Stay Classy, Conservative Blogosphere

Ace of Spades cranks out a compelling critique of Glenn Greenwald's work on media representations of masculinity: "I really think that questioning others' masculinity is a game probably better left to people who haven't had more cock in and out of them than a Tyson Chicken regional distribution center." Hm. He continues:

Not that I'm saying homosexuality is incompatible with masculinity, of course. Consenting biweekly to having one's duodenum battered with the manic hydraulic fury of a tricked-out V-12 jackhammer manned by an epileptic Con-Ed worker with an ancestral oath of vengeance against asphalt would, I think, tend to butch one up, at least as regards one's pain threshold.

Naturally this garners the old approving link from Glen Reynolds, law professor and erstwhile libertarian.

Comments

How is that at all a compelling critique? Its pretty clearly a strawman and a poorly written one at that (and yet he thinks he looks good critisizing Greenwald's verbosity!?).

Posted by Jack | June 17, 2007 6:13 PM

That is appalling. The man clearly has no idea where the duodenum is.

Posted by mark | June 17, 2007 6:16 PM

How is that at all a compelling critique?

i think you need to adjust your sarcasm detector.

Posted by cleek | June 17, 2007 6:17 PM

Hmmm...They sure do seem fascinated by the, ahem, ins and outs of what they claim to find so disgusting, don't they? The time they spend visualizing and crafting intricate despcriptions of anal sex seems clearly into "protesting too much" territory.

It's not so much their vulgarity that I find disturbing, it's the inversion of their fear and insecurity into rage.

Posted by DMonteith | June 17, 2007 6:31 PM

put aside the epic homophobia; can anyone tell me what the second sentence of the quoted section of the Ace of Spades means? it's just a bunch of words thrown together to signify how much the Ace of Spades hates gay people.

Posted by howard | June 17, 2007 6:39 PM

Is it just me or does Ace's description have a certain wistful air?

Posted by Jon H | June 17, 2007 6:50 PM

Ok, so Ace of Spades fantasizes about being taken from behind by the electric guy. That's cool.

Whatever floats his boat.

Posted by owenz | June 17, 2007 6:50 PM

Ok, so Ace of Spades fantasizes about being taken from behind by the electric guy. That's cool.

I don't think that's the least bit fair. It's at least as possible that Ace fantasizes about being the electric guy who has sex with Greenwald. Wingnuts love uniforms, after all.

Settling this issue probably requires closer textual analysis.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 17, 2007 6:58 PM

It's possible Ace missed Greenwald's point on
purpose so he could work through some of his
fantasy. Dishonesty in the service of a stiffy,
as it were.

Posted by jimbo | June 17, 2007 7:02 PM

Shortly after Oscar Wilde was imprisoned, Rudyard Kipling received a prostate exam. (I guess the procedure was relatively new then.) About halfway through, he said. "Is that what they put Oscar in prison for? By God, they should have given him the Victoria Cross!"

Posted by CJColucci | June 17, 2007 7:05 PM

I know this is a cliche, but the null hypothesis here has to be that Ace is gay, right?. Compare this description of anal sex with his description from a couple of months ago on how disgusting female genitalia are. Leave out "epileptic", and I doubt I could write as eroticized a description of anal sex if you gave me a month to do it.

Posted by Walt | June 17, 2007 7:05 PM

Ace of Spades should consider the implications of libel a bit more before writing what is clearly a defamation that might prove difficult to prove in a court of law, especially since Green Greenwald has been a practicing attorney. And, while I don't regard blog postings as the usual place for basing a libel case, in Ace's case he surely deserves some court-judgement-induced humility (in the form of cash and a very public apology).

I surely Greenwald pursues his legal options: some pay-the-judgement lessons need to be delivered to the righty bullies.

And, as has been pointed out by 'mark', the duodenum is that part of the small intestine between the stomach and the large intestine - a long way from any body openings. So Ace is surely not the ace of anatomy, sexual or otherwise. Ace defends his masculinity by refuge to 'I'm bigger than others'. Clearly he doesn't get that musculinity has almost nothing to do with body size, sexual orientation, or viscious language.

On the merits of Glenn G's Salon piece on Chris Matthews, Glenn Reynolds et. al., surely he's close to the mark if not perfectly in the bulleye. Including, likely, Ace of Spades.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | June 17, 2007 7:06 PM

It takes more of a man to be an out gay in this country than it does to poke fun at people you and your beta male yahoo buddies deem sissies.

Posted by kth | June 17, 2007 7:25 PM

"That is appalling. The man clearly has no idea where the duodenum is."

Either that, or the guy in his fantasy has a huge penis.

Posted by Greg | June 17, 2007 7:32 PM

Come to think of it, I'd be a lot more hesitant about accepting judgments on "masculinity" from a blogger who continually has to hide behind a pseudonym. (You suppose Ace is a real-life version of Spode in "The Code of the Woosters", who ran a British fascist organization called the Black Shorts until Bertie Wooster exposed the fact that he made his fortune selling ladies' underwear?)

Posted by BruceMoomaw | June 17, 2007 7:33 PM

When I was in the Navy, the guys you didn't turn your back on in the shower were the guys that constantly bragged about their masculinity, and incessantly talked about the "fags". This ace of spades clown and the wimpy looking Hewitt and Reynolds ARE those dipshits. Watch your back around them.

Posted by badgervan | June 17, 2007 7:34 PM

Remind me again who decided that calling someone a "faggot" was an insult? Oh yeah - it was lefty icon Glenn Greenwald.

Now, perhaps Matt could explain how that kind of thing involves thinking positively of gay people.

Posted by James Robertson | June 17, 2007 7:37 PM

Ace of Spades, butch top.

Likely the first time "Ace of Spades" and the word "butch" have ever been used in the same sentence.

Posted by taylormattd | June 17, 2007 7:50 PM

...you know that Glenn Greenwald is gay, right, James?

Posted by caarthur | June 17, 2007 7:55 PM

I would place a small bet on Ace of Spades being caught in teh gay act one of these days. That combination of obsession and need to denounce is familiar.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | June 17, 2007 8:21 PM

Everyone knows this but it bears repeating: right-wing bloggers are really the most evil and sickest fucks who have ever lived.

Posted by Random Dude | June 17, 2007 8:21 PM

Remind me again who decided that calling someone a "faggot" was an insult?

The only thing "FAG" has going for it is it's once sylable and easy to say. So is "GAY" as in "That's Sooooo...GAY".
That being said, I think that "homo" or "queer" are much more descriptive and are also one sylable. They just convey more information to the listener.

Posted by Fred Jones | June 17, 2007 8:23 PM

I would like to know how one can speak English and render homo as monosyllabic.

Posted by Glenn | June 17, 2007 8:30 PM

I FINK HE'S GOT BYOOT-FUL LEGS.

Posted by Bill | June 17, 2007 8:46 PM

Is it just me or does Ace's description have a certain wistful air?

Indeed. Ace, I'd like you to meet someone. His name's Matthew Drudge. He's a blogger, you're a blogger, it could work.

Posted by sangfroid826 | June 17, 2007 8:50 PM

wow... and get a load of the comments over there. they can't get enough of the violent sodomy talk.

they're like a bunch of demented 7th graders.

Posted by cleek | June 17, 2007 8:59 PM

james, i'm not going to pretend that i'm familiar with every word that glen greenwald has ever written, but in the column in question here, he doesn't use the word "faggot" at all. so what exactly are you talking about?

Posted by howard | June 17, 2007 9:05 PM

(You suppose Ace is a real-life version of Spode in "The Code of the Woosters", who ran a British fascist organization called the Black Shorts until Bertie Wooster exposed the fact that he made his fortune selling ladies' underwear?)

Bertie Wooster: The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you have succeeded in inducing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you’re someone. You hear them shouting ‘Heil Spode!’ and you imagine it is the Voice of the People. That is where you make your bloomer. What the Voice of the People is saying is, ‘Look at that frightful ass Spode swanking about in footer bags! Did you ever in your puff see such a perfect perisher?

Ann Althouse: That Spode is sooo..... virile!

Glen Reynolds: Heil Spode !!

Posted by moron | June 17, 2007 9:07 PM

Heil myself
Heil to me
I'm the kraut
Who's out to change our history
Heil myself
Raise your hand
There's no greater
Dictator in the land!
Everything I do, I do for you!

Posted by Ace of Spodes | June 17, 2007 9:10 PM

Ace of Spades, butch top.

Hey! Bum-holes may be stinky, but at least I don't go sticking my dong into some kind of Play-Doh-and-bacon melange with Dumbo flaps!

Posted by Ace of Spodes | June 17, 2007 9:21 PM

That being said, I think that "homo" or "queer" are much more descriptive and are also one sylable.

This is like the worst trolling ever. First of all, "homo" has two syllables. Second, you misspelled "syllable."

Anyway, nice to see you trying out a new home since Ezra Klein banned your ass for trying to sic the FBI on one of his commenters.

Posted by Antid Oto | June 17, 2007 9:24 PM

You guys might want to be careful before calling Ace a homo. Word has it that the Masai tribesmen of the Serengeti use his distilled urine as an aphrodisiac when wooing prospective brides.

They call it "Ole Nalunga G'Hura", which translates roughly as "Men fear it; women crave it".

Posted by Andrew | June 17, 2007 9:39 PM

Heee, moron, thank you for reminding me why I have a shameful secret crush on Bertie Wooster.

Settling this issue probably requires closer textual analysis.

Masochist.

Posted by kali | June 17, 2007 9:41 PM

I also heard that he date-raped a velociraptor. That doesn't really have anything to do with being gay, you've gotta admit: that's pretty hardcore.

Posted by Andrew | June 17, 2007 9:50 PM

I also heard that he date-raped a velociraptor.

Grover Norquist: Bipartisanship is date rape.

Ace of Spodes: Duuuuuuuhhhhh... DINOs put out !!

Posted by moron | June 17, 2007 9:55 PM

Grover Norquist: Bipartisanship is date rape.

Ace of Spodes: Duuuuuuuhhhhh... DINOs put out !!

Ace ! I'm "bi" too !

Posted by Ho Lieberman | June 17, 2007 10:00 PM

Check out the comment thread on, ummm, "Ace of Spades" thread. A lot of stuff about the manliness of VDH, etc. It's pretty worrying that the conservative blogsphere gets to, like, vote.

Posted by mq | June 17, 2007 10:05 PM

Female velociraptor, of course. Nothing queer about old Ace.

Posted by MikeN | June 18, 2007 12:58 AM

I haven't commented in a couple months, but this post is the most HI-lariously repugnant thing since MC Rove. I'm no expert on gay sex, but Ass of Spodes's description seems a bit like drilling for oil... like the rest of his neocon ilk, Ass eroticizes oil-drilling because he's ashamed of craving a little cock-rocket up the bum-tunnel. It's nothing to be ashamed of Ass— try a little lube and tiny butt plug or vibrating dildo, and when you learn to love your quivering crevice, move on to certifiable manmeat! You CAN use petroleum-based lube, but it eats away at latex, leaving your sex a little unsafer. Kick your oil addiction and cave in to the cock! It worked for Ken Mehlman, it can work for you!

Posted by Gregorio | June 18, 2007 2:30 AM

Oh, Ace. Why ya gotta break balls?

Gay writer Bruce Baugh, definitely in the it's-just-so-horrible-to-call-someone-gay camp, of course finds it convenient to suspend his well-nigh absolute rule if he can attack someone on the right:

I would place a small bet on Ace of Spades being caught in teh gay act one of these days. That combination of obsession and need to denounce is familiar.

That's from Matthew Yglesias' comment section -- a comment section demonstrating the typical nuance we've come to expect from lefties, and gays, and gay lefties especially, on this issue. As of last count...

Total number of comments in Yglesias' post knocking my purported anti-gay bigotry: 24.

Total number of commenters calling me a queer: 12.

...and the night is yet young.

50%. Not too shabby, Lefties! I'm pretty sure that 50% mark would pretty much beat any thread on the wildly homophobic Ace of Spades HQ!

You Anti-Gay, Homophobic Faggot: The Left's Continuing Nuance As Regards Homophobic Slurs

Posted by Allah Hates Fags | June 18, 2007 4:07 AM

Projection is a bitch, Ace.

Posted by Rich | June 18, 2007 4:36 AM

Shucks, I can't guess how anyone would jump to the conclusion that Ace and his pals were homophobic (or, alternatively, nervously reactive on the whole subject), when they're obviously so much less so than us less nuanced lefties. (Actually, remind me again why we're wasting any time whatsoever on this infantile halfwit, when Dr. Johnson's advice is so relevant.)

Meanwhile, take a look at the following photo, which is just too good to pass up. Heh.

http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-rubble-wine-coolers-less-trouble.html

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | June 18, 2007 6:30 AM

Now that is gay panic.

Posted by John Rogers | June 18, 2007 6:48 AM

First of all, "homo" has two syllables.

Not in Texas. You just say it really fast. In Texas, "Son-of-a-bitch" has two and "shit" has two as well. It goes like this:

She-it...did you see that fag sum-bitch?

Posted by Fred Jones | June 18, 2007 7:07 AM

Wow, that is the funniest post ever at ace of spades, and that's saying something. Is someone collecting these writings for when Ace is, like, famous? Or at least for when Ace goes to trial for actually acting on his frightened and violent fantasies? Because you do realize that since he's a blogger we are all going to be tagged with his stuff?

I think there can be no question, at this point, that Ace is a repressed, self hating, homosexual and I say that with the same sorrow I'd feel if I said he was a repressed, self hating anything. The writing of this stuff is clearly fantasy/projection and then the comments section at his own site reassures him that his fantasies are both normal and understood by his followers to absolve him of guilt for his repressed feelings. He's like an exhibitionist who gets paid for it. He writes his own pornographic fantasies as someone else's and then enjoys at second and third order discussing how horrible those fantasies are with a bunch of anonymous posters who are also as more titillated than they are repulsed.

Its all fun and games, in a way, until you realize what a pathetic, frightened, self loathing little creep ace is. And then you feel really bad for him.

aimai

Posted by aimai | June 18, 2007 7:22 AM

Is Acey trying to be funny, or is he completely unfamiliar with anatomy? Apparently, he doen't know where the duodenum is. Reynolds, either.

Posted by raj | June 18, 2007 8:34 AM

Are you all that dumb, or are you that twisted? It is not complicated. Greenwald was pointing out the hypocrisy of effeminate leaning men acting all faux-macho and supporting macho driven policy in lieu of reasoned strategy and thinking.

Posted by pmse57 | June 18, 2007 8:41 AM

Take it easy on poor Ace...he's looking quite Haggard lately.

Posted by Njorl | June 18, 2007 8:54 AM

I turned Ace of Spades into a Space of AIDS !

Posted by Andrew Sullivan | June 18, 2007 9:10 AM

Poor Ace. First he humiliates himself against Juan Cole, now this.

Posted by steve | June 18, 2007 9:12 AM

I've just been cringing at the thought of any poor woman getting into bed with that man. He hates giving cunnilingus, and his idea of how to have anal sex is all about causing massive intestinal pain. Yikes.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 18, 2007 11:29 AM

I'm more of a meat and potatos, oral sex and intercourse kind of guy, with a little hair pulling and nipple twisting thrown in for variety, and I don't have a lot of experience with anal sex.

With that caveat, my limited experiences, as well as my conversations with various women, suggests that the epileptic jackhammer school of buggery is generally disfavored by women who enjoy anal sex.

So I am curious whether Ace correct--is being buggered until your intestines burst the preferred way to be ridden by gay men?

Posted by Nick | June 18, 2007 12:45 PM

So I am curious whether Ace correct--is being buggered until your intestines burst the preferred way to be ridden by gay men?

Totally !

Posted by Colostomy Bag Carl | June 18, 2007 12:52 PM

Really what's bizarre is that he gets worked up into such a frothy, heaving mess in defense of...Chris Matthews? The whole thread of an kind of coherent thought or discussion just vanishes completely into a line out of a gay erotic novel. And I would make a joke about the strength of his feelings for Chris Matthews and his ilk, but its clear we left that place a long time ago and went directly to Toomuchinformationtown. And when confronted with this obvious fact, he is still capable of denial and deflection, of mocking those who merely point out that he's giving new meaning to the term self-parody. He still pretends that there was some awesome slam somewhere in there that us libs would recognize if we weren't so p.c. and liberal about everything all the time. I can't even pretend to understand such an utter lack of self-awareness. When I catch my dog licking his genitals he demonstrates a more well-developed sense of shame and embarassment.

Posted by MSB | June 18, 2007 1:08 PM

I notice that Ace of Spade's description of a vigorous cock-pounding was totally ambiguous as to whether the route of entry was via mouth or anus. (If you imagine a vertical line connecting the two orifices, the duodenum sits very roughly at the midpoint; on the other hand, if you consider the actual route that food takes through the entire twisting length of the digestive system, then the duodenum is actually much closer to the mouth than to the anus.)

In any case, the fact that AoS mentions the duodenum must surely prove that he's (a) prodigiously hung, and (b) straight as an arrow -- looking down, he observes that his own dick is long enough to reach the duodenum from other end, and having never seen another man's boner, he naively assumes that his is typical. QED.

Posted by Throbert McGee | June 18, 2007 1:11 PM

It's at least as possible that Ace fantasizes about being the electric guy who has sex with Greenwald.

Well, we already know he hates vaginas; is this really a surprise?

Posted by Chet | June 18, 2007 1:57 PM

Ace 10
Confused homos 0.

Now why not just address Ace's point, that it's quite strange for Glenn Greenwald to suggest that Ace is a homo, and that so many of you "homophobia-fighters" use that very device to demonize people?

Or does pointing that out mean I'm probably just a bonesmoker?

Posted by YFS | June 18, 2007 2:15 PM

Let's see now...

Glenn Greenwald attempts to insult Glenn Reynolds by suggesting that he is gay.

Several posters attempt to insult AoS, also by suggesting that HE is gay.

So who's the homophobe here?

Posted by Adrianna Sullington | June 18, 2007 2:17 PM

I thought Ace's point was that it's right and proper to support an ultra-bellicose foreign policy in order to bolster his sexual credentials, YFS. I thought his secondary point is that he enjoys making fun of gays. And I thought his final point was that if some liberals are somewhat homophobic, that gives him and Glenn Reynolds license to be maximally homophobic.

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 18, 2007 2:20 PM

YFS -- GG wasn't questioning his sexual predilections, he was questioning his masculinity. Ace, in typical frat guy fashion, equated the two with nary a thought, then went on a snarky, homophobic tirade. Those commentors that feel the need to go for the cheap pop and call AoS gay? I'm with you there...but as for characterization of GG's argument, well, you're barking up the wrong straw man, so to speak.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | June 18, 2007 2:35 PM

Dr. AGH: three times you thought wrong.
EQ: I've placed you on Mixed Metaphor Watch and advise against further attempts at nuance:
"GG wasn't questioning his sexual predilections, he was questioning his masculinity."

Yeah. By suggesting he's gay.

It must be tough covering for obviously conflicted homophobes like Sully and Glen the Many.

Posted by YFS | June 18, 2007 3:11 PM

We need better conservative trolls. You just aren't up to it, YFS.

One was GG's point about Ace using foreign policy to prove his machismo, which Ace immediately embraced by insisting that GG was the "real homosexual." Two is uncontestable, which is why you don't contest it; Ace was positively salivating over his description of gay anal sex. Three is pretty clear as well: if some liberals get to be homophobic, then
Ace gets to be maximally so, and away he goes with it.

Why are you so pleased with Ace's homophobia, YFS, and why won't you are he defend homophobia on its own terms, rather than depending on GG to legitimize it for you?

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 18, 2007 3:18 PM

I urge everyone to check out YFS's blog for some unintentional hilarity.

Posted by Bd | June 18, 2007 3:45 PM

Short Dr. AGH:
Insult.
Insult.

Misread.
Prevaricate.
Misread.

Mischaracterize.
Misdirect.

IOW, straight out of the Idiot Left Playbook.

As to your last question, (if that's in fact what it is- hard to tell), I would defer to GG; he's demonstrably skilled at legitimizing his own homophobia.

Posted by YFS | June 18, 2007 3:50 PM

I'm confused, Dr. Savage-Husky. Are you saying that GG is not a "real homosexual"? Are you trying to defend him from the "slur" of gayness?

Posted by Adrianna Sullington | June 18, 2007 3:50 PM

I would certainly defend GG's observation that warbloggers like Ace conflate foreign policy belligerance with personal machismo. Why would I defend that? Because when GG accused Ace of it, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT ACE DID IN RESPONSE. And when Yglesias and others rolled their eyes at Ace and Reynolds' exultant homophobia, Ace and Reynolds weakly pointed their fingers at GG, protesting "homophobia's okay because he did it first!" Reynolds even finds other, unrelated examples of liberal homophobia to a) accuse all the netroots of same; and b) excuse his own homophobia.

Can you just answer this one question: why, after having read Ace's writhing, ecstatic homophobic tirade, do you feel the need to defend it? What is it about Ace's hatred toward gays that makes it so attractive to you, Adrianna and YFS?

And Adrianna, my name is Dr. Victor Davis Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy Hanson. Please get it right.

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 18, 2007 4:05 PM

I urge everyone to check out YFS's blog for some unintentional hilarity.

Okay, let's have a look:

Case in point: the Palestinians. They don't want to live side-by-side with Israel. They don't want peace; they knowingly and overwhelmingly elected a government festering with Islamofascist monsters pledged to destroy Israel and declare unending war on the infidel. They've destroyed everything offered and given them by the Israelis and the rest of the civilized world. Now, they're getting what they asked for, and so will the rest of the region, all while the MSM and the critics of Israel carry on in denial.

Hahahahahahahah!

Dude, that's some funny stuff.

But I think it was on purpose.

Posted by Lewis | June 18, 2007 4:08 PM

Can you just answer this one question: why, after having read Ace's writhing, ecstatic homophobic tirade, do you feel the need to defend it? What is it about Ace's hatred toward gays that makes it so attractive to you, Adrianna and YFS?

If you think his anti-gay posts are bad, you ought to check out the ones where he talks about killing hobos.

Or the ones where he talks about his fear of black people.

Or his fear of the pooter.

Clearly, the man is a violent, fear-driven bigot.

Either that, or you have a completely tone deaf ear for humor.

Posted by Lewis | June 18, 2007 4:15 PM

In fact, Lewis, there's a middle ground: he just really, really likes making jokes about gay people.

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 18, 2007 4:21 PM

The Instapundit post:

It is kind of funny. First Greenwald calling me gay, now Firedoglake calling Lindsey Graham gay. Meanwhile, constant claims that the rightosphere is "homophobic." Hypocrisy, thy name is netroots.

posted at 09:05 AM by Glenn Reynolds

How is that "exultant homophobia", Dr. Savage-Husky?

Posted by Adrianna Sullington | June 18, 2007 4:40 PM

According to Ace, it's deliciously decadent!

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 18, 2007 4:46 PM

I don't get it, Adrianna. Are you saying you agree with Glenn that Ace isn't homophobic, or are you saying that it's okay because GG and Firedoglake did it first, so Reynolds gets a pass for linking to it?

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 18, 2007 4:55 PM

The other point that Glenn makes is that for all their manly chest-beating about the necessity for fighting (and torturing) terrorists so that they don't follow us here, and if you disagree than you are a puling liberal painty waist, etc., is that these commentators are..how does one put it nicely...pale, white, schlubby guys, whose sole experience with violence was probably getting ben-gay wedgies in school.

None of them appear to have come close to serving in the military--paintball might be closest to combat experience for them. In short, Greenwald argues that their bellicose language is a substitute for them actually having to walk the walk. Since they--snicker snicker--impugn the masculinity of those who disagree with them, Greenwald gives some of it back, based on what these commentators look like.

Posted by Tom S | June 18, 2007 4:56 PM

In fact, Lewis, there's a middle ground: he just really, really likes making jokes about gay people.

Where did he make any jokes about gay people? From what I can see, he merely made a joke about men who happen to be effeminate and who happen to enjoy receiving a violent duodenal massage courtesy of a big hard dick.[*]

Are you saying that ALL gay men are effeminate and enjoy violent duodenal massage courtesy of a big hard dick, HOMOPHOBE?!

[*] As I noted above, Ace's post was ambiguous as to whether the jackhammer cock's approach to the duodenum is per orem or per anum.

Posted by Throbert McGee | June 18, 2007 5:09 PM

Greenwald didn't suggest Reynolds was gay, he suggested he didn't give off an air of manliness. Contrary to popular belief, there is a difference. One can be un-macho and still be quite straight, and vice-versa.

Posted by anon E. mouse | June 18, 2007 5:43 PM

As a palate cleanser from all the conservative homophobia, here's some nice Queer-affirming multimedia content about a planet full of gay unicorns...

Posted by Throbert McGee | June 18, 2007 6:11 PM

Greenwald didn't suggest Reynolds was gay, he suggested he didn't give off an air of manliness. Contrary to popular belief, there is a difference. One can be un-macho and still be quite straight, and vice-versa.

This is so gobsmackingly obvious that one would almost have to accuse Insta of bad faith in reading "calling me gay" into it. But Tenn. Glenn is better than that, isn't he? Wait, what, he isn't? My bad.

Posted by Pooh | June 18, 2007 6:20 PM

Ah, so Greenwad wasn't insulting Reynolds by claiming that he was a gay male, but rather that he was a straight female. I guess it's OK to insult someone by suggesting that they are female - I'm sure half the world's population would agree with you on that.

Posted by Adrianna Sullington | June 18, 2007 6:56 PM

since there are a number of idiots - the most recent being adrianna sullington at 6:56 - who seem to have a problem with basic reading comprehension, here's exactly all the references that glenn greenwald made to glenn reynolds:

And just as Glenn Reynolds has done, Rush has developed a virtual obsession with the book The Dangerous Book for Boys, geared towards teaching "boys how to be boys." Rush spent the week hailing it as the antidote to what he calls the "Emasculation of America."

Identically, Reynolds on his blog has promoted the book a disturbing 17 times in the last six weeks alone. When doing so, he routinely proclaims things such as "maybe there's hope," and -- most revealingly -- has fretted: "Are we turning into a nation of wimps?" It is the identity of the "we" in that sentence where all the meaning lies. Perhaps if "we" torture enough bound and gagged prisoners and bomb enough countries, "we" can rid ourselves of that worry.

(snip)

There are few things more disorienting than listening to Rush Limbaugh declare himself the icon of machismo and masculinity and mock others as "wimps." And if you look at those who have this obsession -- the Chris Matthews and Glenn Reynolds and Jonah Goldbergs and Victor Davis Hansons -- what one finds in almost every case is that those who want to convert our political process and especially our national policies into a means of proving one's "traditional masculine virtues" -- the physically courageous warriors unbound by effete conventions -- themselves could not be further removed from those attributes, and have lives which are entirely devoid of such "virtues."

(snip)

This dynamic is depressingly pervasive, yet incomparably significant. It's what causes someone like Glenn Reynolds -- who, by his own daily admission, devotes his life to attending convention center conferences on space and playing around with new, cool gadgets in the fun room in his house, like a sheltered adolescent in his secret treehouse club -- to fret: "Are we turning into a nation of wimps?," and directly in response to that concern, to urge "more rubble, less trouble" -- meaning that he wants to watch on his television set as the U.S. military flattens neighborhoods and slaughters more people in the name of "strength," "resolve," and "power."

(snip)

Based, presumably, on the theory that a picture is worth 1,000 words, TS, over at Blue Texan's blog, provides a photographic illustration of one of the blogosphere's most popular tough-guy warriors. (NOTE: link to a photo of glenn reynolds)

It is indeed difficult to avoid noticing the physical similarity among so many of our right-wing warriors who mock the alleged effeteness and lack of masculinity of their political opponents and who engage in chest-beating war dances and emphasize the need for manly courage and resolve, in the form of more wars fought by others, brutal interrogation techniques and the like. It is perfectly legitimate -- I would say necessary -- to examine these issues with regard to those who perpetually insinuate these sorts of faux masculinity themes into our public sphere.

(Sorry that i don't know how to italicize, but this is the end of the quotes from glenn greenwald).

so adrianna, perhaps you could explain to us how you came up with your moronic comment at 6:56. it certainly wasn't from actually, you know, reading....

Posted by howard | June 18, 2007 7:44 PM

I'm gay. I'm Republican. I get far more contempt for lefties for being a Republican than I ever get from Republicans for being gay.

I feel like I'm in Bizarroworld as I read these comments here. Every time I read "Right wingers are the most horrible people on the planet," etc., I realize that I think *exactly* the same thing about left-wingers. I'm open-minded enough to realize, however, that we might both be wrong. Are you lefties?

BTW, I hear lefties using anti-gay insults all the time. I don't hear righties doing it all that often, probably because they know they won't get a pass on it from the press. My former congressman Pete Stark is among my favorite examples.

Posted by Right Wing Homo | June 18, 2007 8:18 PM

Look at the polls, RWH. It's rightists who are far more anti-gay.

And, by the way -- since I apparently need to actually explain this to a few amazingly stupid people -- what a lot of us suspect is not simply that some of the screechier rightists are gay, but that they're repressed homos who live in terror of their inner feelings and thus act like hysterical, vicious lunatics toward more honest gays. I have no idea myself whether this is true; in my experience, most bullies can be explained perfectly well as ordinary heterosexual louts.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | June 18, 2007 8:30 PM

"Heterosexual lout" sounds so faggy.

Posted by Throbert McGee | June 18, 2007 9:44 PM

Just a few points I'd like to make:

1. You're all fags.
2. Faggoty cock-smokers, every last one of you.
3. Did I mention you're all gay?
4. And you probably like anal sex, too !!
5. Really rough anal sex -- deliciously decadant anal sex with penises plunging roughly into unlubricated butts.
6. Which is, of course, gross and faggy.
7. I am not getting hard as I write this. Trust me.
8. You're gay, and being gay is wrong.
9. FAGS !!!!!!!!11!!1!!
10. And, stop being so homophobic.

Posted by Ace of Spodes | June 19, 2007 12:01 AM

BTW, I hear lefties using anti-gay insults all the time.

What about calling homosexuals disordered?

What about calling homosexuality an abomination, or an offense to God?

What's the standard ratio of liberals using these lines to conservatives using them? And do they really bug you less than, say, some guy saying "faggot"?

So you want the Republicans to win. Does it bug you in the least to see them achieve the margin of victory by demonizing gays, by making gay marriage the symbol of everything that's wrong with America? Does it disturb you just a little to win that way?

Posted by Steve | June 19, 2007 12:30 AM

Oooh, I've made YFS' list...I am blessed.
The mixed metaphor was intentional, you clod...and please don't lecture me about nuance, when you've failed, multiple times, to differentiate between commenting on one's testosterone quotient and what quotient they prefer in their mate. Lurk moar, son...this posting thing just ain't your strong suit.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | June 19, 2007 12:46 AM

GG did not insinsuate anything about reynolds et al being gay -- he insinuated that they were wimps and questioned their "masculiity."

for a homophobic (let's not get into repression issues for now) mouth-breather like ace of spades lack of masculinity equates to homosexuality and he immediately leaps to the conclusion: he's calling instapundit a fag!

hence this entire sorry debate, capped with reynolds making an ass of himself. again.

Posted by logicat | June 19, 2007 12:57 AM

Look at the polls, RWH. It's rightists who are far more anti-gay.

Don't trust your personal experiences, RWH. LOOK AT THE POLLS! They will tell you what to believe! You don't need to use your mind, just listen to the soothing sounds of the liberal media.

...what a lot of us suspect is not simply that some of the screechier rightists are gay, but that they're repressed homos who live in terror of their inner feelings and thus act like hysterical, vicious lunatics toward more honest gays.

Hm. I suppose it must be the tolerant Lefties' peace with their inner feelings about homosexuality that leads them to "out" gay conservatives (sorry -- "repressed homos"), and the gay children of conservatives. I guess this morally repellent act is just liberals' way of helping "hysterical, vicious lunatics" grow into "more honest gays."

P.S. A lot of liberals also suspect fire cannot melt steel. Look at the polls!

What about calling homosexuality an abomination, or an offense to God?

Um, I believe it was God Himself who called homosexuality an abomination. It was in that book -- what is it called? Oh, right: the Bible.

What's the standard ratio of liberals using these lines to conservatives using them?

463 to 1. Google it!

So you want the Republicans to win. Does it bug you in the least to see them achieve the margin of victory by demonizing gays, by making gay marriage the symbol of everything that's wrong with America? Does it disturb you just a little to win that way?

Speaking for myself, I prefer the liberals' tactic of demonizing Wal-Mart and making it the symbol of everything wrong with America.

In 2004, same-sex marriage measures were placed on ballots in 11 states. In 10 of these 11 states, the measures were defeated by a margin larger than the percentage of voters who voted for Bush. (For example: In Oregon, 48% voted for Bush, and 59% voted against gay marriage. In Mississippi, 60% voted for Bush, and 86% voted against gay marriage.) In other words, a lot of Democrats voted against allowing gays to marry. So it would appear you self-righteous Lefties aren't nearly as gay-friendly as you claim. Color me shocked!

Posted by BooHoo | June 19, 2007 1:06 AM

I think I'm beginning to understand ...

When Ace of Spades uses the word "faggot," he's maligning gays.

But when Ace of Spodes uses pretty much the exact same language, no harm, no foul.

Because everybody "knows" that Ace of Spodes is joking - and not revealing his inner bigotry or anything.

Just like they "know" that Ace of Spades is just revealing his inner bigotry - and not joking around or anything.

So, if you're a liberal attacking a conservative, it's pretty much okay to use the word "faggot" all you want.

I wonder if this is some o' that "nuance" I'm always hearing about?

Posted by Lewis | June 19, 2007 1:16 AM

This hapless exchange shows the sad state of our blog commenting discourse starring Whose Gay and Whose Not Gay, with a special appearance by Color Me Shocked and his Audio Bible featuring God himself speaking all parts of the Bible attributed to his Holy Self -- a super special edition of the Holy Book, mind you, which can be purchased at Wal-Mart.

Posted by thersitz | June 19, 2007 1:41 AM

Isn't it interesting that BH knows that God Himself said that homosexuality is an "abomination" (in the Old Testament, in which He also said that eating shellfish and women wearing red clothes are abominations)? And presumably that means it's as much of an abomination as murder, or stealing $50,000, or stealing five dollars. I'd love to know why.

This is the same guy, of course, who simultaneously expects us to believe that liberals hate homosexuals more than conservatives do (which should actually be in our favor, it being an abomination and all). Which, of course, is why Democratic Presidential candidates are so much more opposed to gay rights than Republican ones are. In short, it's clear now that Ace's loonier fans have come over to play, which confirms what I said earlier about Dr. Johnson's Law. Sayonara.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | June 19, 2007 1:42 AM

Love my cock, hate my freedom.

Posted by Manspew Hole-lovin' | June 19, 2007 2:51 AM

The final message is that he proves Glenn's point: that for many on the right, the war is a test of masculinity. Certainly not a test of intelligence, views on foreign policy of the United States, but of something done to project an image of Uncle Sammy as sheer, ass-kickin' bareknuckle manhood. Surely they call the left the "feeling side" and other feminizing phrases. The not-so-secret campaign behavior of Karl Rove's boys is to call the opponent a fag -- he does it over and over -- and present your guy, oh, let's say on the deck of a carrier with a balls-revealing jumpsuit on. (Hmm. Who had the gay father who committed suicide again?)

So you look at the right-wing crop of typin' terriers, and you certainly don't see any big testosterone machines.

Glenn didn't call any of them gay. He was questioning their culture, not their sexuality.

But the Ace sure is touchy, ain't he?

Posted by Jim H. | June 19, 2007 3:45 AM

Right wing homo has it *exactly right*. Its precisely the same thing to make jokes about gayness, or to point out the bizarre sexual obsessions of right wing attack puppies like Ace of Spades, as to insist that gays are going to hell, are "objectively disordered," should all go to jail, or be killed. Its like the *exact* *same* *thing*. Only, not.

I'd also like to point out that the chief difference between right and left on the gayness issue is that for righties gay people are ok as long as they are close personal friends, flunkies, or closeted and willing to sell out their fellow homosexuals for money (the right wing anthem on everything). For the left gayness is ok, even normative, as long as it is *not* closeted and does *not* include selling silence or acquiescing in homophobic rants for money or tax breaks. See the difference, Right Wing Homo? Your republican friends tolerate your republicanness as long as you don't expect true respect and civil rights and as long as you don't rock the boat politically. Your leftist friends expect you to stand up for yourself and and others like you and civil rights generally. Its a small difference, but an important one.

aimai

aimai

Posted by aimai | June 19, 2007 7:13 AM

Maybe Ace needs to go to the Democratic convention & then post what f-bomb laden threats he's THINKING about (but too cowardly to say out loud lest he get his candy ass kicked).

Now that's classy (and, very adult).

Posted by RW | June 19, 2007 9:14 AM

Apparently Lewis and BooHoo are too "nuanced" to bother defending Ace's homophobic rant. They're much too concerned with the alleged hypocrisy of certain liberals to bother with the flagrant, demented homophobia of Ace, the original subject of the thread. Such is nuance, I suppose -- it prevents them from taking any recognizable position on homophobia whatsoever except "Ace gets a pass and fuck you, liberals!"

And when gay marriage becomes legal nationwide, we won't embarrass you by asking you to thank us, BooHoo.

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 19, 2007 9:17 AM

Jeez, you have to really be into ass fucking to come up with verbiage like what you quote. Is that guy all the way out of the closet yet? If he is a typical Republican he deplores gayness cuz he is too immature to face his own.

Posted by Peter Waksman | June 19, 2007 10:28 AM

My prediction: If Republicans keep up the gay bashing, they will learn the hard way how formidable gays as opponents can be. They know how to organize, they know how strategic outing works, they spend money on defeating bad candidates, and they don't pull their punches. I say this from observation, not to stereotype anybody. Stonewall was not a fluke--it was a permanent object lesson for the right from a highly educated, highly motivated segment of US society.

Posted by Sienna | June 19, 2007 12:09 PM

My prediction: Left-wingers will continue to use homophobic slurs against Right-wingers, but somehow will continue to never, ever be called on it by the otherwise oh-so-sensitive perpetually aggrieved victims of heteronormative hegemony.

And conservative Christians will continue to insist that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is against God's will, based upon their understanding of the Bible. And Left-wingers will continue to misrepresent the foregoing as "gaybashing" and "denying civil rights" and so forth.

For what it's worth, I myself am an atheist who'd like to see gay marriage (or "civil union", whatever) legalized, but the Left has totally lost me with their continued disrespect for and disparagement of the religious views of a large percentage of their fellow U.S. citizens.

Posted by Lewis | June 19, 2007 2:09 PM

Lewis, are you really still finding Ace's homophobia too much to defend? Is it that hard? Sad to see your moral compass spinning in every direction at once. Who knows how you actually feel about homophobia? It's literally impossible to tell from your evasive, noncomittal words. Sadly, the only stance you are brave enough to take is that the left is bad.

Here are some things I've learned about you, Lewis:

1) when you see right wing homophobia, you rush to excuse it by pointing a finger at left wing hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, after all, being infinitely more destructive a phenomenon than homophobia, which has never hurt anyone. But running away from Ace's homophobia is still no defense of it.

2) You cannot abide disrespect from unspecified members of the left on religious issues -- it is simply intolerable!!! -- yet you find disrespect of gay people hilarious for reasons you are apparently too shy to explain.

Will you ever gain the courage to address Ace's homophobia, and Instapundit's approval of it? Will you ever gain sufficient moral insight to realize that homophobia is actually worse than your alleged liberal hypocrisy? More likely you will simply nurse your own "perpetual grievance" against the left on the basis that we harbor a "perpetual grievance," all in the vain hope of finding some relief from your moral confusion. Good luck with that, Lewis.

Don't worry, when conservatives lose, and gay marriage is legalized, Lewis, we will not expect an apology.

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 19, 2007 2:39 PM

See, the thing is, I'm not buying that Ace of Spades is really homophobic.

I think that all the time he sees homophobic slurs used by the Left against the Right, without any outrage on the part of traditional defenders of gay rights.

And so he decides to employ similar language, PRECISELY because he knows that it's going to evoke outrage, THEREBY giving him the opportunity to point of the hypocrisy of the Left.

THAT'S what I really think is going on with that post of his.

Seriously -- I noticed not one condemnation of the intolerant language used in this thread by "Ace of Spodes" - why do you suppose that is?

It's because he's one of the "good guys" -- it's not about the intolerant language at all.

He's just baiting y'all, and he got the predicable response of a fistful of homophobic slurs directed at him - with the predicable lack of condemnation.

I am suggesting that "Ace of Spades" is no more homophobic than "Ace of Spodes."

Their use of language is the same, yet one gets biatched out for it, and one doesn't.

Hmmmm.

Posted by Lewis | June 19, 2007 3:43 PM

Will you ever gain sufficient moral insight to realize that homophobia is actually worse than your alleged liberal hypocrisy?

The POINT is that homophobia saturates the Left at least as much as it does the Right, but only the Right get called out for it.

Okay, suppose I grant that Ace of Spades' post does in fact show his inherent intolerance of homosexuality.

I think you'd then have to argue that Ace of Spodes' post shows exactly this same level of intolerance.

So where's the outrage against this Ace of Spodes guy?

I can hear the crickets chirping from here.

Posted by Lewis | June 19, 2007 3:50 PM

****The POINT is that homophobia saturates the Left at least as much as it does the Right, but only the Right get called out for it.****

Not that much of a surprise.
The folks all over the Scooter Libby trial were aghast that people would go after Clinton for lying under oath ('but, but, but, but, but, but it was about sex') obstruction of justice (but 'but, but, but, but, but, but it was about sex') & who suffer BDS welcomed Clinton bombing Iraq in 1998 due to WMDs ('but, but, but, but, but, but he got them all') and who lampooned Bush for being in the national guard & who voted against Dole but who supported Clinton ('but, but, but, but, but, but.....that was then').

Can't have a discussion with a lib without them using their favorite word, "but".

Posted by RW | June 19, 2007 3:57 PM

"I'm not buying that Ace of Spades is really homophobic"

Fine, so he merely employs anti-gay slurs against gay people for amusement. Either way, he's a scumbag. And here you are going on a unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable flight of speculative fancy to defend his homophobia. It's a simple question, Lewis: are you against homophobia or are you for it? If you're against it, here's your chance to back it up rather than make excuses for it.

"all the time he sees homophobic slurs used by the Left against the Right"..."homophobia saturates the Left at least as much as it does the Right."

When you back this up with comparative data, Lewis, I'll be real interested in your arguments. Until then, all you've got are vague accusations based on your own airy sentiments. I guess that's convenient for your own preconceived notions, though, isn't it? You never have to change your mind if you've got no facts in the first place! But why stop at proclaiming the left "at least" as homophobic as the right? Why not go all the way and claim the left is responsible for all homophobia? Maybe every right-wing homophobe is merely doing it to "evoke outrage" and "point out hypocrisy"? It's all in your head anyway, so why not just finish the job and give all rightwing lunatics a pass?

"So where's the outrage against this Ace of Spodes guy?"

Do you want me to defend him? I'm sorry, Lewis. You see, because I am opposed to homophobia, I feel no responsibility to defend or rationalize homophobic language. You might learn from this approach.

But more importantly, if the conservative blogosphere has an honest point to make about the left's hypocrisy, they should make it. Instead, they indulge their basest, most hateful fantasies, and then retreat behind their rationalizations that it was about "hypocrisy" all along. That's simple cowardice, Lewis. In your world, any legitimate argument can and should be made via hate speech? Would you like to see Glenn Reynolds would like to make a case for the flat-tax by invoking sinister Jewish financiers? Maybe you'd find it hilarious if Rush Limbaugh made a subtle point about race relations by calling Barack Obama an ethnic slur?

It's simple, Lewis: people like Ace should be publicly shamed when they engage in gay-bashing. Glenn Reynolds should be shamed when he supports gay-bashing. You should be ashamed for defending gay-bashing. Whatever made your sense of morality so twisted that you feel hypocrisy is worse than gay-bashing, I wish you luck in fixing it.

RW: I know you're not up to the task of defending your favorite right wing homophobes, but please try not to make your desperation to change the subject so obvious. Also, it clutters up the board.

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 19, 2007 4:22 PM

It's simple, Lewis: people like Ace should be publicly shamed when they engage in gay-bashing. Glenn Reynolds should be shamed when he supports gay-bashing.

Yes, yes, yes, I get it already. Right wingers, exclusively, should be shamed. Left-wingers, not so much.

You are loud loud loud about Right wing homophobia, and silent silent silent about left wing homophobia.

This makes me suspicious that homophobia isn't the REAL issue here at all.

Posted by Lewis | June 19, 2007 4:34 PM

Say what you will, but I have yet to defend homophobia. That makes one of us, Lewis.

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 19, 2007 4:46 PM

When your only defense is "tu quoque," you might want to reconsider whatever it is you're defending, Lewis.

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 19, 2007 4:48 PM

Just to be clear, you claim to be anti-homophobia, even though you defend Ace's gay-bashing rant.

Yet because you believe I am "silent" about some vague, unspecified homophobia on the left, I am not genuinely against homophobia. My, what a confused, meaningless position your conservatism has led you to.

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 19, 2007 5:40 PM

As I say, Ace's idiots have now definitely arrived on the scene. (Just ask any GOP Presidential candidate which party is more in favor of gay rights.)

By the way, something about Ace's latest droolings struck me as oddly familiar -- and, sure enough: http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html#5711166945970839152#5711166945970839152

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | June 19, 2007 6:11 PM

Say what you will, but I have yet to defend homophobia. That makes one of us, Lewis.

Whose? Ace's?

I've already stated my position that, in that post, he's essentially baiting lefties for angry responses in which they display exactly the sins of which he's accused.*

I think my position is valid, and haven't seen a convincing counter-argument.

My, what a confused, meaningless position your conservatism has led you to.

You don't really know terribly much about me -such as the fact that I'm not terribly comfortable self-identifying as "conservative."

You're attacking a figment of your imagination - a construct you've built in your own mind that bears very little relationship to me.

I'm a reasonable guy, but you're not winning any points with your condescending tone.**

*to be clear, I'm not talking about you here

** well, with me, anyway. I'm sure self-identified progressives eat this shiat up. Y'know, so carry on or whatever.

Posted by Lewis | June 19, 2007 6:32 PM

Bruce Moomaw -

I don't understand the point of the linked post.

Overuse of the alleged pejorative "gay" is a running joke on Ace's site.

As is (are?) his repeated self-deprecating references to his geekiness and inability to score with chicks. Or even get them to notice him.

The post is entitled ACE O. SPADES, HETEROSEXUAL.

Well, yeah, he's pretty up-front about that.

Don't tell me you're one of those guys who goes around pointing the finger at people for any assumptions of heteronormativity on their part, are you?

'Cause that would be gay.*

*yes, this is in fact your signal to start hyperventilating about my inherent homophobia. Gentlemen, start your engines!

Posted by Lewis | June 19, 2007 6:47 PM

When your only defense is "tu quoque," you might want to reconsider whatever it is you're defending, Lewis.

I'm not defending, I'm attacking.

And what I'm attacking is the SELECTIVE outrage over homophobic slurs.

Now, you've made your point that you don't think that homophobia on the Left is widespread when compared to the Right, and you're entitled to your opinion. I just think maybe you don't get out much.

Posted by Lewis | June 19, 2007 6:56 PM

Bollocks, Lewis. Of course you're defending. You're not "attacking" for no reason at all. Obviously somone's touched a nerve.

You want to defend your poor little Ace-hole, and do so in a hilariously telling overbluster of a strawman strop. Methinks the lady Lewis doth protest too much. If you get any more wound up, we'd need to get you a fucking tiara.

Oh, and by the way, If you think I'm being homophobic, I'm not. If you consider me implying you're gay to be an insult, then that's your fucking problem, not mine. And, being secure in my sexuality, don't I know it.

What you don't seem to understand is that what you see as a "homophobic slur" is people taking the piss out of "homophobic slurs" by directing it back at the originator of the "homophobic slur". This only works because the originator thinks being gay is such a big fucking deal, and therefore to imply the originator is gay is a "homophobic slur".

Seeing someone twist in the wind like this is fucking hilarious of course: trying to claim to be both pro and anti homphobia at the same time. Talking of which, I see Mr "anti-homophobia" Lewis you've used the "gay" word yourself in a "controversial" manner. Oh how "naughty", yawn.

Posted by EGB's Smelly Sox | June 20, 2007 6:50 AM

What you don't seem to understand is that what you see as a "homophobic slur" is people taking the piss out of "homophobic slurs" by directing it back at the originator of the "homophobic slur". This only works because the originator thinks being gay is such a big fucking deal, and therefore to imply the originator is gay is a "homophobic slur".
Ah, the "all conservatives are bigots" meme.

Why, OF COURSE Ace, or any of his commenters, are wildly homophobic, and isn't it just delicious irony to use their homophobia against them by employing the very language which, except when insulting conservatives, we progressive types would abhor?

It's a good thing this presupposition of homophobia is so damn bulletproof.

It is, as they say, too good to fact check.

Posted by Lewis | June 20, 2007 8:57 AM

I don't know if Ace is homophobic. What I do know is that he found a gay man, and used homophobic language to bash him, and that you have seen fit to make excuses for why that's justified on the grounds that "baiting lefties for angry responses" makes gay-bashing acceptable. I think your moral sense speaks for itself.

"I'm attacking is the SELECTIVE outrage over homophobic slurs"

Coming from you, a person who thinks gay-bashing is fine, who cares? I know this is your *sense* of things about the left, but unfortunately, you've also made it clear that you cannot and will not demonstrate it. And even if you could, only a warped person would view hypocrisy as worse than the kind of homophobic hate that you and the leading lights of the conservative blogosphere endorse.

So to sum up: you 1) defend homophobia, and 2) claim to be angry that liberals don't attack it often enough. Are you beginning to understand why people think conservative morality is so muddled and useless?

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 20, 2007 9:30 AM

Coming from you, a person who thinks gay-bashing is fine, who cares?

I haven't gotten enough coffee in my system this morning, so I'm still a little hazy.

So you're going to have to show me where I adopted this position.

I've already stated that I think that Ace's post was baiting, pure and simple.

Just as I don't really think that Ace of Spodes dude is really a homophobe, either.

Are you beginning to understand why people think conservative morality is so muddled and useless?

Many facets of my personal morality do not conform to what you think of as conservative.

Once again, your criticism has very little to do with me.

Posted by Lewis | June 20, 2007 9:45 AM

You defended Ace's gay-bashing on the ground that it's for "baiting lefties for angry responses". The idiosyncrisies of your personal morality are of interest to me only because they are hilarious: the fact that you can spin excuses for gay-bashers while screeching that there's not enough criticism against homphobia in the world is pure comedy gold.

I know, I know, you just really hate hypocrisy -- just not enough to explain why, or to bother demonstrating that any liberal actually *is* a hypocrite outside of your foggy brain. It's just so much work for you, Lewis! Will your crusade against hypocrisy be conducted like your crusade against homophobia and your crusade for gay marriage: both for and against, for and against, for and against? Good luck whatever your lukewarm, confused position on any of these issue turns out to be.

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 20, 2007 10:13 AM

Ha.

My crusade both for and against gay marriage?

Now you're just making stuff up.

I said I was for it.

But I'm hardly on any kind of crusade.

IMO [which, obviously, you can take for what it's worth, which honestly isn't much], you're way too attached to the assumptions you make regarding your political opponents' belief systems to do any kind of honest assessment of their arguments.

Posted by Lewis | June 20, 2007 10:51 AM

If you have something to say, say it. Meanwhile, I can only make assumptions based on what you've written. And what you've written boils down to a) excusing hateful right-wing gay-bashing, b) screeching that the left needs to go after homophobia even more than it does now, and c) saying that the left is too disrespectful.

You are an incoherent mess, Lewis. You won't even bother supporting your claims about these mythical liberal hypocrites. The only strand holding your tangled thoughts together is "fuck liberals" and as soon as you get nailed down on one position, you wander off into meta-troll land.

But if there's one thing I take away from your many keen insights, it's this: anything is justified as long as it's for the purpose of, as you put it, "baiting lefties for angry responses." This is the heart of modern tribal conservatism: no ideas, just pure leader worship and hatred toward liberals. That's why Glenn Reynolds linked to Ace's post; not because Glenn
hates gays, but because attacking liberals just sparks something off in his lizard brain that he couldn't resist. Demonizing liberals is all you conservatives have these days -- and you're a perfect case in point, Lewis. You don't have particularly strong conservative beliefs, but when scumbags like Ace start pounding those "fuck the liberal" tribal drums, you just can't help but dance.

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 20, 2007 11:06 AM

Prolly right, I'm definitely not up to hanging around someone who feels the need to put the "Dr." at the beginning of their handle. Reminds me of a guy at the gym who constantly wears an old t-shirt bearing his personal best bench-press printed on the front. I'm at a loss as to how to intellectually go against high-minded reasoning like "[d]demonizing liberals is all you conservatives have these days".

What with that being an original charge that has never been put forth (not even on a left-wing bulletin board...honest, never seen it) lil' ol' me is clearly outta his league. All hail the doctor (who needs everyone to know he's a doctor, by the way).

Just don't tell us you're a champion bench presser, too (during your "you've attacked me and changed the subject" retort - as if you're not predictable - in between you attacking others from the comfort of your PC and changing the subject) or that you made some "who's who" list.....that'll be too impressive for us to withstand.

Yep, I went there. And I didn't even display Glennvy in the process. Doc.

Posted by RW | June 20, 2007 11:51 AM

Whoops, never mind. Another professor (those who can't....).

Shoulda known....wish I hadn't wasted my time.

Posted by RW | June 20, 2007 11:54 AM

You know, making fun of my name is pretty low, RW. I've actually abbreviated it from the full version, Dr. Victor Anatole Davis Gavage Hanson Huskanoy, PhD., Professor of Classics, Raisin Farmer, and Defender of Western Civilization in the Long World War IV.

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 20, 2007 12:11 PM

You don't have particularly strong conservative beliefs, but when scumbags like Ace start pounding those "fuck the liberal" tribal drums, you just can't help but dance.

Guilty as charged.

I just can't help myself.

I've got rhythm, you see, and it WILL NOT BE DENIED!!11!!1!

Posted by Lewis | June 20, 2007 12:14 PM

It's that irrepressible anti-liberal troll sense of humor again! But how will your fellow conservatives know you're joking unless you throw in some homo-baiting in there?

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 20, 2007 12:40 PM

Good question, doctor.

But how will your fellow liberals know you're serious unless you throw in some assumptions of conservatives' bigotry in there?

Oops, never mind, I see you've got that one covered.

Posted by Lewis | June 20, 2007 1:13 PM

My assumption is based on evidence I can provide to you: for example, in Ace's case, it's based on his actions, namely, targeting a gay man for hateful gay-bashing. In your case, it's based on the fact that you desperately seek to excuse Ace's hateful gay-bashing. Your defense is that you are not a bigot; you just like defending descpicable people because you hate liberals worse.

And what are your assumptions about "the left" based on? Nothing you are capable of providing, apparently.

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 20, 2007 1:20 PM

My assumption is based on evidence I can provide to you: for example, in Ace's case, it's based on his actions, namely, targeting a gay man for hateful gay-bashing.

Breaking news, dude!

Ace of Spades hates Scandinavians!

Hey, look at his actions, slamming Scandinavians like that! What more evidence do you need that he's a raving Nordi-phobe?

The proof is indisputable.

Case closed.

Posted by Lewis | June 20, 2007 2:13 PM

Ace targeted a gay man for hate speech. No matter what his reason, no matter how awesomely hilarious you thought it was, it was a despicable act, and you should be ashamed of having defended and excused it. If you ever come up with a response other than "no, see, he gay-bashed for a good cause (totally pissing off the liberals lol) and it was super funny" feel free to post it.

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 20, 2007 2:28 PM

No comment on Ace's Scandiphobia?

I mean, I think that pretty much proves that the man's an all-around bigot, don't it?

I can't fathom why you're not jumping on the bandwagon with me on that one.

It provides proof - ABSOLUTE PROOF, I tell you - in support of your preconceived ideas about conservatives' bigotry.

You should totally bookmark that post, and bring it out as needed to bolster your arguments.

Posted by Lewis | June 20, 2007 2:51 PM

I'd have more respect for him if he'd actually admit that "baiting lefties for angry responses" is not sufficient justification for targeting a gay man for gay-bashing. But weaseling out is another option, I guess.

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | June 20, 2007 2:56 PM

I'd be much more concerned about Ace's zoophilia, actually.

Posted by Dennis Savage | June 20, 2007 9:11 PM