This message was self-deleted by its author

[Recursion]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Recursion) on Sun Oct 6, 2013, 09:13 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Pab Sungenis]

1. No, we haven't.

This is just the latest attempt to deflect anti-gay violence as a concern.

[Recursion]

6. Is it? Why does Jimenez want to deflect anti-gay violence as a concern?

Especially given his writing about anti-gay violence in the past?

[Pab Sungenis]

7. Most of it is here.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/02/debunking-stephen-jimenezs-effort-to-de-gay-mat/196229http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/02/debunking-stephen-jimenezs-effort-to-de-gay-mat/196229

"De-gay"ing the murder diminishes the need for hate crime laws.

[Recursion]

8. Right, did you notice I linked and quoted that exact piece in the OP? (nt)

[Pab Sungenis]

12. No, because I've read all this nonsense so many times.

The right wing and the anti-gay have a vested interest in destroying or degrading hate crime laws, and you are playing right into their hands.

We didn't get Matthew Shepard wrong; homophobes want us to think we did.

[Recursion]

18. Ah, well if you're responding without even reading my OP, nevermind (nt)

[Pab Sungenis]

20. I read it

the first 20 times other people posted it here, to other forums, and Facebook.

Stop spreading right-wing myths, please.

[Recursion]

21. People posted my OP 20 times before I wrote it?

That's interesting.

[Pab Sungenis]

22. The same nonsense.

The book was a poorly "researched" right wing hack job, as has been proven, and continuing to give it credence is nothing more than electronic gay bashing, continuing the work Aaron McKinney started.

Go do it at FR or the Cave, not here.

[JustAnotherGen]

24. +1000

Exactly -

We didn't get Matthew Shepard wrong; homophobes want us to think we did

Extends beyond JUST homophobes though - and it goes to a group of people who believe all others have no reason to believed they are "othered" in America.

They don't want hate crime laws because their existence proves homophobism, racism, prejudice, and bigotry exist in America - unless it is directed at a white heterosexual Christian male. It's why they have convinced that group to join their TEA induced fantasy world.

[Scuba]

2. Even if the story is "all wrong" that doesn't mean hate crimes and homophobia don't exist.

[Recursion]

5. The full Advocate piece gets into that

As well as the "use" of people as symbols. I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a drug-related aspect to the murder that neither the prosecution nor the defense was very interested in bringing up.

[cali]

3. revisionist history of the worst sort.

[Recursion]

4. What makes you say that?

I haven't read it. Have you? Media Matters and the Advocate, both of whom I'm mostly inclined to trust, say completely different things about his sourcing.

If the Advocate is right that Jimenez talked to former partners of Shepherd, then that's one thing; if Media Matters is right that most of his reporting is based on anonymous innuendo, that's another. I've seen two interviews of Jimenez and he seems to be interested most in getting the story right. But then again people can present themselves as something they aren't on a video.

Like I said, I'll read the book and see.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Why did you post all of your theories prior to reading the freaking book? Are your views so

important and so informed on this subject that they must be heard without delay and without any educational background to inform them?
Your OP ends with your own 'conclusions' about a book you have not read? Who would do such a thing and why?

[Recursion]

14. Are my views so important and informed that they make you furious?

Your OP ends with your own 'conclusions' about a book you have not read?

My OP ends with my takeaway from the two articles I posted, and starts with the caveat that I haven't read the book they're talking about because it only went on sale a few days ago but has made a really big stir in the blogosphere.

[cali]

15. No, but I've read a lot about it

Look, it's exceedingly difficult to believe that these "facts" came out 15 years after the event.

[Recursion]

17. I don't know. The Advocate's point about Lawrence v. Texas is a good one

It didn't break until fairly recently that the couple involved in that case weren't having sex, and weren't a couple. Mostly because nobody bothered to ask.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. I take it all back. Fuck this attempt at revision and insinuation.

I had you all wrong, you keep posting this anti gay shit along with your promotions of homophobic religions as superior to all other human thought.
I am so angry right now, you petty creature you should delete this shit, you don't understand what you speak of at all. You straight folks, always blathering about shit you don't comprehend then you always get angry at US for telling you to cease and desist.

[Recursion]

10. What "anti-gay shit" have I posted?

WTF? I posted an article from the Advocate and a Media Matters piece that disagrees with it.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. That's dishonest. You did not just post articles you also posted your own 'thoughts'

the OP ends with
My own thought is that it's entirely possible that:
* A meth deal gone bad was an element of the crime
* Homophobia was an element of the crime
* Shepherd had had an ambiguous relationship with one of his killers before that night
* The meth aspect of the murder has gone completely ignored because complex stories don't frame well
* Jimenez is reporting in good faith


But of course you have not read the book yet, just could not wait to come here and do this. I am not the only poster challenging you on this shit. Don't dare act like I am. We can all read.

[Recursion]

16. You said "you keep posting this anti-gay shit" and I wanted to know what you meant

I don't even talk about LGBT issues much on DU and I have no idea what you're thinking of, unless you just mean this OP.

Are those five bullet points that I came out with after reading both those articles the "anti-gay shit" I'm guilty of?

[LuvNewcastle]

19. Real life is complicated and messy.

From what I've read about the murder, I believe it was a hate crime, even though there were some other disturbing circumstances and undercurrents to the crime. Gay or bisexual people can commit hate crimes, too. In fact, some of the ugliest hatred of gay people comes from others who can't or won't come to terms with their own sexuality.

I don't know what conclusions this author arrives at from the evidence he presents. I don't even know the quality of his evidence. From what I read in this article, it seems rather sensationalized, and that turns my stomach when we're discussing a hate crime. I think I'll get my facts about the crime from someone who isn't desperate to sell a book and who approaches the subject with more respect for the victim.

[quinnox]

23. Aren't you a gungeon person? Because I have noticed

a definite right wing tinge to some of your posts here in general discussion.