And Now A Word from the King of the FReepers

UPDATED: See below. . .

Original image from Bilerico.com

Every once in a while, I dip my ill-advised toe into FreeRepublic.com. Usually, it is just to see what crazy response they have to a "hot topic" of the day. Predictably, they're usually bat-shit crazy. When Jon Stewart did his bit, "The Blogs Must be Crazy" on The Daily Show last week, he talked about the overly dramatic headlines out on the internets. Nothing he said there even approaches the drama at FreeRepublic.

The topic that drew my attention this time was the prospect of ending the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy. Polls are consistently showing that the issue is polling fairly well, even among the military. Well, FReepers are of course in a snit, and in huge denial over this issue. They also are completely missing the point, most of the time. They act as though there aren't already gay people in the military. Or if they do acknowledge that fact, they predict that if gays don't keep their orientation secret, some sort of orgy and/or mass rape is going to suddenly break out.

You'd think that if a service member was particularly freaked out by gay people, they'd rather that their comrades weren't secretly gay. I mean, if you are so damned attractive that you think you're going to be (ahem) gay bait, wouldn't you appreciate knowing exactly who your unwanted suitors were? As ridiculous as the setup is, I suppose I shouldn't expect logic. And so--as is the case in any gay-related post on FreeRepublic--the topic is a cesspool of ignorance, immaturity and raving homophobia. So I was particularly surprised to see a FReeper being quite sensible and logical on the topic. Wow! Enlightenment in Teabaggistan?

That sort of thing can't be tolerated at FR. No, you have to be a lock-stepper there. Away with your sensibleness! So the grand pooh-bah, big cheese, Lord God King FReeper, Jim Robinson himself sent down this thunderbolt:

"Look, FR is a pro-God, pro-Life, pro-family, pro-Liberty conservative site. The homosexual agenda is not welcome here. If you’re going to defend the perverted anti-God, anti-family, anti-conservative, anti-free speech, anti-free religion, anti-constitution homosexual agenda then we can just go ahead and close your account today.

The military is here to defend the nation. They blow things up and kill people defending our freedom and they risk their lives and they and their families make huge sacrifices while doing so. They don’t need this homo shit. The military is not the place for social experimentation, social engineering or social justice.

NO HOMOS IN THE MILITARY!! PERIOD!! GOT IT??

And if not, take a fricken hike already!!

Our God-given unalienable rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion are not negotiable, not up for sale and are not going to be taken away by HOMOSEXUAL agenda pushers!! --118 posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 9:22:05 PM by Jim Robinson

I just thought you might want to see what passes for civil discourse over there. If you feel like seeing the whole conversation, you may do so here: FreeRepublic

UPDATE: I really think I want to flesh this out a little more. Mr. Robinson is the guy in charge of FR. You'd think he might be a little more rational, a little more mannered than your average frothing right-winger. That's why this stood out to me. I want to respond a bit to a portion of his tirade, bit by bit:

"If you’re going to defend the perverted. . ." Perverted. Define "perverted," Mr. Robinson. What exactly do gay people do that straight people don't also do? Or wish to do?

". . .anti-God, . . ." I personally am agnostic, and irreligious. Many gays are not. Do you like it, Mr. Robinson, when people generalize about you tea baggers (ahem) conservatives?

". . .anti-family, . . ." No gay person I know is anti-family. This is a fake term used in right-wing wedge issue campaign propaganda, and in "send me all your money" evangelist fund raising. The term is utterly meaningless.

". . .anti-conservative, . . ." That would be much better phrased as "anti neo-con, anti-bigot, anti-racist, anti-homophobe."

". . .anti-free speech, . ." Not at all, in no way. Free speech does not protect you from being responsible for what you say. Say what you want, Robinson. But stand behind what you say.

". . .anti-free religion, . . ." Again, WRONG! We just don't want your religion all up in our business. Feel free to practice any crazy religious practices you want, just don't try to get other people to live by the rules of your religion. It is the "freedom from" that you folks seem to have a problem with.

". . .anti-constitution. . ." I'm pretty sure "Constitution" should be capitalized. And this part of Robinson's list is a bit bizarre. What part of the Constitution are gays alleged to be against?

". . .homosexual agenda. . ." Another made of whole cloth neo-con/evangelist term, one that tries to paint a vague cohesiveness of lock-step gay people with a secret plan to "rend the fabric" of America. It is another meaningless phrase. No such agenda exists, and anything even resembling one has never been supported (or even known by) the majority of gay people. This part of Robinson's rant illuminates his way of thinking: paint your enemy as a secretive "other," plotting to change your way of life for the worse. But it is fiction. And Robinson is pathetic.

OK, now I'm done.