The Implication?

I can only interpret the posting of that video – sans any negative comment (“dumbassery” tag or otherwise) by the posting party about the action taken against the particular person who is the subject of that video – as being an implicit approval of this form of assault…

so long as whoever is on the short end of this form of assault is someone who the person who posted that video feels is worthy of being assaulted in that form.

That kinda reminds me of an old joke.

One person asks another: “Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?”

The other person responds: “Yeh, I guess so.”

The first person then asks: “Would you have sex with me for five dollars?”

The second person’s reply to that: “Of course not! What do you think I am?!?!?”

The first person states: “I think we’ve established what you are.  Right now we’re just haggling over a price.”

My first question: Which of the two screensnaps above is the five-dollar shot?

My second question: If someone does something far more serious than glitterbombing to Frothy and all resulting news headlines read “Gay Mafia Attacks Santorum” even though there is no proof that anyone involved with said attack is gay, will The John be willing to apply his own ‘reasoning’ and say that media branding all gays and lesbians as being responsible is justified because there is allegedly a trend of gays and lesbians eviscerating every person who says one thing out of line with the PC rule book of how one is supposed to speak about gay issues?

As I already explained in numerous comments below, the trans community created the environment in which the attacks on Dan have happened – it’s because the trans community thinks he’s the enemy that this is happening.  Now you can quibble about whether these are just some activists in the community and/or their NGLTF-loving gay buddies (and both are a problem), but the fact remains that they’ve created a culture of demonization of anyone who doesn’t see the world in their weird-PC-nouns kind of way.  This latest attack on Dan (and I use the word in a general sense) is part of the continuing attacks that the trans community, or trans activists, have made on Dan, and they’re part of the larger ongoing trend of eviscerating every gay person who says one thing out of line with the PC rule book of how one is supposed to speak about trans issues.  This problem goes far beyond this one incident.  That’s why I’m writing about it.  You guys need to take your own community back from the crazy activists and your PC allies in the gay community

I think we all know the answer…

He’ll either say nothing at all…

or figure a way to blame trans people for the fact that Dan Savage googlebombed the surname “Santorum” into oblivion. (Tuff shit for anyone with that surname who has no connection to Frothy, eh?  Eggs and omelettes, right?)

One Response to The Implication?

  1. Kathy says:

    Douchebaggery not withstanding; the secret service interviewing people who promote these actions that they themselves call assault would not be unwarranted.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: