RECENT  POSTS:  » Photo: The latest totally convincing, in no way silly attempt at a meme from anti-gay Ruth Institute » AFA's Fischer: Time for Christians to 'get up in somebody's grill' like Jesus would » GLAAD: The World Congress of Families sparks protests in Australia. Let's examine why. » GLAAD: NOM cofounder: 'Hard to see... the logical stopping place' between gay-affirming, murder-affirming Christians » 'Nonpartisan' NOM's entrenched Republicanism again showing » GLAAD: His other tactics failing, NOM president turns to anti-trans fear-mongering » AFA's Bryan Fischer: Diversity is 'most sinister and dangerous lie' » WND activist: 'Dan Savage has done far worse things than Westboro [Baptist];' says to send him to Iraq to challenge those who hang gays » Michael Sam's teammate offers perfect response to silly shower 'story' » Photo: Negligent NOM posts baby with choking hazard; will someone please think of the children?  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

05/05/2010

Q. Why don't anti-LGBT websites typically allow comments?

by Jeremy Hooper

A. Because the results almost never bend in their direction.

The following comes from a post on the Family Research Council's blog, where the organization once agains attempts to take Kevin Jennings, a good and decent educator who's dedicated his life to making schools safer for all students, and turn him into some harsh, anti-Christian demon primarily because he's an openly gay man. The commenters simply aren't having it:

Screen Shot 2010-05-05 At 9.20.07 Am-1
*Comment source: CCV calls on Ohio school officials to beware of wolf in sheep’s clothing [FRC's Cloakroom blog]

One would think that a FRC supporter would jump in and lend credence to the idea that Kevin Jennings is the embodiment of awful, or the notion that incorporating LGBT students into the public school day is somehow unfair or wrong. But in two days time, nobody has done that. Three different people have raised firm-but-mostly-fair ire, with zero push back from those who have declared war on this particular presidential appointee.

And this is not atypical. On most every YouTube page, comments section, or forum where some semblance of a fair dialogue is allowed (and that isn't a far-right haven like Free Republic), the comments always come down on the side of principled push back. Now, the anti-gays who shutout comments almost always say it's because those militant gay activists will fill their pages with hatred. But that is simply untrue. The vast majority on our side want open forums so that we can breakup the echo chambers and one-sideness, and instead lend our own ideas about the lives and loves that we known and understand far better than they ever could. We want those who constantly run their mouths about us to stop for just one second and actually use their ears (or eyes, as it were). Sure, some will get overheated. Understandable, considering the constant onslaughts that are waged against certain people. But the idea that the majority will be "hate-filled" is a far-right construct meant to justify the all-too-common shutouts and/or cherry-picked approvals that our organized opposition thinks is fair dialogue:

(from Focus on the Family's blog)
Screen Shot 2010-05-05 At 9.34.59 Am
*Unapproved Comment Source: FOtF's DriveThru blog

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails