Hypocrisy On Hypocrisy

Glenn Greenwald claims that his hypocrisy on sexual privacy is justfied by claims of the right's hypocrisy. (BTW, that's a Hot Air link, so you won't get dirty by clicking on it. I'll never link Glenn Greenwald. Maybe Rick Ellensburg, but never Glenn Greenwald.)

Either one objects to invading someone's sexuality or one doesn't. One can't have it both ways. Greenwald can bluster all he likes about believed instances of the right's hypocrisy on the issue, but he proves he's just as hypocritical.

The rule seems to be, "I'm against it if it hurts my party."

Which is hardly an ethic worth calling such.

Many note that this will backfire on liberals. Well, it will, but it will backfire on people of principle generally. Everyone gets a little dirty when the pigs start rooting up shit.

I'm mystified at the liberal religious conviction that gays must think according to the gay agenda, and blacks must do similarly, else they are "hypocrites" and "sellouts" deserving of the worst sorts of blackmail and calumny imaginable.

Does that mean, I wonder, that straights who fail to endorse "the straight agenda" should be blackmailed by outing their own (straight) sexual misbhavior, and that whites who fail to support "the white agenda" (defined as whatever the GOP is in favor of) should be called "racial sell-outs"?

Glenn Greenwald: Racial sellout. A traitor to his race.

Kind of, err, Naziish, eh? What makes it any different when a group identity other than "whites" is used as a pretext for enforcement of group-identity orthodoxy?

Why are non-religious blue staters like me so in favor of the Republican Party?

Because the left is fundamentally creepy and nasty, and compounds the revulsion by claiming their creepiness and nastiness to be moral and principled.

Bonus: I assumed that Glenn/Rick Ellensburg would toss into his post the usual ass-covering "Of course I'm against this sort of thing usually" disclaimer. Which would hardly save him -- a single ass-covering sentence hardly makes up for a thousand-plus words vigorously, well-nigh fanatically defending the behavior.

But...

He didn't even bother to do that.

Did not even bother.

So it seems that he's all in favor of outing the sexual misbhaviors of public figures.

Given that he's, you know, a New York Times bestselling author whose blog is read by Senators in Congress, that might, you know, hurt him.

But he's forfeited any right to object. I could object on his behalf, I suppose. If I were animated to do so.

But Glenn himself? Nope. He's in favor of this, ergo he must hold himself to the standard he would impose on others.

Otherwise, he'd be a hypocrite. Non?

More... MKH on the flap.

Karol... continues the gay-smear campaign, now against me.

How dare she.

Gay Patriot West... chimes in, even quoting Andrew Sullivan. Who, to his very minor credit, proves capable of acknowleging the blatantly obvious in this case (i.e., it's wrong).

That puts him a bit above his wingman Glenn Greenwald, of course. But don't expect Sullivan to take issue with Greenwald, or decry his hatred. Sullivan has precious few allies out there. Principle, as ever, is subject to politics.

When Exactly Did Gay Marriage Become the Sine Qua Non of Gay Tolerance, Anyway? Just a few years ago Sullivan was writing about gay "marriage," but noted, realistically, it would take a long time of careful and patient persuasion to convince the public of the rectitude of such a thing.

Then the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling came down, and suddenly all that stuff about persuasion went out the window. Now was the time for it, by any means necessary, including imposing it on a population hostile to the notion by unelected judges.

How did this happen? How did the gay left go from understanding that this was the Big Magillah that would take perhaps a generation to enact through thoughtful argument, to suddenly deciding the moment was right now, and anyone who disagreed was not merely someone who had to be convinced through reason, but a "hater" to be despised like the Devil himself?

Most people are tolerant -- and more than tolerant; fully accepting, etc. -- of gays, but simply do not believe that gay "marriage" contributes to the actual purpose of marriage (creating stable families).

How did 70% of America suddenly get defined as the most vicious of homophobes?

I keep saying it, but here it goes again:

The fundamentalist, religious-zealot is present in many people, even those who are irrelgious or even atheistic. The may not believe in God, but they still have the need to believe in something as passionately as any self-flagellating fanatic might believe in his All Mighty.

The urge remains. It is simply channelled into a religion without a true god.

If you can defend shameful behavior without shame, you're a fanatic. If not for a acknowleged religion, than for one of your own devising.

You can have a religion without a god. But you can't have a religion without a Devil.

The Mike Rogers and Glenn Greenwalds of the world may not acknowlege any Supreme Good, but they certainly believe in a Supreme Evil.

That would be you.

posted by Ace at 05:07 PM

| Access Comments