Should right wing politicians be outed?

[Bird on a Fire]

That said, if he's committed illegal acts or been blackmailed, I think that story is probably in the public interest and it would be hard to break it without outing him.

[jimbob]

I'm saying stop deciding other people's identities.

I don't care if people think guys f.cking guys is gay or bi. It's not. It's a homosexual act by parties about whose identities I should not assume a god damn thing.

Discussing the sexuality of a person as a political tool to beat them with REGARDLESS of their politics is sh.tty and gross and anyone advocating it is a c.nt supreme.

Fair enough. I'd be happy saying not that this vile (possibly borderline traitor - see below) is gay but that he indulges in homosexual activity, whilst passing laws to restrict gay rights.

As tomp said, if you make sex political, then sex is political.

It's no different from a man being anti-abortion, despite paying his lovers for abortions.

That said, if he's committed illegal acts or been blackmailed, I think that story is probably in the public interest and it would be hard to break it without outing him.

[Squeak]

For those worried about this man being blackmailed or corrupted or a borderline traitor and who don't know who he is, the evidence furnished in the fever swamps of the blogosphere is that he was a fervent anti-trumper who now licks Trump's boots. That's it.

His betrayal of a former political patron for Trump was very public and a very clear example of that slithery behaviour. While it might be interesting to know why he did it, the mere alleged fact of him having sex with men doesn't provide actual motive.

Given the absolute steamrollering that Trump has applied to Republican party, I'd want a lot more evidence of corruption before I thought outing him was more than prurience and schadenfreude.

[lpm]

There's support from the other direction - the National Enquirer ran a catch and kill program. This is known and admitted. They bought stories such as this and instead of publishing offered victims the chance to pay. Trump was both a victim and a participant, with Michael Cohen being his in-between (and skimming part of the fees).

It's hard to imagine why Trump and his boss wouldn't be prepared to purchase the Enquirer safe. Why wouldn't Trump exploit the Enquirer's file on X?

This is a normal part of how Trump does business, not some rare and unusual move into blackmail.

For that matter, it's how UK government whips conducted business for decades. If an MP was a serious problem in a rebellion, he'd receive a little chat about how the whips can help cover up his mistress's flat or his young male friend.

[EACLucifer]

On the hypocrisy arguments, its worth noting that lots of men who have sex with men don't necessarily identify or think of themselves as being gay.

IMHO its better to let people define their own sexuality rather have others than define it for them.

This is a point many ignore or are ignorant of. If I hear another person respond "Hur hur they're gay then ain't they" I will convert myself to pure energy and apotheosize.

I would think that people here who were on the old place for a while are at least aware that bisexuality is a thing, even if that's not exactly what you mean here. What with at least one poster repeatedly saying that they were. Whether they remember that in this context is a different matter.

Men who have sex with Men don't always identify as bi, either. There's a reason MSM is a term.

[EACLucifer]

For those worried about this man being blackmailed or corrupted or a borderline traitor and who don't know who he is, the evidence furnished in the fever swamps of the blogosphere is that he was a fervent anti-trumper who now licks Trump's boots. That's it.

His betrayal of a former political patron for Trump was very public and a very clear example of that slithery behaviour. While it might be interesting to know why he did it, the mere alleged fact of him having sex with men doesn't provide actual motive.

Given the absolute steamrollering that Trump has applied to Republican party, I'd want a lot more evidence of corruption before I thought outing him was more than prurience and schadenfreude.

There are a number of anti-Trump rightwingers that belatedly climbed onto the Trump bandwagon. It does not require blackmail, just being slimy and wanting to be on the winning side.

[Squeak]

For those worried about this man being blackmailed or corrupted or a borderline traitor and who don't know who he is, the evidence furnished in the fever swamps of the blogosphere is that he was a fervent anti-trumper who now licks Trump's boots. That's it.

His betrayal of a former political patron for Trump was very public and a very clear example of that slithery behaviour. While it might be interesting to know why he did it, the mere alleged fact of him having sex with men doesn't provide actual motive.

Given the absolute steamrollering that Trump has applied to Republican party, I'd want a lot more evidence of corruption before I thought outing him was more than prurience and schadenfreude.

There are a number of anti-Trump rightwingers that belatedly climbed onto the Trump bandwagon. It does not require blackmail, just being slimy and wanting to be on the winning side.

This. Precisely.

[Allo V Psycho]

I remain of the view that this is a complex moral dilemma, where the optimal 'moral' outcome may shift, depending on circumstances.

Unfortunately, and unwittingly, I have become aware of who is being referred to. On the basis of the information I have, I would not be in favour of 'outing' the individual concerned.

As far as blackmail is concerned, I would not assume that if an individual is one of a large number behaving in a particular way, that they are not ALL being blackmailed. We live in strange times.

However, the best way to address blackmail, is through the individual themselves choosing to approach the police, and an investigation being commenced with due discretion. As far as I know, a prosecution can be brought without the particular circumstances being revealed.

And as far as politics is concerned, it may not always be clear who is leaking and why. There is a thoughtful and informative apology in the LA Times about a past case.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 ... g-50-years

[Stephanie]

I think people should listen carefully to what plebian and Squeak are saying, and be certain that they understand it, before posting their disagreement.

This.

[tom p]

Cool. Glad that you're all sticking up for the rights of some gay people at the expense of others.

Bravo. Much Ethical.

A: You're now calling him gay. Mind your language, you hateful bigot (since I know you're hard of thinking, I should point out that this is a joke about your hypocrisy).

B: Just being gay (or enjoying gay sex), doesn't mean you're not a hateful c.nt.
If you spend your time being a hateful c.nt to minorities (including gays) and courting the votes of the sort of hateful c.nts who want the gays and blacks and women and trans people repressed and fanning the flames of hatred, but are busy having gay sex with prostitutes, then that information should be in the public domain. Even the hateful c.nts who like that sort of politician have a right to know who they are really voting for. If they choose to still vote for him because they like his policies, then bully for him. He gets to hate his cock and eat it. If they find his personal activities so abhorrent that they won't vote for him, then hard cheese. You live by the sword of bigotry, you die by the sword of bigotry.

[tom p]

I think people should listen carefully to what plebian and Squeak are saying, and be certain that they understand it, before posting their disagreement.

This.

One doesn't have to be a genius to understand what plebsy is saying. He's against outing full stop. That's not hard to understand, so please don't patronise us.
Patronising means talking down to people. Talking down to people is a phrase which means that you think they don't understand something which you do, and it's often the case that it's something they do understand and is really easy to understand, which is why people get annoyed at being patronised.

[Squeak]

I think people should listen carefully to what plebian and Squeak are saying, and be certain that they understand it, before posting their disagreement.

This.

Thank you both.

I would like to think that I would have argued similarly without a bunch of conversations with lgbtiq friends in recent years, but I know that I walked out of journalism school two decades ago, pretty comfortable that sexual hypocrisy was fair game for reporting. To get all meta about the other thread, my thoughts have evolved on this as I've learned more and thought more reflectively.

[Stephanie]

I think people should listen carefully to what plebian and Squeak are saying, and be certain that they understand it, before posting their disagreement.

This.

One doesn't have to be a genius to understand what plebsy is saying. He's against outing full stop. That's not hard to understand, so please don't patronise us.
Patronising means talking down to people. Talking down to people is a phrase which means that you think they don't understand something which you do, and it's often the case that it's something they do understand and is really easy to understand, which is why people get annoyed at being patronised.

Notice that the post I quoted referred to two posters. So maybe read it properly before trying to be condescending, genius.

[Squeak]

I think people should listen carefully to what plebian and Squeak are saying, and be certain that they understand it, before posting their disagreement.

This.

One doesn't have to be a genius to understand what plebsy is saying. He's against outing full stop. That's not hard to understand, so please don't patronise us.
Patronising means talking down to people. Talking down to people is a phrase which means that you think they don't understand something which you do, and it's often the case that it's something they do understand and is really easy to understand, which is why people get annoyed at being patronised.

Tom, I thought we were having a largely thoughtful and productive, if robust, conversation but it's really hard to keep that going when someone is this aggressive towards the forum's moderators when they offer even gentle nudges to try to keep the conversation on track.

I read Steph and BoaF's comments as a reminder that some people in this conversation are coming at this topic from more personal experience than others and that therefore, this is a topic where naked aggression may be less appropriate.

[Stephanie]

It wasn't even as a mod, just as a member here, like... maybe try and understand why some might feel differently, and what they are bringing here.

[EACLucifer]

It wasn't even as a mod, just as a member here, like... maybe try and understand why some might feel differently, and what they are bringing here.

Would I be right in assuming that posts by the mods that don't use green lettering should be assumed to be in the capacity of an ordinary member here, and treated accordingly?

[Woodchopper]

It wasn't even as a mod, just as a member here, like... maybe try and understand why some might feel differently, and what they are bringing here.

Would I be right in assuming that posts by the mods that don't use green lettering should be assumed to be in the capacity of an ordinary member here, and treated accordingly?

Yes, indeed.

[Stephanie]

That's it, yes. Unless it's a thread in the helpdesk/mod or admin area, where I'll assume it's a given I'm replying as an overlord, I mostly try to post as me unless I'm doing a specific moderator/admin action, or it's a pinned post or something.

Quite often other members of the community will try to nudge topics where they think things are getting heated, and I'm happy for them to do so. I'd much rather we could solve things that way without the need for me or other overlords/mods to stomp over a thread.

[tom p]

This.

One doesn't have to be a genius to understand what plebsy is saying. He's against outing full stop. That's not hard to understand, so please don't patronise us.
Patronising means talking down to people. Talking down to people is a phrase which means that you think they don't understand something which you do, and it's often the case that it's something they do understand and is really easy to understand, which is why people get annoyed at being patronised.

Tom, I thought we were having a largely thoughtful and productive, if robust, conversation but it's really hard to keep that going when someone is this aggressive towards the forum's moderators when they offer even gentle nudges to try to keep the conversation on track.

I read Steph and BoaF's comments as a reminder that some people in this conversation are coming at this topic from more personal experience than others and that therefore, this is a topic where naked aggression may be less appropriate.

Hi squeak,
I respect and like you, but I think you might want to learn the meaning of the word "aggressive".
You might also want to compare my sarcastic reply to birdy's patronising post, which you have laughably dubbed aggressive, with plebian's reply to me (when I opined that "if you make sex political, then sex is political"), to whit "No. f.ck off". Who's being aggressive and who was being constructive? Who was trying to have a discussion and who was trying to shut it down? Why did you not pick up on that?
I know people think of me as aggressive, but I usually am not, and I definitely am not being so here. To use a cricketing analogy, you should play the ball, not the bowler.

[tom p]

This.

One doesn't have to be a genius to understand what plebsy is saying. He's against outing full stop. That's not hard to understand, so please don't patronise us.
Patronising means talking down to people. Talking down to people is a phrase which means that you think they don't understand something which you do, and it's often the case that it's something they do understand and is really easy to understand, which is why people get annoyed at being patronised.

Notice that the post I quoted referred to two posters. So maybe read it properly before trying to be condescending, genius.

If only one person is posting intelligent nuanced comment, then only one needs to be referred to with the words "try to understand what x is saying"
Just because plebsy's gay, doesn't make his opinion any more valid or his writing any more intelligent and doesn't make his arseiness any less arsey

[dyqik]

This is a point many ignore or are ignorant of. If I hear another person respond "Hur hur they're gay then ain't they" I will convert myself to pure energy and apotheosize.

I would think that people here who were on the old place for a while are at least aware that bisexuality is a thing, even if that's not exactly what you mean here. What with at least one poster repeatedly saying that they were. Whether they remember that in this context is a different matter.

Men who have sex with Men don't always identify as bi, either. There's a reason MSM is a term.

Yeah, I know. I was trying to say "they should at least have an awareness that it's more complicated than a gay or straight dichotomy" rather than "there's this which completes the picture".

[Stephanie]

One doesn't have to be a genius to understand what plebsy is saying. He's against outing full stop. That's not hard to understand, so please don't patronise us.
Patronising means talking down to people. Talking down to people is a phrase which means that you think they don't understand something which you do, and it's often the case that it's something they do understand and is really easy to understand, which is why people get annoyed at being patronised.

Notice that the post I quoted referred to two posters. So maybe read it properly before trying to be condescending, genius.

If only one person is posting intelligent nuanced comment, then only one needs to be referred to with the words "try to understand what x is saying"
Just because plebsy's gay, doesn't make his opinion any more valid or his writing any more intelligent and doesn't make his arseiness any less arsey

Then why, Tom, are you arguing with me, and not Boaf who wrote the post I quoted?

I'm interested to understand why you quoted me to be patronising, if it was actually boaf's post you had an issue with.

[Stephanie]

Okay, I am going to do this one in green ink.

This thread, amongst others, has got too heated, including from me (I should know better).

I'm going to ask folk to try and be a bit more understanding and sensitive at the moment. Yes, there are a lot of issues going on in the world at the moment that people want to discuss. But I don't think we're all operating at our typical levels of coping. A lot of folk are cooped up or have had significant changes to their daily lives, and that affects their ability to just brush things off. And that's on top of other things they're usually dealing with.

And this isn't just about members, I've heard privately from the mods who are also struggling to cope, or finding the responses from people here more hostile than usual.

So please bear that in mind when you reply.

[Squeak]

One doesn't have to be a genius to understand what plebsy is saying. He's against outing full stop. That's not hard to understand, so please don't patronise us.
Patronising means talking down to people. Talking down to people is a phrase which means that you think they don't understand something which you do, and it's often the case that it's something they do understand and is really easy to understand, which is why people get annoyed at being patronised.

Tom, I thought we were having a largely thoughtful and productive, if robust, conversation but it's really hard to keep that going when someone is this aggressive towards the forum's moderators when they offer even gentle nudges to try to keep the conversation on track.

I read Steph and BoaF's comments as a reminder that some people in this conversation are coming at this topic from more personal experience than others and that therefore, this is a topic where naked aggression may be less appropriate.

Hi squeak,
I respect and like you, but I think you might want to learn the meaning of the word "aggressive".
You might also want to compare my sarcastic reply to birdy's patronising post, which you have laughably dubbed aggressive, with plebian's reply to me (when I opined that "if you make sex political, then sex is political"), to whit "No. f.ck off". Who's being aggressive and who was being constructive? Who was trying to have a discussion and who was trying to shut it down? Why did you not pick up on that?
I know people think of me as aggressive, but I usually am not, and I definitely am not being so here. To use a cricketing analogy, you should play the ball, not the bowler.

I apologise and I'll try to rephrase. When folk like you and plebian and opti bump around and are broadly aggressive, I generally let it slide on by as part of the way you seem to interact and I don't feel any need to intervene. When that turns into snide aggression targetted directly at people trying to pull some heat out of a conversation, that makes me feel uncomfortable.

I'll also add that plebian has skin in this game that you (so far as I'm aware) do not and I was therefore more inclined to give him a pass on this instance, rightly or wrongly.

Steph and BoaF were trying to make this thread a place that people like me can contribute to, without using their stompy mod boots and your response to them felt particularly unkind, which is why I asked you to pull back a little.

Maybe you and others read the situation differently.

[tom p]

Sorry, squeak, but again you're accusing people of writing in an aggressive way, when we aren't.
I don't think that's fair (unless you think that my first post, in which i referred to this hyopcritical very right-wing US politician in insulting terms counts as aggressive, or maybe i shouldn't have called the hateful bigots who like him horrible names - is that it?)

One person in this thread is being aggressive, and it's plebian. He has a clear, understandable point of view, which is morally justifiable (even though i respectfully disagree with him about just such a circumstance). Nobody has been hostile towards him for holding or expressing it, even though he has done so in very hostile terms.
Why do you insist on characterising polite conversation from people who disagree with him as aggressive?

I was sarcastic (not aggressive) to boaf because his post was unnecessary and patronising. Nobody has been dismissive of your views or ignored them, and nobody could have been in the slightest doubt about plebian's views. Boaf's post was as valid as matt hancock (the UK health secretary) telling Rosena Allin-Khan (his opposite number) to mind her tone, when she was being perfectly respectful. You, as a sentient human being, must know that being tone-policed when your tone merits no policing is just pure annoying.

The only person being aggressive here is plebian. If you think that plebian telling me and others to f.ck off is either (a) me being aggressive or (b) something that means you are unable to respond to other comments made by other people, then I don't know what anyone could conceivably do to help you feel more comfortable.

I'm sorry if you think that my very presence in this thread makes you uncomfortable. I will stop posting here to make you feel more comfortable. Since I think what you have to say is interesting and worthwhile, please could you post a list of threads you'd like to vacate so that you can say what you like in without a (totally unjustified) fear that I will somehow respond aggressively or something.
kthxbi