This is among some of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. And something that hits hard… and hurts.
Pico, a poster at progressive DailyKos (a site I actually read quite often), includes links to InterstateQ.com two times in a section on “right-leaning blogs” and “straw man arguments” in a post on the situation with Tyler Whitney.
Pico opens the section where InterstateQ.com is linked to by saying:
Naturally, the Right-leaning blogs have done their best to defend Whitney, typically by erecting one of three strawmen:
Pico then lists the three straw man arguments as (1) The Left is attacking a helpless 18 year old, (2) The Left is attacking a “fellow traveler” whose struggles they should sympathize with, and (3) The Left is attacking someone who simply has different political views.
Pico uses my post on Whitney as his “evidence” in points 1 and 2.
Seriously, how can this be?
How can InterstateQ.com be a “right-leaning blog”? I’m moderate, as in I don’t always “jump on the bandwagon” and actually give some thought to what I might do, I’ll admit that… but I am far from “right-leaning.”
I am a Democrat who supports almost every major political position of the Democratic Party. I’m an LGBT activist who supports every political goal of the LGBT community’s current political leaders. I have been involved in non-violent, direct actions dealing with discrimination in Christian schools and on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy; I have even been arrested, spent time in jail and convicted of criminal charges for what most people would call a “progressive” LGBT movement.
From immigration reform to poverty and health-care to hate crimes legislation and marriage equality and employment non-discrimination and safe schools policies and laws… I’m right there along with the majority of folks in the progressive and Democratic communities.
Evidently, Pico has never taken a serious look at InterstateQ.com. Evidently, Pico has not followed my writings, or my journeys across the country or any of the activism I have done. I don’t know why it is so hard to do. All that must be done is to click on the About page and it is all there. For the 2006 election, I even endorsed progressive, Democratic candidates.
I spoke up against rude, vile and cruel comments. I said that people should treat other people with respect and give them the dignity they deserve as fellow human beings and for that I get blasted by a community – the progressive community – of which I am largely a member.
I’m wondering… If I get my membership in the Democratic and progressive communities revoked, where do I go? I certainly won’t fit in with folks who are truly “right-leaning” (not that they are bad, but just that I won’t agree with a majority of their positions).
I guess when it comes to the point of being pushed away by folks on both sides of the political spectrum and being accused of being too right by those on the left and too left by those on the right… well, then I must be doing something right.
But, I have to say that I think this hurts me the most. I’ve been trying to keep composure when some folks of have said this or that about me or about my site. But this really hurts. To have a post on the *premier* progressive and Democratic website – a site I often read and agree with – put me out of a community of which I thought I was a member, just because I disagreed with what was happening this one time… that . really . hurts
Update (6/22/2007 1:25pm EST): Pico at DailyKos has added an update and clarification on the original post:
Update [2007-6-22 12:27:18 by pico]: Matt at InterstateQ was unhappy with my portrayal of his writing as right-leaning. In fairness to Matt, I have not read enough of his work to make that kind of judgment, so I’ll retract the claim.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:25 am
The best I can say to you is welcome to the current environment of political discourse. It has gotten so polarized in the last dozen years now that, there are a set list of beliefs (on both sides of the political spectrum) and if you part ways on any single one you are considered a rabid XXXXX-winger, left or right. I too have gotten so ticked off at the names that I was getting called on both sides beside I refused to march to every notes of their tunes that I started over on a new blog and do not now talk politics, in person or on the blog!
June 21st, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Don’t worry, some of us still don’t see you as right-leaning.
To be honest, I have a hard time thinking of you as moderate, even. Moderately liberal, maybe.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Well….I bet they’re like, “We got HIM good. He defended Tyler Whitney, so we’ll call Interstate Q ‘right wing’! ha ha!” Nasty, nasty, nasty. Best to learn early on, Matt: If you’re going to be involved in politics, you better develop a very thick skin.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Matt, as we’ve seen before, stupid people transcend logic and reason.
And your skin is tough enough.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Well, to respond first to your commenters, I didn’t label you “rabidly right wing”, or anything that like that. I breezed through a few of your posts and got the impression that you’re a right-LEANING blog. If you feel that’s inaccurate, then I’ll offer a mea culpa, although I might add that most people of any political persuasion will tell you that they “don’t jump on the bandwagon”, etc.
Still, in fairness, I’m not a regular reader here, so I added a note to the bottom of my post to the effect that I labeled your site hastily, if not incorrectly: you can read the retraction at the same link.
However, I still disagree pretty profoundly with the arguments you raised in that other story, and for all the reasons I listed. The quality if mercy is not strained, but it’s hard to find sometimes when – here in Michigan, where Whitney took part in one of those “End Faggotry” protests – we’re desperately fighting against the efforts of conservative activists to dismantle every route that local colleges and universities are seeking to support their LGBT employees and their families. It’s very easy for people to talk about politeness, but I can’t begrudge those who are seriously angry: I know families here who found out this winter that, starting next year, their life partners will no longer have insurance. Why? Because the anti-gay activists in Michigan have put the screws to any employers who receive state funds, and now we’re losing families who are being forced to relocate to support themselves. Words can be nasty, and they can go both ways – but Whitney bears some of the responsibility for having an actual, concrete impact on the lives of others. THAT is why people are angry.
What’s completely and utterly wrong about your post is that you lament how the community is attacking Tyler FOR BEING GAY:
“It isn’t fair to pick on Whitney. It isn’t accurate to say he was “outed.” He’s figuring himself out and I say SHAME ON THE LGBT FOLKS who are treating Tyler with such disdain. Let the boy come out. Let him be who he is. Give him the support he needs and let him figure out who he is. Don’t attack him.”
No one’s attacking him for being gay: it’s the politics he’s fought for that have caused the backlash.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
I meant to add:
“End Faggotry”, “Straight Power”… how are we supposed to back off and lend support to this person? The last of Tim Heywood’s emails to Whitney makes the distinction pretty clearly, which is why I used it as the backbone for my own post: http://www.pridesource.com/rssarticle.shtml?article=25535
There’s a certain level we can agree, that sympathy speaks more highly of us as a community than anger. That’s fine. But I think your criticism here is misplaced, given the distinction I make above between harsh words and harsh actions. Whitney needs to understand the very real and the very not-abstract pain he’s helped cause other people.
He can have all the support he wants for being gay and for coming out: that’s what we’ve built the resources for. But he will not get and he does not deserve support for his political actions.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Pico, thank you for the clarification at DailyKos. I appreciate it.
I think you might have misinterpreted my statement as being one saying that others are attacking him for being gay. Those words do not appear. With your arguments with Leo or whatever at the DailyKos site, you should be well aware of folks who take things and interpret them for themselves. I never said folks were attacking him for being gay. I just said “Don’t attack him.”
Okay… So we disagree. Fine. Dandy. Awesome. Super-fabulous. Disagreement gives birth to speech and discussion, which then turns to a chance for all sides to learn more about themselves and each other.
I’m fine with disagreement. I was just upset over the “right-leaning” thing and being portrayed as something I’m not.
On a lighter note: Your post at DailyKos, while I may not agree with all of it, was VERY well written and constructed and I think you offered some great arguments and great points for folks to think about and discuss. For that you deserve kudos.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Makes you wonder how many articles on the Daily Koz are based on sloppy research, or just glancing over the subject.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Matt,
Lesson learned, and while I thought I’d covered all my bases (see my italicized quick digression in that post, for example), I’m happy to admit when I’m wrong. As my penance (I was raised Catholic!), I promise to become a regular reader of your blog, for the time being.
I still DO think you were reacting to a perceived attack on him for being gay, since that’s how I read your pleas to “let him come out”, and “let him be who he is”. I don’t think anyone had a problem with his coming out, or a problem with his figuring out who he is. So in my mind, you were accusing people of the wrong things. But, as you said, that’s the point of this discussion – to tease out the nuances that we glide over when making our points.
Joe T.,
It’s a problem all over the blogs, but most people I know are happy to publish retractions when they’ve misread or misinterpreted something. It’s the ones who refuse that you have to watch out for. I’d also add that it’s a step-up from the mainstream media, who don’t have the benefit of comments sections to correct their mistakes.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Pico : Not saying you did, but all over the Signorile, Savage, and their ilk, blogs were professed hopes that Tyler whitney would get AIDS, would be abandoned by his friends, would get “queer-bashed” by homophobic thugs, would see the light if he got “a hard __ up his __”… There were definitely attacks, revealing of the character of those who made them./////Okay, I hear what you’re saying about the retractions. It’s what lends credibility. Yes, the ones that won’t do it (like that horrific Pandagon) are the ones you have to watch out for.
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:31 pm
[...] DailyKos: InterstateQ.com is a ‘right-leaning blog’ June 21, 2007 [...]
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 am
Matt,
I just read about your blog in the latest issue of BTL. You shouldn’t get too upset about someone calling you right-leaning, conservative, etc., if it’s not true. As pico acknowledged, people can make mistakes, especially when they feel passionately or are really upset about an issue. It’s important to remember that the opinions of one or two, or a hundred, bloggers don’t represent the opinions of every liberal in the U.S. It’s also important to remember that liberals are much more independent-minded than right-wingers; it’s necessary for us to express freely our disagreements and differences of opionions.
I think modern history clearly shows that the only time the people make any gains is when liberal policies and programs are being followed. When the right-wingers (of either party) are in control, all the gains are made by the few at the expense of everyone else.
All i’m saying is keep being a liberal. Don’t think that the occasional negative comment from another liberal is a reason for you to move towards the purgatory of the “moderate” or “middle”
.
Keep up the good work,
geoff
June 26th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
[...] DailyKos: InterstateQ.com is a ‘right-leaning blog’ June 21, 2007 [...]