I usually just ignore anyone who doesn’t have the guts to use his/her own name when attacking someone, but this person went to a lot of trouble to use an anonymous emailer to get this to me, so I thought I’d share.
from: faggotsneedreform faggotsneedreform@anonymousspeech.com
date: Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:32 PMsubject: Stupid investigation into Bachmann’s
I read your shit. I think it sucks. Bachmann’s husband should be able to reform faggots if he wants to. Faggots need reform. If you don’t want to be hated stop engaging in pervert sex. What kind of a group of losers feels the need to base who they are on what perverted shit they like to do with their cocks? Faggots are in need of reform and if a young faggot can be reformed by these guys he should be reformed.
The world could do with less faggotry.
Oh and you were not born a faggot. You slowly became a pervert over many years of delinquency.
I say reform all the faggots. I’m sick of hearing about faggots. Your faggot website is not the new civil rights movement. You fucking fags already have all the civil rights in the world if only you’d cease your filthy pervert lifestyles and stop being such sick fucks.
And to think Maggie Gallagher claims it’s those on the Left who are uncivil. Welcome to the gay-hating Right.
Any questions?…
Friends:
We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.
Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!
{ 17 comments }
David Badash began this article by saying the letter writer 'doesn't have the guts' to sign his or her opinion. What more need to be said. The writer is a coward. On our side we have boys and girls, 13, 14, 15-years old. They stand before the world and say they are gay knowing the hate and violence they face. The person who wrote this childish letter, in junior high school English, sits in a dark room with only the light of his laptop. Stay in the dark Mr. Coward because the Light of Equality calls for Courage, something you lack.
We are simply irresistible. They can’t walk the walk and by the sounds of this, they can’t talk the talk very well either. He probably don’t have what it takes to maintain a heterosexual relationship or any kind of relationship for that matter.
I wonder why he wrote that? He apparently needed to get a lot off his chest, I hope he feels better, now, that he has relieved himself of so much hate. Reading between the lines, perhaps what he was saying is that Bachmann is being unfairly maligned because her husband is helping people who want the type of counseling he is offering. I think he could have made his point in a better way however. He should leave the ad hominem attacks, mocking, demonization and vitriol to the progressives.
That's cute. I like the way you sounded totally rational and then got that swipe in there at the end. Maybe Michele and Marcus Bachmann shouldn't be using government money to perform acts that have been found by the AMA and the APA and other major medical groups to be harmful?
And maybe you haven't bothered to spend some time here. Why don't you look around and see all the right wing vitriol?
I think pharyngula represents a much larger sample than this site, and is supposedly a science blog. Another difference is that progressives seem to think humans are ready to be engaged in central planning over others, those thinking that modern humans don't need the constraints of limited government anymore, presumably should be demonstrating self restraint. Of course, the Christian fundies that truly believe hate the sin, love the sinner, should not be engaged in such vitriol either, but in the US at least, they favor limited government and don't presume to rule others. Incivility isn't called for in either case however.
While "hate the sin love the sinner" has a nice rational ring to it, the behaviour of so many people who chant that mantra proves they don't really love the people they have decided are sinners. I find the open hatred of the WBC et al to be so much more honest.
You are correct that many religious fundamentalists (of all major religions, including atheism; the blind faith in the lack of gawd) say they favour limited government, but the huge majority of them do presume to rule over others. The pressure from kristianists to institute their version of a theocracy is growing stronger as they face the realization that more and more people reject their desire to ram their personal hatred (labeled 'deeply held religious beliefs') down the throats of those who don't agree with them.
<div class="idc-message" id="idc-comment-msg-div-176847000"><a class="idc-close" title="Click to Close Message" href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(176847000)"><span>Close Message</span> Comment posted. <p class="idc-nomargin"><a class="idc-share-facebook" target="_new" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fthenewcivilrightsmovement.com%2Fbachmanns-husband-should-be-able-to-reform-faggots-if-he-wants-to%2Fnews%2F2011%2F07%2F22%2F23912#IDComment176847000&t=I%20just%20commented%20on%20%E2%80%9CBachmann%E2%80%99s%20husband%20should%20be%20able%20to%20reform%20faggots%20if%20he%20wants%20to.%E2%80%9D%20%7C%20The%20New%20Civil%20Rights%20Movement" style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="idc-share-inner"><span>Share on Facebook</span></span> or <a href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(176847000)">Close MessageBut their hatred really doesn't matter, and is their problem if they do adopt a limited government individual rights limited government approach. I see more and more of them realizing that it was a mistake to ever get the government involved in the marriage licensing or government school business. The real fundies won't even have American flags in their churches because of the serving two masters problem. The tea party movement is a real benefit, because it mixes the fundies in which the libertarians, which exposes them to people who have little to no judgements about the non-coercive behavior of others, and ironically, also have a philosophy where even if they did hate and consider others evil, they wouldn't do anything about. Do you really see any evidence that the religious right doesn't want a smaller government. I haven't seen any saying they would be willing to pay higher taxes to provide counseling and rehabilitation for gays. I don't see those involved in such counseling attracting massive amounts of private sector funding.
But their hatred really doesn't matter, and is their problem if they do adopt a limited government individual rights limited government approach. I see more and more of them realizing that it was a mistake to ever get the government involved in the marriage licensing or government school business. The real fundies won't even have American flags in their churches because of the serving two masters problem. The tea party movement is a real benefit, because it mixes the fundies in which the libertarians, which exposes them to people who have little to no judgements about the non-coercive behavior of others, and ironically, also have a philosophy where even if they did hate and consider others evil, they wouldn't do anything about. Do you really see any evidence that the religious right doesn't want a smaller government. I haven't seen any saying they would be willing to pay higher taxes to provide counseling and rehabilitation for gays. I don't see those involved in such counseling attracting massive amounts of private sector funding.
Is religion really the source of the incidence of revulsion and hatred for male homosexuals? It existed before the marriage controversy, and the objectionable biblical references were not important focuses of religious attention prior to that, yet persons who had never read the bible or heard sermons on the topic somehow got the revulsion by osmosis, apparently either innately or from the culture. Could there be something innate beyond just a revulsion to feces? It wouldn't be the first example of a negative heritage from evolution. Ingroup discipline in support of conformity, outgroup dehumanization and hostility are legacies of evolution we are stuck with.
The revulsion and hatred for homosexuals has indeed existed for some time (centuries not decades) and for much of that time quotes from the christian bible have been extremely important as justification.
Clearly "revulsion by osmosis" must be cultural; suspicion of or curiosity about the unknown may be innate – but hatred is not. Perhaps you think that forced conformity and hostility are "legacies of evolution" that you are stuck with; shame you are unwilling or unable to rise above them.
If the first thing you think of when you see a perceived gay person is feces, than you have much deeper issues than can be resolved here. But after your unapologetic use of "rehabilitation for gays" in a previous comment, I am really not surprised.
I am more than willing to try to rise above these legacies of evolution, but it is illusory to assume that we have with the history of the 20th century so recent in our memories. Perhaps you have spotted a trend that I haven't. I am still unwilling to forgo the checks and balances and standards of proof and evidence that our founders thought necessary, when men are given power over each other.
Don't be lulled into a false sense of security by the humanists, they are very selective in which human qualities they embrace. Instead look to the scientific evidence, that shows that the effective population size of modern humans is very low, in the range of 10 to 20 thousand. Originally it was hypothesized to be population bottlenecks in the past, but today's leading theories are that human groups went extinct and diversity was lost either through extermination or displacement to marginal resources all along the way. In retrospect it shouldn't be a surprise, homo erectus and neanderthalis were already mastering their environments quite well. Modern humans emerged from African into OCCUPIED territory, the modern human advantage was in competition for resources and after exterminating and to a minor extent mating with the previous occupants, humans proceeded to exterminate each other everywhere they went. Even the previously pristine Americas saw wave and wave of humans come in from Asia to displace or exterminate prvious inhabitants.
I might be naive, but having been raised in a Christian home and attended Catholic services, I never heard homosexuality mentioned either place, and when those films were shown in junior high public school that seemed to be about avoiding approaches by strange adult males, I had no idea what they were about, and the word homosexual was never mentioned. Of course today homosexuality is in your face, and hollywood seems to be on some kind of campaign. Feces is a real fear, I certainly wouldn't consider penetrating an anus without a STRONG condom, and on the receptive end the thrills would be tempered by fears of tearing and other damage and disease transmission.
Apologies, I should have put "rehabilitation for gays" in quotes, to show that it was the intent of those providing the services and probably those receiving the services rather than my intent.
You ask me "Do you really see any evidence that the religious right doesn't want a smaller government" – which is not what I said. I said that most fundies do want smaller government if defined by the number of government employees or the number of services offered.
I did say is that I disagree with your suggestion that fundies "don't presume to rule others"- the push to bring theocracy to the United States is clearly evident. I refer you to the wonderful parody of Michelle Bachmann by Sandy and Richard Riccardi which includes the line "government so small it will fit inside your bedroom"…..
Ignoring for the moment the argument as to whether or not libertarianism really is the answer to all the ills of the world, it appears that the great majority of fundies who align themselves with the koch-funded Teabagger movement might say they support libertarian views until asked about specific "moral issues" such as marriage equality and immigration reform. Then their hatred shines forth.
And your suggestion that "their hatred really doesn't matter" is probably not shared by those of us who have been affected by that hatred. Whether victims of physical assault or less obvious means, it surely does matter.
Finally most of "those involved in such counseling" (by which you refer to the incredibly insulting "rehabilitation for gays") do not publicly share the sources or amounts of funding. And I am less concerned about "private sector funding" for such shams than I am about the use of government-run programs (Medicare et al) being used to terrorize.
Apologies for repeat posts, I think my posts weren't appearing or refreshing. Whether Koch is funding us teabaggers, doesn't matter, the teabagger movement should be judged on its substance, a centrist compromise between libertarians and conservatives to focus on fiscal issues and restoration of constitutional constraints on government. I haven't heard of any outside funding of the local tea party organizations which are very grass roots and without any paid employees, so if the Koch's are contributing it must be to fund national meetings.
I doubt even fundies would want Medicare or medicaid to fund counseling, nor would they want hate based assaults on gays to be legal. Perhaps you would feel differently about the government licensing of marriage if they required it to be renewed each year for a substantial fee, along with screening for STDs each time. That would be analogous to the direction other government licensing has gone. Instead why don't we get the government out of the licensing business, and eliminate the tax breaks for marriage partners and just have tax deductions for children. That should resolve this issue that shouldn't exist in the first place.
Also don't worry, I'm not offended, and in fact embrace the term teabagger.
Your statement "I doubt even fundies would … want hate based assaults on gays to be legal" shows that you have little experience with the reality that right-wing religious fundamentalists of all three of the "religions of the book" do in fact preach hatred and violence against gay folk. Clearly you haven't spent much time here beyond this one post.
Oh, and the teabagger movement (and the people who claim to follow it) are being judged on their actions and personal statements; not press releases or website blurbs. Again, anything more than a cursory glance at this web-site along with others such as the American blog, Joe.My.God and the Progressive Puppy will show you clear evidence of their hate.
The tea party actions have been exemplary, leaving protest sites cleaner than they found them, and none of that hooded vandalism seen so often on the anti-globalism or pro-cap and trade left, or the hoodlum type behavior seen among the public employee unions of Wisconsin. The "personal" statements are just that, personal, not the position of the tea parties. Most of the signs are homemade, not centrally orchestrated, and deal with fiscal and limited government matters. Don't be prejudiced by selective press coverage. Gays are welcome.
Your limited personal experience, if you have any at all, does not represent what we have seen nationwide. Please don't come here peddling half-truths or falsehoods.
You might be right, if "nation-wide" doesn't include New Mexico, Washington State and Washington D.C. I can only speak from personal experience and the press coverage i have watched.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }