So the anonymous conservative blogger who runs the blog called, er, Anonymous Conservative, is upset that The Human Rights Campaign, an influential LGBT group, is calling for stricter gun laws in the wake of the Orlando massacre.
To Anonymous Conservative, calling for gun control rather than, well, Muslim control is evidence that gays are too illogical to ever be trusted to tell the truth. Or at least it’s a good excuse for AC to pretend that he thinks gays are too illogical to ever be trusted with the truth.
And if gays are this illogical, AC concludes, gun owners should never vote to convict anyone charged with hate crimes.
Dear reader, your immediate reaction to this leap in, er, logic may be the same as my immediate reaction:
So let’s try to make sense of AC’s rather novel argument. Near the start of his post on this subject, AC sets forth his thesis:
[I]f these gays want to try and attack the rights of gun owners, all gun owners need to point out is that if they begin to feel hostile to gays, and begin to see gays as too emotional and illogical, they might begin to not believe the testimony of gays in trials.
Huh. It sounds like these hypothetical gun owners are deciding to dismiss testimony from gays out of spite, not because they genuinely believe that gays are unreliable witnesses. But AC insists he’s sincere, though I’m pretty sure he’s not being sincere about that.
Personally now, I am quite confident that nothing a gay says could be believed, if they cannot come to terms with the fact that Islamic fundamentalism, and not a gun, was the cause of the Orlando shooting. I can’t help but realize how that realization of their illogicality would contaminate any testimony from any gay in a trial setting. I would even question whether any physical evidence was manufactured by an overly emotional gay, unable to deal with simple reality as it exists.
If all gun owners felt this way, AC concludes,
it would in effect jury-nullify all hate crimes laws, and possibly affect any trial involving a crime committed against a gay.
AC thinks this brilliant scheme would be easy as pie to pull off:
There are about 102 million gun owners out there (32% of all Americans), and all a defense attorney would need to do is find one to put on the jury of a man who beat a gay guy, stabbed a transgender, or murdered a transvestite. Did a transgender man use the girls locker room when a pee wee swim team was changing, and get beaten to a pulp? Don’t think the beater is going to get convicted on the word of the gay.
Yeah, it’s not like there would be other evidence or anything. Except maybe “the gay’s” physical injuries, bloodstains on the assailant’s clothes, an entire pee wee swim team’s worth of witnesses, surveillance camera footage of the beater fleeing the scene, or, wait, that does sound like a lot of evidence.
If gays think guns should be banned, then the gay’s testimony is meaningless, and I would assume any evidence had been fabricated in an overemotional meltdown.
Ah, yes, because gays have the ability to fabricate injuries, video footage, an entire locker room full of witnesses.
[I]f gays are this unable to perceive simple reality, I could probably never vote to convict in any such case. I suspect if I had been on the trial of the Orlando shooter tomorrow, I am not sure I would have been able to vote guilty, given the stories of a second shooter, the gay holding the door shut, and the fact that the shooter himself appears to have been gay.
Dude, you’re aware that the shooter is dead, right? Dead men aren’t generally tried for murder.
It would all have been too convoluted, I suspect. I would probably have let him walk out the door of the courtroom a free man, and I would have felt it was the only moral outcome, given my convictions regarding the gay’s inability to perceive simple realties such as Islamic radicalism, and the fact guns reduce crime when the law abiding have them.
I’m pretty sure it’s not “the gay” who is having trouble perceiving reality here.
The potential consequences against gays would admittedly be dangerous. Millions of people who want to commit crime might begin targeting gays specifically, knowing that they would be unlikely to be convicted, given how all it would take is one of the 102 million gun owners to land on their jury – and the lawyers of the perpetrator would undoubtedly be looking for gun owners to put on the jury.
Nice justice system you’ve got here, pity if something were to happen to it.
Also, dude, you do realize, don’t you, that prosecutors also get to screen jury members, and could veto anyone who seemed to believe any of the nonsense you’re peddling.
Gang members, who need to kill somebody as an initiation might seek out gays as victims, thinking they would be a free kill, and sadly there would be nothing I could do about that.
Would these gang members flash their car lights at gay drivers to get them to pull their cars over?
Those prone to engage in violence against gays specifically because of homophobia might be emboldened, and gay attacks could increase precipitously, and obviously all of those gay attackers going free without any consequence would be unfortunate.
Nice justice system you’ve got here, pity if something were … oh wait, we did that already.
However gays do not seem to consider our safety when contemplating their actions. They are all too happy to try and make us and our families less safe by preventing us from getting the guns we want to protect them. So the idea that gays would be less safe due to our realization that gays are too emotional and cannot be trusted, would not be of concern to me. I would have to vote my conscience – every time – and I suspect most other gun owners would as well.
And as an added bonus, this dumbass idea might bring about the collapse of civilization itself!
Once a group is, from a practical perspective, unable to appeal to the justice system for justice, it will not be long before the entire system’s foundation is in question. I suspect most politicians, rather than see this come to pass, would rather let everything cool off.
Perhaps this is the only path forward for the nation however – one step closer to Apocalypse.
Dude, why wait for the possible apocalypse? Seal yourself up in your doomsday bunker right now and avoid the rush!
@monzach
No, you’re making perfect sense. And you make an excellent point.
It’s also true that some perfectly fine words can be used maliciously.
Take, for example, the guy who used to address me as “Woman.” I’m sure his thinking was that if I was so damned proud to be a woman that I was a feminist, then he might as well call me “Woman” instead of my name. Kle-ver!
Then there was the guy who used to address me by my ethnicity, a fraught term. I told him to stop but still let him get away with it for a long, long time. Then, out of desperation, I started to address him by his ethnicity, another fraught term. The harassment stopped.
Best wishes for many long, restful nights!
The tangent concerning the term transv****** actually struck me as confusing as well, even having grown up in the US. I always understood it as strictly referring to dressing in clothing generally restricted to another gender (or, in the case of women who crossdress – since there no longer exists culturally off-limits clothes to women in mainstream culture – dressing in such a way so as to present as a man). This seems to be the popular understanding of the term as well as being included in explanations of the trans* umbrella by those trans* people I would read back when I was trying to learn more about the basics.
Of course, I understandably don’t have my fingers on the pulse of gender identity issues, so I can only assume it’s more to do with the term being misused in order to misgender transgender people, though it’s not necessarily a polite term regardless. In that case, though, I would suppose that any term implying that transgender people were just one gender masquerading as another would be equally offensive.
On the original topic, though, I’m impressed that this person managed to both whine about how no gay people recognize that “radical Islam” is the real danger to T3h Gay while simultaneously making a very strong case that he’s part of the real danger.
Yeah dude. They are real worried that bigots might “start” aproving of violence against them.
Uh huh.
Priviledge really does let these people live entirely oblivious to how other people have to live. Nary a shred of awareness.
@calmdown
Yeah, yeah! That’s what I meant! They use the slurs they use specifically to dehumanize. Even when they use the appropriate terminology (transgender instead of, well, take your pick) they don’t add the necessary, humanizing term. It’s like they’re speaking a language with an offensive case, and they’re just messing up the translation to the Decent dialect… Nah, they’re just assholes
Re: the term discussed upthread
I didn’t know that was a slur til just now. Eddie uses it, so I assumed it was cool. Fair enough. I’ll put it on the ‘offensive’ list 🙂
Hey last time I checked most straight Americans support stronger gun control. Guess we should deny straight people protection under the law too then.
Oh what the hell. I can’t handle any more of this. No more shooting.
I can’t think about that anymore, so instead @dlouwe
I need this on a button. I need this on 10,000 buttons.
Also I want to add mr anonymous conservative, as a freedom hating liberal statist I don’t want to take away a responsible gun owners guns.
I want to take away YOUR guns. Because you are not a responsible gun owner. You are a bigoted vindictive asshole and I don’t trust you with anything more dangerous then tissue paper.
It’s said that “someone who would give up essential freedom for the slightest amount of security deserves neither freedom or security.” I never liked that quote. But right wingers if you’re going to use it how about we agree the reverse is also true: “Neither do those who would destroy the essential security of everyone else for the slightest amount of their own freedom.”
@skybison
Benjamin Frankin also said that private property only exists because of society, and that if needed, it could be taken for the public good, even to the very last bit.
A lot of these people don’t seem to realize that with power, comes responsibility.
Well, the “Guns aren’t to blame for mass shootings, islamic fundamentalism is!” hypothesis is pretty easy to test.
Can somebody can find the number of mass shootings in – oh, let’s say the last five years – done by people who were not islamic fundamentalists?
I’ll dig up the number of mass shootings done in the same period by people with no guns. Huh, turns out it’s none. Did we get that other number yet?
What a very silly man.
Wait, so only “gays?” What about everyone else who wants gun control?
This is such a patheticly weak attempt at pretending that he’s not a homophobe, it’s hard to even take it serious. We are sure this guy is serious, right?
Not even really sure what to say. This is so far inside the realm of stupid, I really dare not enter.
Yeah…
On the matter of the word ‘transvestite’:
Where I am from (or at least: amongst the people I hang out with) it is simply used for those people who on occasion dress like the opposite sex, but whose gender identity is cis. For example, the male transvestite would not go to work in a dress, but will dress up like a woman when going out at night – but not always. It’s a synomym for “cross-dresser.”
It is not, however, used as a derogatory term, but I am sure this depends solely on who is using it and what their intentions are. In my experience almost every word can be used in a negative way, if one really wanted to. I have never been scowled at for using the word. But then, in my circles people don’t have the “don’t use it unless you are it”-attitude. Luckily. I find that attitude, no offense, completely retarded, especially because it apparently applies only to certain words. According to some people I could use ‘gay’ (for example), but not ‘transvestite’? It’s a little weird, to say the least.
But oh, personally I care much more about people’s intentions than their choice of words (although often they are linked, obviously).
Okay, I am rambling. Hopefully I have been more coherent than the subject of today’s post, mister AC.
They’re becoming afraid. There’s a chance they might lose.
In what world does “the gays are gonna take our guns!” make any sense? In the unlikely event that meaningful gun law reform is enacted, it will be by Congress (mostly not gay) in response to the wishes of millions of voters (mostly not gay). Does this guy live in a bubble where only gay people thought Orlando was a tragedy?
The Senate has rejected the latest gun control proposals. Given that Republican senators evidently believe that even people on the FBI terror watch list should be able to buy guns as easily as possible, I think Mr AC’s guns are safe. Well, maybe safe isn’t the right word.
The would-be Trump shooter sounds like a fantasist, and not just because trying to grab a cop’s holstered gun was unlikely to end well. It turns out he had never fired a gun until the day before the event, when he went to a range and fired 20 rounds. Yep, that sounds like ample training – as long as what you’re trying for is “suicide by cop”.
@ Dlouwe
Whether or not juries can ask the deceased victims is a question that’s not been settled in English law. A conviction where some jurors had used a Ouija Board to contact the victims in a double murder was overturned. But that was because the session had taken place at the jurors’ hotel and not all jurors had taken part. As a general rule courts aren’t allowed to investigate or interfere with what takes place in the actual jury room.
Ironically, on the retrial the guy was convicted again, so the Ouija Board had got it right.
@Alan
Ouija boards are kinda amazing at being able to tell you what you were thinking anyway or wanted to hear in a way that makes you feel like you didn’t do it yourself. I have one, but haven’t used it in years.
@ rugbyyogi
I just love the fact that it was actually designed as a game; the copyright is owned by Hasbro. It has as much occult background as Hungry Hungry Hippos.
But I can see how you could use it to tap into your subconscious. There’s actually a word for that unconscious movement of your hands (but I can’t remember it); it’s the same phenomenon as dowsing.
ETA: ‘Ideomotor reflex’ – thanks google!
Ugh, this has nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism. The shooter didn’t even practice his religion and was so under-educated in actual terrorist organizations he pledged allegiance to ISIS, Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda — all of whom hate each other.
This has to do with an angry young man who might have been a closeted gay or just someone who hated non-heteronormative people easily getting the guns needed to kill and wound around 100 innocents just trying to have some fun at a guy club.
I’m tired of identities of the dead and wounded being erased. They died because they were not straight. It’s just like the North Carolina church shooting all over again. Those people died because they were black, not because they were Christian.
@Alan Robertshaw:
Now I can’t stop imagining a cult of hippos wearing hooded cloaks and holding candlelit seances, and it’s amusing me more than it should.
@ Saphira
That was South Carolina. We’re the one with the hateful bathroom law.
Kootiepatra:
They are hungry… for your soul.
I’m trying to imagine how a group of nine year old girls would be able to beat a grown transgender man to a pulp.
The rest of his screed is even more illogical and emotion-driven. He can’t decide who he hates more, “the” Muslims or “the” gays. “If you disagree with me you’re crazy, and eveything you say is automatically a lie!” It’s the go-to defense of lazy people who know their opinions are too stupid, and their supremacy too fragile, to withstand a challenge from the outside world.
Where would you even draw the line? If gay people’s testimony is inadmissible because it doesn’t align with his beliefs and is therefore unreliable, then women, minorities, and people with mental illnesses are also disqualified from due process. The conclusion (although he doesn’t come right out and say it) is that gun owners ought to be able to shoot these groups at will, with no legal consequences.
This guy seems way too unstable and illogical to be trusted with firearms, jury duty, and the internet.
I’ve always seen transvestite accepted as a term for cross-dressers and offensive when used to refer to transgender people, since they aren’t cross-dressing. Though what is or isn’t offensive can change rapidly; queer was considered a slur where I lived until maybe five years ago.
Dear @Eleni
Hiya! Nice to see you commenting more regularly. A few things tho:
This shoulda been your cue to, no offense, shut the fuck up. ‘No offense’ is like ‘I’m not racist, but’, only the bullshit that’s about to be said isn’t limited to any specific kinda bigotry. Still bullshit tho. Don’t
1)words aren’t magical creatures that fly from the mouth of their own accord. They are deliberately chosen and said. We can’t read minds, but we can give weight to words and actions. People who call gay people ‘f****ts’, are usually shitholes
2)nobody gives a shit what you care about quite frankly. You don’t care about the people who get hurt by these words? Awesome! Now, kindly fuck right off
Yes, that’s as much congeniality as I could manage. Thanks for your time
-Axe
With regard to the Ouija board – it looks like entrepreneurs took advantage of a new technology in the field of spiritualism:
“As spiritualism had grown in American culture, so too did frustration with how long it took to get any meaningful message out of the spirits, says Brandon Hodge, Spiritualism historian. Calling out the alphabet and waiting for a knock at the right letter, for example, was deeply boring. After all, rapid communication with breathing humans at far distances was a possibility—the telegraph had been around for decades—why shouldn’t spirits be as easy to reach? People were desperate for methods of communication that would be quicker—and while several entrepreneurs realized that, it was the Kennard Novelty Company that really nailed it.
In 1886, the fledgling Associated Press reported on a new phenomenon taking over the spiritualists’ camps in Ohio, the talking board; it was, for all intents and purposes, a Ouija board, with letters, numbers and a planchette-like device to point to them. The article went far and wide, but it was Charles Kennard of Baltimore, Maryland who acted on it. In 1890, he pulled together a group of four other investors—including Elijah Bond, a local attorney, and Col. Washington Bowie, a surveyor—to start the Kennard Novelty Company to exclusively make and market these new talking boards. None of the men were spiritualists, really, but they were all of them keen businessmen and they’d identified a niche.”
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-strange-and-mysterious-history-of-the-ouija-board-5860627/?no-ist
As far as the word ‘tr*nsv*st*t*’ I wasn’t aware it was widely considered offensive. Now I know. Is there a preferred term?