From the Witchcrazed
For everyone who loves screaming at me for... um... being me, behold, a welcome antidote. It comes from the combox over at Clayton's House of Wounded Feelings. I'm usually not too keen on airing hateposts here, but this is so sinfully angry that it deserves to be propagated:
You've got to love, love, love it when a group's first instinct of criticism is to tar someone (erroneously, mind you) as gay and tie 'em to the stake. It's so 16th-century France.
-30-
"Rocco writes like an angry little girl: uncharitable, catty, emotionally volatile. I see a Village People poster; I see a scrapbook with autographed glossies of Liza, Babs, and Cher; I hear the word fabulous tossed out with a dainty wave of the hand; I see Truman Capote with a penchant for frilly chasubles and church gossip."For what it's worth, I see a bigot.... And anyone who's read me for more than six seconds knows that frilly chasubles are most certainly not my gustibus.
You've got to love, love, love it when a group's first instinct of criticism is to tar someone (erroneously, mind you) as gay and tie 'em to the stake. It's so 16th-century France.
-30-
posted by Rocco Palmo at 18:17
7 Comments:
Rocco,
You seem to get upset when people adopt your own tactics.
Respect is something you cannot demand; you can only earn it... by treating others in kind.
Well, at least that particular author of vitriol isn't anonymous!
"Wait a minute, Rocco. Isn't tarring people as gay YOUR tactic? I seem to remember that whenever anyone appears a bit smells-and-bellsish you find a bit of a prance in their step. Not to mention anyone who dares criticize the gay subculture and its ways..."
It's not Rocco's tactic. His point was not that critics of the "gay subculture" are secretly gay. His point was that critics of the "gay subculture" who criticize it with obvious morose delectation may have their own personal interests in the subject. There's a significant difference.
"Respect is something you cannot demand; you can only earn it... by treating others in kind."
You first, Clayton. Does the name Cardinal Mahony ring a bell?
I don't recall ever seeking respect from Mahony.
Patrick,
Rocco wrote:
*****
How Diogenes Got Her Groove Back
The CWNews people were conspicuously quiet last week as their Chief Pharisee -- pseudo-Catholicism's equivalent of Terry McMillan's soon-to-be-ex -- was dubbed the Queen of Mean. But I did get this very interesting e.mail:
Normally, I despise the specious "if you are a homophobe, then you obviously are a homosexual in denial" argument. However, this time, I think you have pegged Diogenes well. He knows way too much gay lingo for your average red-blooded American male. But more importantly, he wallows in what used to be called "morose delectation," by lingering with intense feline interest over every seedy homosexual episode involving priests and seminarians that he can find - all under the specious guise of righteous moral indignation and outrage. Diogenes' "gin, lace and backbiting" style is incredibly incriminating: most males who despise gays wouldn't write like that. I would love to know exactly who Diogenes is, except that he may turn out to be someone that I personally knew or respected in which case I would be very disappointed.
Ooh. Catty.... But the people do have a right to know. I have all the love in the world for out LGBT. But these closet cases are just the worst. Put a collar or a cross on 'em and it just exacerbates the effect.
*****
It seems to me that "obvious morose delectation" is a judgement open to question - that is, it may not be obvious to all. A person might argue that Diogenes digs into the details the way he does because he sees himself as fighting a general culture of denial about what he sees as a grave problem. He may "linger," as the email's author put it, because he wants to make the matter painfully clear, because he wants to make it impossible to ignore.
I don't know, of course - but then, neither does Rocco or the email's author. And Rocco does more than suggest Diogenes' "own personal interest in the subject." He calls him a closet case.
You say that "there's a significant difference." It seems to me they're both assumptions about a man's sexual preference based on something besides factual proof. If this blog is striving after a journalistic quality, as Rocco says, then I don't think Rocco should publicly broadcast such assumptions.
"I don't recall ever seeking respect from Mahony."
So what? That anti-Mahony flash presentation of yours was a gratuitous and reprehensible act of disrespect for your Ordinary. There is no justification for it whatsoever. None. You should be ashamed of youself. You are in no position to offer pompous lectures to Rocco or anyone else about this sort of thing.
"A person might argue that Diogenes digs into the details the way he does because he sees himself as fighting a general culture of denial about what he sees as a grave problem. He may "linger," as the email's author put it, because he wants to make the matter painfully clear, because he wants to make it impossible to ignore."
And that is indeed a plausible interpretation of Diogenes' motivations. However, Rocco has apparently come to a different conclusion. When you say that "they're both assumptions about a man's sexual preference based on something besides factual proof," that may be true, strictly speaking, but I may point out that, every day, we rightly draw inferences and conclusions based on a person's writing style, personal demeanor, and so on which are not subject to strict factual proof, but nonetheless convey information. When Diogenes writes he is not merely recounting facts, a la Joe Friday. The words and the rhetorical style that Diogenes chooses carries (or betrays) several layers of meanings that tell the reader something about the author. Rocco seems to have concluded from the way in which Diogenes makes his points, (not just the points themselves) that his motivations are decidedly mixed. Rocco may be right or he may be off base, but the suggestions he makes and questions he raises are not entirely unreasonable nor are they based on crude "only closet homosexuals oppose homosexuality" arguments. And, I might add, these kinds of judgment calls based on how someone makes a point, and not just on the point that was made, are just the sort of thing that journalists are called to do all the time.
"Every day, we rightly draw inferences and conclusions based on a person's writing style, personal demeanor, and so on which are not subject to strict factual proof, but nonetheless convey information. When Diogenes writes he is not merely recounting facts, a la Joe Friday. The words and the rhetorical style that Diogenes chooses carries (or betrays) several layers of meanings that tell the reader something about the author."
But isn't this what the fellow who insinuated that Rocco was gay was doing - drawing an inference (however erroneous) from Rocco's writing style, personal demeanor, and so on? I don't think the fellow should have done it, and I don't think Rocco should have done it.
And I'm not sure about your conclusion about journalist judgement calls. I think if I called someone a "closet case" in print, I'd be opening myself up to a libel suit. I do believe that Tom Cruise's lawyers have successfully forced retractions from news outlets that have explicitly accused him of being gay.
That anti-Mahony flash presentation of yours was a gratuitous and reprehensible act of disrespect for your Ordinary. There is no justification for it whatsoever. None. You should be ashamed of youself. You are in no position to offer pompous lectures to Rocco or anyone else about this sort of thing.
Shame on me for casting the cardinal as Frodo?!
What does respect for one's ordinary require? Or more importantly, what does charity require? I'd be interested to know what you think, Patrick.
Post a Comment
<< Home