in identity politics in these statements. Your problem here is with the individual, Bacchus, and lumping in the “people like him… like his fellow progressives… little gits like (him)… these people…” etc is falling right into the identity-politics trap against which you have so often railed.
Ed–
Are jerks an identity group now?
Dan, I’m just saying, that if identity politics is completely wrong, then it’s completely wrong. If on the other hand talking about people like Bacchus has some utility for Jeff when he is really talking about only Bacchus, well then maybe the there is something wrong with the premise and maybe identity politics isn’t completely wrong.
turing word: always69. really, no kidding, that’s what it says. would a guy like me lie to people like you?
Actually, my problem is not with the individual only, Ed. Though I certainly wish it was.
But the fact is, there is an identity group to which Bacchus belongs, there are people who are politically active only in hives, and people like Bacchus, when taken in the aggregate, can fairly (if not accurately) be described in the plurals I chose.
I certainly don’t think I’m engaging in identity politics by pointing out the identity politics in which others are engaged. Instead, I’m simply describing what I see. And what I criticize is a belief system that I’ve taken pains to deconstruct, one that relies on group solidarity.
Don’t confuse description as method.
Tom Bacchus writes porn fiction, right? How is whoring out your writing to produce gay porn qualitatively any different than whoring out your cock to produce gay porn? Either way, bitch better have my money.
Easy, Ed. You’re not engaging in identity politics there, are you?
And I ask that on behalf of all the unimportant nobodies out there. As soon as one of us starts to think he’s important, he’s made to assume the position and out he goes.
I think the proper term is “RethugniKKKan,” with the implied racism of merely being in the GOP being expressed by the “KKK” towards the end of the word, which you probably didn’t notice because the text is black, and you radical ultra extreme right wing Christophobes just don’t notice blacks unless they are picking up your clothes or walking down your side of the street, causing you to cross over to the other side. Other acceptible terms are “Fascist” and “PersonWhomIFantasizeAndTalkAboutHurtingorKillingOnTheWeb
BecauseMyFatherNeverApprovedofMeSoI’mRevolting.”
Hey Bacchus, if you’re reading this, and I know you are, here’s the, er, bottom line:
Our queers have bigger cocks than your queers!
Man, you people are freakin’ whack jobs. Talk about obsessive.
I found your little rightwing smugfest because it linked to mine, doofs.
Now leave the gay porn to the experts, mm-kay?
Oh, and stop raping children. You all do that a lot:
http://www.armchairsubversive.com
Tom
Vicious and vapid is no way to go through life, son.
How about growing a pair and actually engaging in substansive argument.
New experiences are broadening.
PW community:
Bacchus:
Surely, I can’t be the only one amused by this juxtaposition?
Yes, Tom. I’m obsessed.
OBSESSED LIKE A FOX!
You need to go, Tom. We don’t cotton to homophobes around here, hater.
Oh, and your mother wears combat boots. White ones! After Labor Day!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh jesus! This dude can’t possibly be serious, can he?
TW: through69 (The joke is left as an exercise for the reader.)
Interestingly, even Glenn Greenwald AND Andrew Sullivan have stated that Tom Bacchus was a rally lousy lay….and a bottom, of course.
I believe the correct term is “Velvet Mafia”.
Oh my, poor li’l Tom is now claiming he was just speaking Truth to Power(tm)
I’m almost in awe of Tom’s preening self-importance.
It’s almost Paris Hiltonesque in its inanity.
Dude, he’s a whore. He was a gay whore, now he’s a Rethug whore.
But at least he earned an honest living. Much more respectable then what Kerry, Edwards, and Hilary Clinton have done to pay the bills.
Thanks, NI. I’m glad somebody picked up on that.
Don’t blame me, I’m so drunk on cough medicine I can barely stand up.
obsessive?
Dude. You’re the guy who wandered in here talking smack. We’re just having fun at your expense.
Did you really say,”rethug”? Is that like more thug, because the first thug didn’t take?
Lawdy, but the boy is worked up! Obseesed, you might say.
Tom, what on Earth does that mean? Would you please come back and translate that from Angry Queer to English? No habla cockgnawer.
Pablo
I think Tom the homophobe would have you believe that teh gay can’t control himself and must always be engaging in all manner of sex …
the dressingroom bon mot being borne out of the same hating sentiment as the Islamist who demands 90 lashes for the female found in the company of a male who is not a family member.
Of course! Because the KKK was the militant wing of the Republicans!
12:57PM: I post the following:
Hey Bacchus, if you’re reading this, and I know you are, here’s the, er, bottom line:
Our queers have bigger cocks than your queers!
1:13PM: Bacchus appears in the very next comment.
BEHOLD THE POWER OF COCK!
Darleen, that makes sense. Wanna take a crack at why he’d Photoshop the heads of Sanchez, Hannity and Ann Coulter onto the people on the cover of a gay porn video?
Or is that just supposed to be the “Coulter is really a man” meme? It can’t be that simplistic, can it?
I’m thinking Mommy issues.
I like the superclever pointed misspellings. Make me hard, like a diamond drill bit.
Only much larger, of course.
Yes, it can.
But it’s just teh gay porn cooties thing. Tom is displaying the art of insult appropriate to a four year old …
“Matt is a doodoo head. You like Matt. Makes you a doodoo head, too! Hahahahah!”
Darleen. In this context doo-doo head takes on a whole new meaning. But now that I think of it, so does”raging queer”
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will hold a joint press conference Monday to announce the Democratic Party’s official support for a new policy:
Don’t ask
Don’t tell
Don’t talk back
Man, there is so much ignorance and libertarian ecolalia in your rant that it isn’t worth the time to dispute every overblown reiteration of a cliche.
But start with calling your opponent a “girl” and making the remark that the gay rights movement (which you wrap in quotes as if it weren’t real) is predicated on the “idea that normative values are injurious to gays.” Putting aside the fact that calling a gay man a girl itself disputes your argument that normative values don’t demean gay men, it’s fascinating to see you equate your opinion with “normative values.”
Take a breath from your rhetoric and check out some facts. Sanchez was still advertising sex for sale three years ago in the NY Blade and he is still on several gay massage directories. So lose the argument about the sins of the past. (It’s not even consistent with your argument, anyway, since a libertarian view that sexual orientation does not require a particular political position has nothing to do with putting a behavior in the past.)
Meanwhile, you write about “outing” Sanchez. Actually, if you’d bothered to do any research, you would have learned that he does not consider himself gay. He appropriates the queer theorists’ position that sexual orientation is far more fluid than generally acknowledged, but only in order to avoid an identity label. Then you read interviews he’s given in the past and you see he has used that label to describe himself.
In short, your rant is another example of Sanchez’s own style: A lot of blather with very little attention to fact.
(I suppose you also don’t know that an investigation of his claims about the incident at Columbia could turn up no evidence to support his claims of being spit on, etc. But this was not important when CPAC and people like Horowitz stood to once again prove a point with a lie. Just as you are doing here with your overblown rhetoric. Have a nice day.)
I don’t see where Jeff called Bacchus a girl. Git? I’m just not seeing it. It could be the cold medicine I guess.
Sanchez is a brave guy, and I think he gets through his days more on that than by appropriation of queer theory. JG makes it clear that there’s no facet of Sanchez’s sexuality that’s related to what transpired at Columbia or CPAC, rather:
Sanchez can avoid an identity label on Wednesday and embrace one on alternate Friday nights, and who cares? How does that have anything to do with his politics?
Ah, so it’s also a further manifestation of teh homophobia. I can show that you are bad by presenting you as gay.
That makes more demented, homophobic angry queer sense.
Freud would just go on vaction, i think.
Odd. The first mention of “girl” in this thread was by some git calling itself “ProteanDumbness” (I’d bet that’s the first time anyone’s tried that one. Not.). It’s a strawman built out of imaginary straw.
Jeff’s being called a libertarian like that’s a bad thing, just days (or minutes, more likely, but I don’t care enough to check) after being called a conservative like that’s a bad thing. One thing liberals tend NOT to do is call Jeff a liberal like that’s a bad thing, although I have noticed that some of them are rather free about calling people gay like that’s a bad thing.
Interesting to note, but not interesting enough to pay further attention to.
OK,you’re right. I misread it, but it doesn’t change the more important basis of my complaint. Proteinboy is simply ignoring fact in order to champion a point of view that has very little to do with this case.
When the person Protein is using to champion a perspective doesn’t really illustrate it on closer scrutiny, you have to wonder why Protein was so quick to buy a phony narrative.
Um, I did not say there was anything wrong with the libertarian perspective. But echoing a perspective without factual basis is objectionable. And I noted that a genuinely libertarian perspective would not concern itself with whether Sanchez had given up his porn and prostitution career. Finally, I’m using “libertarian” in the general sense that it values individual over communitarian values. I have no idea what Protein’s actual political affiliation is, since I never read this site until finding it linked elsewhere.
Anyone else notice that “protean” is telling people what their positions are, and then arguing that they got them wrong?
BECAUSE OF THE ECHOLALIA !!!
Well if that is what it is trying to do, it needs to tighten up on the first part, because I have no clue what it wants my position to be.
I think it’s talking about Jeff, but as far as I know Jeff has never claimed to be a libertarian.
So, maybe not.
ProteanDumbness – serving up hot, steamy dumbyness to the masses.
“Libertarian ecolalia,” heh.
I liked the “okay, I was wrong, BUT…” part. Kind of emphasises the whole “spoiled child” aspect of the ÀεÃÂιβάλλον, or “milieu” as the proles call it.