Reply #231: A couple of points

[ruggerson]

This OP is not about McClurkin. You've bought into the intentional misdirection of the poster you've responded to, instead of addressing the central points in the body of the OP.

I've been critical of Obama for a number of things. I haven't posted many OP's about McClurkin, since it occurred (though I've responded in a number of threads), but I do not begrudge those who do still post about it, because their point of view is just as valid as your own.

You interpet the gist of the argument to be: "I'm gay, you're not, therefore you have no right to tell me that maybe I'm wrong in my opinions."

Where in the OP does it say that anyone doesn't have the "right" to tell anyone else they are wrong in their opinions? Of course they have the right. I suggest they "shouldn't" be telling gay people what to think about specifically gay issues, because it's arrogant, patronizing and transparent candidate advocacy masquerading as genuine concern about gay rights. Is there a difference between telling someone they "shouldn't" do something and telling someone they "have no right" to do something? I think after some thought you might admit that the difference isn't even subtle, it's glaring.

I admit that the words "shut up" bring about visceral reactions in some. But that sentence is really far more about the word "listen." As in, really try to hear people instead of tossing out a partisan bomb in response to everything with which one disagrees.

Furthermore, my post isn't even remotely about identity politics. It's about being honest about one's intent and being truthful about the extent of one's familiarity with a specific set of concerns.

You are doing the very thing to which your post objects. You generalize about the OP (I'm assuming, because you're writing it in this thread), mischaracterize its intent and then proceed to proclaim its illegitimacy, using your mistaken generalizations as a weapon to proclaim it as an example of self serving identity politics. A tactic which is, gently, pretty darn dishonest.

I think many of us welcome debate. What I do not welcome is intellectual dishonesty. Arming oneself with quickly researched internet talking points about various gay rights issues with the intent to agitate in defense of a candidate whose motives are being legitimately questioned is glib partisanship badly gussied up as serious debate.

Gay people, as you note, are not monolithic. I, for one, welcome serious debate about many issues and have never been quick to assign bigoted motives to a sparring partner, unless confronted with evident, angry prejudice.

You rail against what you perceive as the politicized, assumptive "we" of message board politics. But then you immediately proceed, in your last sentence, to pronounce "That's what most gays want."

You set up a red herring to knock down, and then immediately transform yourself into that to which you would demean.