Gay New Yorker coming out as conservative over liberal intolerance.
http://nypost.com/2017/02/11/im-a-gay-ne...servative/
Chadwick Moore, a 33-year-old journalist who lives in Williamsburg, had been a lifelong liberal. Then, last September, he penned a profile for Out magazine of Milo Yiannopoulos — a controversial and outspoken critic of feminism, Muslims and gay rights (despite being openly gay himself). Although the Out story didn’t take a positive stance — or any stance — on Yiannopoulos, Moore found himself pilloried by fellow Democrats and ostracized by longtime friends.
...
After the story posted online in the early hours of Sept. 21, I woke up to more than 100 Twitter notifications on my iPhone. Trolls were calling me a Nazi, death threats rolled in and a joke photo that I posed for in a burka served as “proof” that I am an Islamophobe.
At least two possible categories that could make claim to subsuming it: "Report A Rare Political Species Sighting" and "Who says the
Alt-Left is a fictional counterpart of the Alt-Right?"
How "alt" is the alt-left? They're all over the place. Calling black conservatives "Uncle Tom", "mediocre Negroes", etc., calling pro-life women traitors to their gender, and generally pillorying anyone who disagrees with them. Where is the line between the slander of these minorities and the unsubstantiated slander of conservatives in general (which is necessarily a slander of any minority conservative anyway)? Is it somehow any more acceptable to attack a larger group? Or does that just lend bigotry some cover?
The American version of Liberals are fast becoming the most autocratic force on the planet.
God save us all from the believers.
American conservatives are the classical liberals...freedom and small government borne from a belief in personal responsibility and independence.
(Feb 16, 2017 02:02 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]How "alt" is the alt-left? They're all over the place. Calling black conservatives "Uncle Tom", "mediocre Negroes", etc., calling pro-life women traitors to their gender, and generally pillorying anyone who disagrees with them. Where is the line between the slander of these minorities and the unsubstantiated slander of conservatives in general (which is necessarily a slander of any minority conservative anyway)? Is it somehow any more acceptable to attack a larger group? Or does that just lend bigotry some cover?
In perverse conflict with its own meaning, a degree of secular political culture in the US (on the southpaw side) may have been influenced by characteristics handed down from Christianity or religion in general. Including the traditional need for
demonization of its opponents (Satan, Darth Vader, and other creative incarnations of
Ahriman / Persian dualism).
Social crusading / engineering and its ideological conditioning echoes the missionary work and charity, conversion of pagans, and so forth of the earlier Catholic / Protestant complex. Ritualistic and etiquette propaganda like "correctness" reflects the pious behaviors and verbal litanies of theistic institutions; and a stern response to even facetious violations of it carries the emotional fervor / flavor of America's puritanical history. "Sacredness" is very much alive as well in the way that public exhibitions and lectures similarly idolize their own important figures and revere certain bureaucratic totems and population groups (in the contexts of ethnicity, orientation, legal status in regard to citizenship, etc).
The origins could alternatively be contended to have arisen from inherent, universal tendencies of human nature. But given the dominance of a religious climate which once pervaded the yesterdays of the union / nation, then even if the case... The immediate realization of those innate / abstract templates would have been the spiritual establishments and practices of the country. Thus such being the concrete mediators of their era imparting those inspirations as models to emulate or borrow from.
One could contrast the pejorative "bleeding heart" aspect of local (southpaw) secular political activity to Stalinism and a progression to militant atheism in the old Soviet regime. Where a more nihilistic take on human rights, of just viewing a seditious or non-complying individual as a Newtonian mechanistic machine to be casually disposed of, seems a bit purer in the sense of materialism and being rid of sympathetic, spiritual resonances. Although the rest of Soviet structure very much wallowed in religious emulations (statues of Lenin and Marx displayed everywhere like prophets, with philosophical texts treated as scripture).
Yeah, religion/spirituality seems to be an inherent human need, even if it is sublimated into secular icons. Propaganda terms like "science-denier" definitely fit more readily into an ideological, rather than a scientific, schema.
(Feb 15, 2017 06:46 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Gay New Yorker coming out as conservative over liberal intolerance.
http://nypost.com/2017/02/11/im-a-gay-ne...servative/
Chadwick Moore, a 33-year-old journalist who lives in Williamsburg, had been a lifelong liberal. Then, last September, he penned a profile for Out magazine of Milo Yiannopoulos — a controversial and outspoken critic of feminism, Muslims and gay rights (despite being openly gay himself). Although the Out story didn’t take a positive stance — or any stance — on Yiannopoulos, Moore found himself pilloried by fellow Democrats and ostracized by longtime friends.
...
After the story posted online in the early hours of Sept. 21, I woke up to more than 100 Twitter notifications on my iPhone. Trolls were calling me a Nazi, death threats rolled in and a joke photo that I posed for in a burka served as “proof” that I am an Islamophobe.
alt tabloidism a phodia .
he is being painted as the terribly agrieved victim by a third party as a process of self-celebrity-endorsement.
where are all the facts to back up the story ?
why are there no links to the original story or copys of tweets and comments ?
its hinging on a beleif by the reader to simpley take what is being said as the truth with no supporting facts.
tabloid journalism
the last line of the article is in his pen
"And I hope that New Yorkers can be as open-minded and accepting of my new status as a conservative man as they’ve been about my sexual orientation."
yet the article is in fact listed as being by Annie Wermiel
LoL !
(Feb 20, 2017 07:50 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]alt tabloidism a phodia .
he is being painted as the terribly agrieved victim by a third party as a process of self-celebrity-endorsement.
where are all the facts to back up the story ?
why are there no links to the original story or copys of tweets and comments ?
its hinging on a beleif by the reader to simpley take what is being said as the truth with no supporting facts.
tabloid journalism
the last line of the article is in his pen
"And I hope that New Yorkers can be as open-minded and accepting of my new status as a conservative man as they’ve been about my sexual orientation."
yet the article is in fact listed as being by Annie Wermiel
LoL !
By a third party? He wrote that NYPost piece (the original story) and has done an NPR interview on it.
https://twitter.com/Chadwick_Moore/statu...5980021760
https://twitter.com/search?q=chadwick%20...i&src=typd
https://thinkprogress.org/out-magazine-m....vnz4xk7p6
Wow, how obtuse can you be. The article says, "By Chadwick Moore". You're so desperate to discredit it that you're citing the photographer (Annie Wermiel, tagged under each photo) as the author.
Confirmation bias run amok.
(Feb 20, 2017 08:36 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Feb 20, 2017 07:50 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]alt tabloidism a phodia .
he is being painted as the terribly agrieved victim by a third party as a process of self-celebrity-endorsement.
where are all the facts to back up the story ?
why are there no links to the original story or copys of tweets and comments ?
its hinging on a beleif by the reader to simpley take what is being said as the truth with no supporting facts.
tabloid journalism
the last line of the article is in his pen
"And I hope that New Yorkers can be as open-minded and accepting of my new status as a conservative man as they’ve been about my sexual orientation."
yet the article is in fact listed as being by Annie Wermiel
LoL !
By a third party? He wrote that NYPost piece (the original story) and has done an NPR interview on it.
https://twitter.com/Chadwick_Moore/statu...5980021760
https://twitter.com/search?q=chadwick%20...i&src=typd
https://thinkprogress.org/out-magazine-m....vnz4xk7p6
Wow, how obtuse can you be. The article says, "By Chadwick Moore". You're so desperate to discredit it that you're citing the photographer (Annie Wermiel, tagged under each photo) as the author.
Confirmation bias run amok.
thanks for the links and the clarification about him writing his own whining piece of self inflating victimisation.
i would have thought you would label him a lefty whiner for sure.
surely his choice in voting for a republican would not detract from the premise of him being a self important whiner who is trying to play the victim for picking a highly inflamible person to use as hater click bait for his own promotion.
and into the welcome arms of the right wingers he goes... he has been cured(chants the alt right)... almost(laughs the conservative christians).
and they all got free media.