Should right wing politicians be outed?

[bjn]

This “c.nt supreme” would like to know why should any a member of a particular group get a pass on hypocrisy when using it as a tool for their own political gain? Regardless of whether that group has suffered or continues to suffer discrimination.

[El Pollo Diablo]

I think that there's some merit to each side of the argument here. I can see the basis behind the suggestion of outing a senator who has led efforts to make life worse for gay people. It is, after all, hypocrisy, and there is public interest in making the hypocrisy of politicians public knowledge.

However, I think the effect for gay people - represented so far in this thread by squeak and plebian - is more than just damage to one man's reputation (which obviously could weaken his chances of being re-elected). Unfortunately, it does have a side-effect - it makes it more defensible for the other side to out gay people, even if no hypocrisy has occurred. And I can completely understand why that might be a viscerally horrific idea. Certainly, there's an argument that the benefit of the outing is minimal from the perspective of improving gay rights or quality of life.

It is a balance. From the little I've read, it does seem that, in general, the gay section of society tends to be against forced outing, no matter the reason, no matter the justification. I think that that's worth listening to, as much as black views on racism or female views on sexism.

Yes, pleb was quite aggressive in his posts. Not exactly nice but I think understandable to an extent, given said visceral reaction. Fine, go in hard on him if you want to, though sometimes it is a good thing to rise above it all and not return like for like. (Edit - Tom, you probably feel it wasn't like for like. I can see why you would. Calling someone a hypocrite is, generally, though, an aggressive move). Given that you decided to return some fire, the inevitable general plea for calm and reason probably didn't then need its own hissy fit. And, then being a deliberately patronising arse yourself is quite an aggressive thing to do. Yes, it's not calling people a f.cking c.nt, but aggression doesn't need insult to succeed. Playing the ball is, to destroy the cricketing analogy, something that both sides need to do.

Two people in this thread are being aggressive. Both of you, please stop it.

Just be aware where people are coming from is all. Even something as simple as "I get where you're coming from, but" can help to make a conversation that is heating up cool down a bit.

[Allo V Psycho]

Dear Mods,

Would it be worth considering if some of this could be moved to The Pit? Or at least reiterating the Rules of Negagement?

All the best,

AvP

[individualmember]

I’d say this is rather academic now because it took me less than a minute on google to find out who the person is. So effectively the outing has already happened.

[Squeak]

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

It is not your presence on the thread that upsets me, as I made very clear. You and Plebs and a few others bump around being verbally abrasive and I stay out of the way.

What I objected to was your treatment of BoaF and Steph because it felt very different and more snide, even though it doesn't use any swear words.

Somehow, you seem to think that the fact you're using sarcasm insulates you from the possibility that you're also being aggressive, which I think is a category error.

Anyway, you will continue to be you. I will, when I think you've gone a bit too far, ask you to pull back, and I'm sure will receive a similarly thoughtful and reflective response from you next time too.

And I think that's enough from me on this topic so I'll now follow the mods' request to leave well alone.

[Grumble]

Is it Dale Winton?

[jdc]

Long time listener, first time caller. I just wanted to say how much I've been enjoying Squeak's posts.

I wish I could write posts that were as calm, polite, perceptive, and thoughtful.

[Stephanie]

Long time listener, first time caller. I just wanted to say how much I've been enjoying Squeak's posts.

I wish I could write posts that were as calm, polite, perceptive, and thoughtful.

Yes, I agree. She's been enormously patient, despite some pretty significant provocation.

[Grumble]

If a politician has been misusing public funds to procure prostitutes then that should be exposed. I’m not interested in finding out a politician’s sexuality for its own sake though.

[tom p]

Actually, to bring this back on track, I think my first comment was insufficiently nuanced. If the alleged behaviour occurred before the man in question ran for office, and the man in question didn't make a big deal of his moral background and family life in his election material, then this behaviour should not be revealed.
People have a right to a private life and the right to a life before politics and the right to change their minds.

I'd also like to ask plebian what his attitude would be if the man were f.cking female prostitutes rather than male ones. And what if he had been vocal in condemning prostitution/prostitutes as wicked and legislatively attacking some of the things prostitutes need to be safe (e.g. access to sexual health clinics and condoms)?
Would you be so vocal in saying he shouldn't be outed as a punter? The reason I ask is that looking back over this thread, your first two posts seemed to assume that people who thought his behaviour should be exposed were doing so for homophobic reasons or to pander to homophobes so everyone could laugh at him for being gay. Now, since the thread title is 'Should right wong politicians be outed" and outed does generally mean that, I understand why you would assume that; but it really looks like you haven't actually read what people wrote and simply got narky over the title and then responded to everything through that lens.

[Bird on a Fire]

The reason I ask is that looking back over this thread, your first two posts seemed to assume that people who thought his behaviour should be exposed were doing so for homophobic reasons or to pander to homophobes so everyone could laugh at him for being gay. Now, since the thread title is 'Should right wong politicians be outed" and outed does generally mean that, I understand why you would assume that; but it really looks like you haven't actually read what people wrote and simply got narky over the title and then responded to everything through that lens.

So you got all arsey with me for suggesting that people should check they've understood what other people are saying, and then you come out with this.

Bravíssimo.

[tom p]

The reason I ask is that looking back over this thread, your first two posts seemed to assume that people who thought his behaviour should be exposed were doing so for homophobic reasons or to pander to homophobes so everyone could laugh at him for being gay. Now, since the thread title is 'Should right wong politicians be outed" and outed does generally mean that, I understand why you would assume that; but it really looks like you haven't actually read what people wrote and simply got narky over the title and then responded to everything through that lens.

So you got all arsey with me for suggesting that people should check they've understood what other people are saying, and then you come out with this.

Bravíssimo.

No, because his position is clear: no outing. Your patronising post remains just that (generally, I think your foray into tone policing is not successful - it's generally misguided and only seems to annoy people).
Whether his arsiness was because of his misinterpretation of what others were saying (which is what I'm trying to understand) or just cos he's a tw.t (as I suspect, based on years of other posts) is irrelevant, what he was saying was no outing, pure & simple. I understood that. Everyone understood that. The jackdaw in the tree outside my window could understand that.

On a side note, I'm certain that some dickwads will read this and go 'there goes tom, banging on again, but please just remember that chronology is important, I am replying to birdy who is apparently desperate to keep this thread off track. I was trying to give plebian a chance to elucidate on his views without the obviously highly emotive subject of outing.

[plebian]

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.

I was unaware there were people who identified as abortions who will be further maligned by the continued shaming of their group.

[plebian]

If a politician has been misusing public funds to procure prostitutes then that should be exposed. I’m not interested in finding out a politician’s sexuality for its own sake though.

Reporting crimes is absolutely correct.

[plebian]

I think that there's some merit to each side of the argument here. I can see the basis behind the suggestion of outing a senator who has led efforts to make life worse for gay people. It is, after all, hypocrisy, and there is public interest in making the hypocrisy of politicians public knowledge.

However, I think the effect for gay people - represented so far in this thread by squeak and plebian - is more than just damage to one man's reputation (which obviously could weaken his chances of being re-elected). Unfortunately, it does have a side-effect - it makes it more defensible for the other side to out gay people, even if no hypocrisy has occurred. And I can completely understand why that might be a viscerally horrific idea. Certainly, there's an argument that the benefit of the outing is minimal from the perspective of improving gay rights or quality of life.

It is a balance. From the little I've read, it does seem that, in general, the gay section of society tends to be against forced outing, no matter the reason, no matter the justification. I think that that's worth listening to, as much as black views on racism or female views on sexism.

Yes, pleb was quite aggressive in his posts. Not exactly nice but I think understandable to an extent, given said visceral reaction. Fine, go in hard on him if you want to, though sometimes it is a good thing to rise above it all and not return like for like. (Edit - Tom, you probably feel it wasn't like for like. I can see why you would. Calling someone a hypocrite is, generally, though, an aggressive move). Given that you decided to return some fire, the inevitable general plea for calm and reason probably didn't then need its own hissy fit. And, then being a deliberately patronising arse yourself is quite an aggressive thing to do. Yes, it's not calling people a f.cking c.nt, but aggression doesn't need insult to succeed. Playing the ball is, to destroy the cricketing analogy, something that both sides need to do.

Two people in this thread are being aggressive. Both of you, please stop it.

Just be aware where people are coming from is all. Even something as simple as "I get where you're coming from, but" can help to make a conversation that is heating up cool down a bit.

I am sorry for posting those unnecessary insults. Thank you for taking the time to see passed it and encapsulate how I was feeling better than I could.

Sorry to everybody else for being so aggressive.
I allowed myself to get triggered and should have taken that as a sign to put down the device.

[Bird on a Fire]

The reason I ask is that looking back over this thread, your first two posts seemed to assume that people who thought his behaviour should be exposed were doing so for homophobic reasons or to pander to homophobes so everyone could laugh at him for being gay. Now, since the thread title is 'Should right wong politicians be outed" and outed does generally mean that, I understand why you would assume that; but it really looks like you haven't actually read what people wrote and simply got narky over the title and then responded to everything through that lens.

So you got all arsey with me for suggesting that people should check they've understood what other people are saying, and then you come out with this.

Bravíssimo.

No, because his position is clear: no outing. Your patronising post remains just that (generally, I think your foray into tone policing is not successful - it's generally misguided and only seems to annoy people).
Whether his arsiness was because of his misinterpretation of what others were saying (which is what I'm trying to understand) or just cos he's a tw.t (as I suspect, based on years of other posts) is irrelevant, what he was saying was no outing, pure & simple. I understood that. Everyone understood that. The jackdaw in the tree outside my window could understand that.

On a side note, I'm certain that some dickwads will read this and go 'there goes tom, banging on again, but please just remember that chronology is important, I am replying to birdy who is apparently desperate to keep this thread off track. I was trying to give plebian a chance to elucidate on his views without the obviously highly emotive subject of outing.

I wasn't referring to your tone, tom. Your post makes it clear that you never understood what plebian and Squeak were saying (and which EPD has also helpfully explained). Their concern is about the effects of outing a politician (even one like this) on other people whose sexuality is not public or considered shameful. It contributes to a sense that homosexuality etc needs to be hidden. In other words, the exact opposite of what you're suggesting - not that the people doing the outing would be homophobes themselves, but that even well-intentioned anti-homophobes could be contributing inadvertently to a climate of homophobia and shaming around sexuality.

I hadn't considered that, and clearly nor have you, but I think it bears reflecting upon.

Your style of posting in this thread is obviously off-putting to a lot of people, but you know that already, so I'll skip patronising you by repeating what others have said and go directly to judging you for continuing to ignore them.

[lpm]

I was unaware there were people who identified as abortions who will be further maligned by the continued shaming of their group.

It's women who get shamed. The parallel is a woman senator who shames women who've terminated pregnancies, while secretly having a termination herself. Or a male President who attacks women on abortion, but who has paid for one of his p.rn-star lovers to have a termination.

[lpm]

If a politician has been misusing public funds to procure prostitutes then that should be exposed. I’m not interested in finding out a politician’s sexuality for its own sake though.

Reporting crimes is absolutely correct.

What about crimes that should not be crimes? Such as when sodomy was a crime? Or selling sex is a crime?

[Grumble]

If a politician has been misusing public funds to procure prostitutes then that should be exposed. I’m not interested in finding out a politician’s sexuality for its own sake though.

Reporting crimes is absolutely correct.

What about crimes that should not be crimes? Such as when sodomy was a crime? Or selling sex is a crime?

To be clear it was the misusing public funds that I was objecting to. If they spend their own money on prostitutes I'm not really bothered.

[lpm]

How about if they are snorting cocaine off a prostitute's naked body? A crime, plus the hypocrisy of being fervent supporter of the war on drugs.

[Millennie Al]

How about if they are snorting cocaine off a prostitute's naked body? A crime, plus the hypocrisy of being fervent supporter of the war on drugs.

I think that's performing a public service. To leave it there would be littering.

[Bird on a Fire]

How about if they are snorting cocaine off a prostitute's naked body? A crime, plus the hypocrisy of being fervent supporter of the war on drugs.

I think that's performing a public service. To leave it there would be littering.

As an ecologist, I should point out that there are safer ways to clean up litter than insufflation.