Chuck Dixon on DADT repeal

[HamsterRage]

Unintended consequences for generations to come.

This is what happens when folks who value the few over the many are in charge. And by many I mean the American citizenry who rely on our military for protection from our enemies.

* * *

And the demonzing will continue as the negative impacts of this new policy (or lack of one) begin to arise. Anyone pointing out the consequence sof this vote will be shouted down as a homophobe and have their reputation attacked.

Anyone who thinks that this hasn't been, from the start, the Far Left's way of "getting back" at the military is living in Oz.

The most ludicrous example I can thnink of is the use of polls within the services when reporting in this issue. Firstly, the MSM's use of polls is always to be questioned. Secondly, since when has our military acted in response to polls from the troops? Amd thirdly, since when has the MSM and Far Left ever cared what our soliders, sailors, airmen and marines thought on any given subject? Frankly, I can never remember a poll taken among our guys and gals asking for thier opinion on anything. Probably because the New York Times and NBC wouldn't like the results. Goid forbid we should find out that morale remains high in a time of war despite the sacrifices being made. Same reason we get an "Awww...." for the wounded troops between stories about pop stars and multi-birth moms but never hear one of these guys interviewed.

And this issue really has nothing to do with homosexuals. The whole issue of gays in the military is a Trojan Horse to allow more liberal social engineering into our armed services. They've finally broken the Marines who will have to follow this new non-policy without question or modification. That's a huge victory for the Left. But they could have done it with vegan vegetarians just as well.

Next will be racial quotas for the different branches. (they've already tried affirmative action with the SEALs) Followed by lifestyle quotas. "Not enough lesbians in your unit? We'll fix that with a court order." And environmentalism; building a tank with a smaller carbon footprint and to hell with the guys riding inside of it or how much firepower it packs. The services are already lawyered up so how hard can this be?

Let's take vegetarians as an example. Vegans aren't bad people. Their life decisions don't hurt anyone. Heck, I married one. But when her chocie of diet was going to hurt someone (when she was pregnant) she gave up her choice and added dairy and chicken and fish to her diet.

So we take away the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for vegans. Now they must be accomidated. Each unit must have the proper percentage of vegan MREs. Each naval vessel must have separate meals prepared for swabbies who prefer mung beans and brown rice to BBQ and cream gravy. And those provisions must be stocked in quantity because who knows how many vegans there are and who might decide to switch to vegan in the middle of a deployment. And the food has to be the highest quailty tax payer money can buy. No second class frozen stuff like the kosher meals the airlines used to serve. If the saffron sauteed tofu isn't top of the line then the lawsuits will fly. And never mind that a vegan diet does not meet the basic caloric requirements for a combat soldier, sailor or marine. This is about fairness and lifestyle choices not fightin' ability or protecting the lives of your buddies or your fellow country men. It's what goes in your tummy that counts. You are what you eat not my country 'tis of thee, right?

If this post is quoted elsewhere on the web you won't se this section reported:

Look, I hope it all works out. I personally wouldn't care iof the next Audie Murphy was gay. I'd be just as proud of that man or woman. And I'm sure our troops will do all they can to make this new non-policy work because they are good, decent, tolerant men and women. These are the same branches of the service that integrated blacks into their ranks long before the rest of the country did the same. And those traditions continue. You won't see the gay bashing I'm sure the MSM is salivating for just as they breathlessly awaited the mass lynching of Arab-Americans post 9-11. I'm certain it will all go smoothly. Our commanders (even those that oppose it) will make sure of that and our service men and women will follow orders. They will serve as they have always served; as a good example for the rest of us of what an American can be.

But it is still wrong to tinker in the name of social justice with the greatest fighting force on the planet. And I don't mean "greatest" simply in terms of ass-kicking skils. I mean, historically, the most noble and generous military that has ever marched on this planet. You ask anyone around the world which army they'd rather see show up in time of trouble and (if they were honest) they'd tell you they'd rather have the G.I.s on the ground than the U.N. or NATO or any of their neighbors.

But the Far Left, through incremental moves in the media and the courts and legislation, are insistant on meddling with how our military works. With one hand they lay on new policies, rules and restrictions while disarming our guys with the other hand. START treaty? Seriously?

And they won't be happy until all five branches of the service (not forgetting you, Coast Guard) are more like our college campuses than the guys who charged Devil's Den or landed on Omaha Beach.


ugh... Dixon is great writer, but when it comes to politics, the man is off his nut.

[Treacle]

The sentence that sticks out the most to me is the social justice one.

If it's not right to tinker in the name of social justice, when is it right to tinker?

[BnL]

Yeah, this came up in another thread. I find him absolutely disgusting. You don't even need to read any further than his bullshit about liberals not caring about our soldiers before realizing what a worthless rant it is. Fuck that creep.

[BnL]

Yeah, this came up in another thread. I find him absolutely disgusting. You don't even need to read any further than his bullshit about liberals not caring about our soldiers before realizing what a worthless rant it is. Fuck that creep.

And by the way, I'm sure that, in the event that this thread gets posted on Dixon's site, they will all point to my post and cry victim, crowing about how nasty liberals are despite all their preaching about tolerance. After all, Chuck made his point in an even tone, and didn't use dirty words, so he doesn't deserve a profanity filled, angry response. But you know something, it stops being a civil discussion the moment you accuse me of not caring about the troops, and in fact, trying to HURT the military in a petty act of revenge. So you can play innocent all you want, as you dress your insulting, groundless bullshit up in pretty words, but my tone is only as hostile as yours. The only difference is that I'm not trying to hide behind an illusion of civility.

[jesterwitch]

I'm done reading Dixon's comics. I've read a bit of his comic book work. I thought it was pretty good. However, after reading that thread, knowing his true colors when it comes to his politics, how he feels about the gay community & equal rights, etc...*shakes head*

*sigh* ....It'll just feel wrong. The story, his writing, all of it. All of it will feel like a lie.

[Gail Simone]

I quit Chuck's board over a conversation just this stupid a few weeks ago, about Batwoman. It was so unbelievably offensive and the points of contention so mushy and ridiculous that I had to ask the poor moderator to remove my posting ability.

It makes me very sad. Chuck wrote a lot of my favorite stories, and I obviously am using his characters constantly.

It's just sad. But you can either go along to get along or you can say what you believe is right, even if it costs you friends.

[jesterwitch]

It's just sad. But you can either go along to get along or you can say what you believe is right, even if it costs you friends.

It really is sad. I'm sorry you had to do what you had to do, Gail. Personally? I'm through with being around people whom you can't reason with. I choose to believe in what is right. And if that means losing ALL of my friends, then so be it. :duel:

Besides, there's so much arguing going on on these messages boards now a days. It's one thing to bring awareness to the conversations...And it's another to feed the drama. I don't want to feed the drama.

[WillieLee]

He really doesn't like vegans.

[Chris Jones]

He really doesn't like vegans.

Well, to be fair, homosexuality is a lot like veganism, in that it's both a lifestyle choice and an imposition upon other people.

OH WAIT WHOOPS

[Reverend Smooth]

Sorry you feel that way, Chuck. ._.

But it's not about social engineering. It's about doing the right thing.

Conservatives need to stop making who people fuck a political issue. If they didn't, laws that limit freedoms wouldn't need to be repealed. Last I knew, the government messing with people's freedoms was a BAD thing.

[Basque]

My favourite line is:


And this issue really has nothing to do with homosexuals.

LOL. What an idiot.

It's getting increasingly hard for me to reconcile what I think of the man with what I think of his comics. I refuse to buy anything written by Orson Scott Card since I've found out what a hateful bigot he is. (What finally did it was his post about how the government needs to be overthrown, by violent means if necessary, if they allow gay marriage, because gay marriage would mean the collapse of democracy. Seriously, OSC said that.) So how can I justify all those Dixon-era Robin and Nightwing comics I'm collecting?

This is endlessly problematic for me. On the one hand, I don't want to deprive myself of something that I love just because I disagree with the opinions of the person who wrote it, but on the other hand it kills me to know that I'm supporting them at all by purchasing their books.

[Stressfactor]

I don't care much for the blindness of Dixon's post among others.

As I wrote elsewhere: Dixon says he doesn't care if the next Audie Murphy is gay (and yes, Chuck, I DO know who Audie Murphy was) but the point is that there otherwise wouldn't BE a gay Audie Murphy because under DADT if it EVER leaked out, in ANY way that person would be discharged.

And for those who said "well, it's not broke -- I was in the military and there was a guy we all KNEW was gay but no one said anything about it because he did a good job..." Well, goodie for you. The fact is that you were then breaking military law because the military said "No Gays". So if you "knew" someone was gay and didn't turn them in you were breaking the law. And if that guy, who did such a GOOD job in the military got transferred to another base where the people weren't so "understanding"? Yeah, he could get tossed out of the military.

And gays were having to do their jobs AND make sure that they never once slipped up -- that they never once said anything or did anything that might make someone suspect they were gay. Because if they did -- they could get thrown out.

So no, I'm sorry Mr. Dixon but that arguement just doesn't hold water.

If you want good PEOPLE in the service then they shouldn't have to do their job as service people all the while living in fear of being "found out" and forced out of a service that they may truly believe in and also may truly be GOOD at.

[KJ!]

What an utter douchebag.



I've always liked his writing, he's one of the most talented writers the comic industry has seen. I've got a lot of his work, spanning well over a decade.

This just makes me want to throw it all away.

This pushes me to the point of not being able to separate the writing from the writer.

Not many people that irritate me THAT much, but yeah, now Dixon is one of them.

[KJ!]

And FYI, Iraqi civilians seemed more in favour of dealing with British troops than Americans.

Consensus seemed to be that the American troops were more ''trigger-happy'' than the Brits, and that the British army's experience with Ireland etc, gave them much better skills to deal with a foreign/hostile population.

[Thequeerjock]

Is Dixon the same one who gave Judd Winick shit for putting Grace Choi and Thunder in a relationship?

Either way, I'm like whatevs man. He and the others can stand around griping all they want. It was the right thing to do.

[Reverend Smooth]

Just means I won't buy their stuff. Principles suck sometimes, but what's the point of having them if one ignores them when they are inconvenient?

[KJ!]

And...why does he think that last part ''won't be reposted''.

Let's see. I disagree with what you're saying, and this is the douchiest part, so I won't share that with everyone, just the other stuff that makes you look mildly douchey.

?

[AndrewCrossett]

My stock answer to stuff like this:

Tough shit.

Live with it, or kill yourself. Either way is just as good.

[Basque]

And...why does he think that last part ''won't be reposted''.

Because in his shriveled up little brain, he thinks that last part is him being open minded and reasonable (although in truth it's just as bigoted and wrong-headed as the rest) so he thinks the "biased" and "far-left" media will ignore that part of his post, in order to unfairly portray him as an asshole.

Well, guess what, Dixon - you're doing a fine job of that yourself. We don't need to quote you out of context or edit your post to make you sound like a douchebag.

[JABSEN]

That is so douchey that it almost reads like a parody of this type of douchiness. I would really have to think twice before buying his books ever again.

[Dr Ray Palmer]

The only thing of his I've ever really liked was Batgirl: Year One, which he cowrote with somebody else. I'm glad he's not one of my favorite writers because that would make all the garbage he's spewing even harder to take.

[AndrewCrossett]

I have to say, the reaction of the wingnuts to the DADT repeal is almost as viscerally satisfying as the repeal itself.

I see their unhappiness and their anger, and for just one brief moment, all is right with the world.

But hold on to the memories, because this is the last piece of social justice we're going to see from the U.S. government for a long, long time. Maybe ever.

[Thequeerjock]

Just means I won't buy their stuff. Principles suck sometimes, but what's the point of having them if one ignores them when they are inconvenient?

It's fairly easy for me. I was honestly unaware he was still writing.

*Oh, and welcome back Rev!*

[Reverend Smooth]

<3333333333

[Patch]

B-b-but Nightwing is gay.

[Stressfactor]

Ditto -- good to see you posting again Rev!

[Basque]

I was honestly unaware he was still writing.

I don't think he's currently writing anything I would be interested in buying, but I'm still digging into his back catalogue. I bought the Robin: Year One trade less than a year ago. I'm also collecting the single issues of his run on Robin (#1-100) and these are some of my favourite, most valued comics in my collection. I take some comfort knowing that, since I'm buying used copies of these issues, he's not getting any royalties from me, but the truth is that by buying them, I'm contributing to the overall demand for his work, which means it's driving its value up slightly, which increases the likelihood of him getting more work or seeing his old works collected. So no matter how much I try to rationalize it, this is a case where there is discord between my consumer choices and my moral principles.

[sonofbaldwin]

Not that either one of them cares, but Chuck Dixon and Orson Scott Card will never see a penny of my support.

And there are two other creators who fall under this category as well.

[KJ!]

He's currently doing 'GIJOE' for IDW.

Yeah.

Consider the comic dropped from my pull-list.

[KJ!]

And it's really damn tempting for me to post that on their forum, listing the reason WHY I'm canceling it from my pull-list, even though I'm enjoying it.

[Reverend Smooth]

Ditto -- good to see you posting again Rev!

I was finding that I was too influenced by negativity on the boards and in real life, so decided to stop posting until I might not be so much of a drag. ^^;

Thank you both for the rewelcomings. <3

[Corrina]

The only thing of his I've ever really liked was Batgirl: Year One, which he cowrote with somebody else. I'm glad he's not one of my favorite writers because that would make all the garbage he's spewing even harder to take.

Scott Beatty who also took over writing RUSE. Beatty's writing on that title was shaky but got much better at the end.

On the other, I got nothing. As a former member of the U.S. Coast Guard (minimal service, nothing to brag about, honest, but, hey it gives me a POV on how the military does things), I can't see what point he's making in the least.

What I can see is what someone said in the other thread. Now that discrimination is officially ended, one of the gay service members is going to sue to have their wife/husband included in military housing, which would then go to court and which might then end up overturning the stupid Defense of Marriage Act. (Depending in which way the Supreme Court rules...)

[Reverend Smooth]

Good. I hope a bunch of them do. :)

[Keith P.]

The histrionics from the right is hilarious.

I expect them to start raving about "what the queers are doing to the soil!" very shortly.

[Slewo.O]

The histrionics from the right is hilarious.

I expect them to start raving about "what the queers are doing to the soil!" very shortly.

They're ruining our soil now!?! :mad:

[Keith P.]

They're ruining our soil now!?! :mad:

And building landing strips for gay martians.

[Slewo.O]

And building landing strips for gay martians.

Oh fuck! *grabs smallpox blanket*

[bert]

I'm done reading Dixon's comics. I've read a bit of his comic book work. I thought it was pretty good. However, after reading that thread, knowing his true colors when it comes to his politics, how he feels about the gay community & equal rights, etc...*shakes head*

*sigh* ....It'll just feel wrong. The story, his writing, all of it. All of it will feel like a lie.

you know. . unlike OSC, who actively works against my Civil Rights as a gay American, I'm able to accept Dixon's opinion for what it is.

an opinion.

it's a stupid opinion, but it's his to have.

I actually won't stop reading his books, as I enjoy his writing.

but unless I've missed something and he is actively participating in trying to take away my rights (as opposed to just voicing a stupid opinion), I'm personally able to separate the man from his politics.

(same way I'm able to enjoy EVS', or John Byrne's work).

[sonofbaldwin]

you know. . unlike OSC, who actively works against my Civil Rights as a gay American, I'm able to accept Dixon's opinion for what it is.

an opinion.

it's a stupid opinion, but it's his to have.

I actually won't stop reading his books, as I enjoy his writing.

but unless I've missed something and he is actively participating in trying to take away my rights (as opposed to just voicing a stupid opinion), I'm personally able to separate the man from his politics.

(same way I'm able to enjoy EVS', or John Byrne's work).

Oh, but only if Chuck Dixon was voicing his stupid opinion into a vacuum. Unfortunately, he's in a position of influence. Not a lot of influence, but influence enough. That's the danger.

I'm not going to help him reach a wider audience with his stupid opinions (which might, in fact, create the harm you're referencing) by supporting him financially. Not a single penny.

[EdNEMO]

The histrionics from the right is hilarious.

I expect them to start raving about "what the queers are doing to the soil!" very shortly.

Are they building landing strips for Gay Martians?

[bert]

Oh, but only if Chuck Dixon was voicing his stupid opinion into a vacuum. Unfortunately, he's in a position of influence. Not a lot of influence, but influence enough. That's the danger.

I'm not going to help him reach a wider audience with his stupid opinions (which might, in fact, create the harm you're referencing), but financially supporting him.

yes, but unlike OSC, he isn't a member of an Anti-gay organization, nor donates money to such organizations.

being free to express oneself is a fundamental right as an American. Now, when what you are expressing infringes on MY rights?. . that's when there's a problem for me.

and Dixon's opinon, while loathesome (and as I said above, stupid), doesn't meet my criteria above.

(at least not to me. Other's mileage may vary).

[ayhe]

I quit Chuck's board over a conversation just this stupid a few weeks ago, about Batwoman. It was so unbelievably offensive and the points of contention so mushy and ridiculous that I had to ask the poor moderator to remove my posting ability.

It makes me very sad. Chuck wrote a lot of my favorite stories, and I obviously am using his characters constantly.

It's just sad. But you can either go along to get along or you can say what you believe is right, even if it costs you friends.

I never entered that board, and after reading this it make me feel glad I didn´t.
I can understand that everybody has the right to express their opinion..but being blinded by your own "wisdom" to the point of attacking mercifuless other´s ones, is something I absolutely don´t like at all. :no:
I think you made the right choice, and I´m really sorry for those ugly moments you had to pass through.
You have all my suport! *hug*http://e.deviantart.net/emoticons/h/huggle.gif

[EdNEMO]

And building landing strips for gay martians.

I thought I was being clever with my response and I missed you doing the next line.

[sonofbaldwin]

yes, but unlike OSC, he isn't a member of an Anti-gay organization, nor donates money to such organizations.

being free to express oneself is a fundamental right as an American. Now, when what you are expressing infringes on MY rights?. . that's when there's a problem for me.

and Dixon's opinon, while loathesome (and as I said above, stupid), doesn't meet my criteria above.

(at least not to me. Other's mileage may vary).

Freedom of expression is not freedom from responsibility or freedom from consequences.

One of the consequences of Dixon expressing his opinion about gay rights, homosexuality, etc. is that he doesn't get this homosexual's financial support.

[Keith P.]

I thought I was being clever with my response and I missed you doing the next line.

It's ok. I like you, your not like the other people here, in the trailer park.

[Basque]

yes, but unlike OSC, he isn't a member of an Anti-gay organization, nor donates money to such organizations.

being free to express oneself is a fundamental right as an American. Now, when what you are expressing infringes on MY rights?. . that's when there's a problem for me.

and Dixon's opinon, while loathesome (and as I said above, stupid), doesn't meet my criteria above.

(at least not to me. Other's mileage may vary).

What are you talking about?

Nobody is saying Chuck Dixon doesn't have a right to express that opinion. That's not at all what the issue is here.

The issue is that some opinions are harmful. Any anti-gay opinion meets that criteria, by my standards. It doesn't mean that I think people who hold that opinion shouldn't have the right to voice it. It means that those of us who disagree HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY to combat that opinion. How we choose to do so is up to each of us. Some of us boycott the books of the author, others voice their disagreement on a message board, etc. But it is a responsibility and it needs to be taken seriously.

I fucking hate it when Americans use the constitution to argue that harmful opinions should be tolerated. Defending people's rights to express their opinions doesn't mean you have to sit back and do fuck-all to change those opinions or convince them that they're wrong, or convince others that those opinions are harmful and need to be fought.

If that's the American way, then thank God I'm not American.

[EdNEMO]

It's ok. I like you, your not like the other people here, in the trailer park.

Thank you. Me and my burrow owl appreciate it.

[Keith P.]

Thank you. Me and my burrow owl appreciate it.

Just make sure you keep your head and arms inside the Mixer at all times.

[bert]

What are you talking about?



Just saying that to me, Dixon expressing his opinion on this is not enough to get me to drop my support of something he writes if I like the book.

Not true of OSC. . any money he gets goes towards his funding of anti-gay causes. . so he gets NONE of my $$

[AndrewCrossett]

Rather than examining the financial records of every writer or artist or musician or actor before I pay for their stuff, I just prefer to go with a simple premise: I don't give money to bad people.

And bigots are bad people.

[Gail Simone]

Scott Beatty who also took over writing RUSE. Beatty's writing on that title was shaky but got much better at the end.

On the other, I got nothing. As a former member of the U.S. Coast Guard (minimal service, nothing to brag about, honest, but, hey it gives me a POV on how the military does things), I can't see what point he's making in the least.

What I can see is what someone said in the other thread. Now that discrimination is officially ended, one of the gay service members is going to sue to have their wife/husband included in military housing, which would then go to court and which might then end up overturning the stupid Defense of Marriage Act. (Depending in which way the Supreme Court rules...)

You know, of the MANY things that piss me off about the whole thing, this one bugs me the most--how quickly Chuck is willing to dismiss THE OPINIONS OF THE TROOPS. Why ask them, he says? Why run a military based on that? Let's go with what CHUCK thinks.

And the closest Chuck has gotten to real military service is looking ridiculous sitting in a tank in a photo op.

I have to respect the opinions of the military members who posted, even if they flatly disagree with me. They know more about this than I ever will, or Chuck ever will. To so casually just dismiss the fact that the report that the GOP ASKED FOR discounts all of Chuck's claims is offensive and insulting to the troops in every way.

It's just the usual chickenhawk nonsense that deserves all the scorn it gets and more.

[EdNEMO]

Just make sure you keep your head and arms inside the Mixer at all times.

Not me, I'm a Daredevil!!

[Teal_Lantern]

I've never read a Dixon comic in my life, and I didn't know about his views until reading this.

Oh well, guess I won't be reading those older bat-titles.

[Keith P.]

Not me, I'm a Daredevil!!

Just like your old man.

[Corrina]

You know, of the MANY things that piss me off about the whole thing, this one bugs me the most--how quickly Chuck is willing to dismiss THE OPINIONS OF THE TROOPS. Why ask them, he says? Why run a military based on that? Let's go with what CHUCK thinks.

And the closest Chuck has gotten to real military service is looking ridiculous sitting in a tank in a photo op.

I have to respect the opinions of the military members who posted, even if they flatly disagree with me. They know more about this than I ever will, or Chuck ever will. To so casually just dismiss the fact that the report that the GOP ASKED FOR discounts all of Chuck's claims is offensive and insulting to the troops in every way.

It's just the usual chickenhawk nonsense that deserves all the scorn it gets and more.

I believe your other moderator has much more military service than I do and I'm pretty sure she disagrees vehemently with Chuck Dixon as well. :)

[Stressfactor]

Not me, I'm a Daredevil!!

You're a blind lawyer who likes to dress up in a red superhero costume with little horns on your head and swing around New York city? :scared:

[Keith P.]

You're a blind lawyer who likes to dress up in a red superhero costume with little horns on your head and swing around New York city? :scared:

No, he's a foreign paperboy, the neighbors say he smokes crack, but I dont believe it.

[ShaunN]

I don't know who Chuck Dixon is. I try to make distinctions between creators and their creations/talent, however. For example, I find Bill Willingham's opinions on the Arab-Israeli conflict to be downright repulsive (and I think that issue is far more important than DADT) but I still respect his talent as a writer and will continue to buy "Fables".

What I don't understand about these people becoming hysterical over gay soldiers serving openly is this: why don't they look and see how this has worked out in other militaries? Canada has had openly gay soldiers for about two decades; I think the same is true of most Western armies. To the best of my knowledge, this has not had any effect. So this should be a non-issue.

Or is the argument here that the US military is so exceptional that the experiences of other militaries don't count?

[sonofbaldwin]

I don't know who Chuck Dixon is. I try to make distinctions between creators and their creations/talent, however. For example, I find Bill Willingham's opinions on the Arab-Israeli conflict to be downright repulsive (and I think that issue is far more important than DADT) but I still respect his talent as a writer and will continue to buy "Fables".

What I don't understand about these people becoming hysterical over gay soldiers serving openly is this: why don't they look and see how this has worked out in other militaries? Canada has had openly gay soldiers for about two decades; I think the same is true of most Western armies. To the best of my knowledge, this has not had any effect. So this should be a non-issue.

Or is the argument here that the US military is so exceptional that the experiences of other militaries don't count?

I'm not a mind-reader, but I'd wager the reason these people don't look to other miltaries or societies who have successfully included LGBT soldiers is because the argument about the health and well-being of the soldiers is a smokescreen for the fact that they are homophobes. It's bigotry in search of a rationale.

[Basque]

I'm not a mind-reader, but I'd wager the reason these people don't look to other miltaries or societies who have successfully included LGBT soldiers is because the argument about the health and well-being of the soldiers is a smokescreen for the fact that they are homophobes. It's bigotry in search of a rationale.

Definitely.

But there's also the fact that these people tend to look at the US Army as "the greatest fighting force on the planet."

Chuck Dixon says so himself:


But it is still wrong to tinker in the name of social justice with the greatest fighting force on the planet. And I don't mean "greatest" simply in terms of ass-kicking skils. I mean, historically, the most noble and generous military that has ever marched on this planet. You ask anyone around the world which army they'd rather see show up in time of trouble and (if they were honest) they'd tell you they'd rather have the G.I.s on the ground than the U.N. or NATO or any of their neighbors.

That is such a ridiculously dishonest statement. He starts with "ask anyone around the world..." implying that all you'd have to do to verify this opinion is ask any person at all to confirm it, but then goes on to add "and (if they were honest) they'd tell you..." Yeah. So ask anyone in the world who's the greatest army on the planet? They'll say the US Army. And if they don't? Well, they're just being dishonest. See? That proves I'm right?

Why bother checking what other armies are doing? They're not as great as the US Army, so it doesn't count.

Also, "historically, the most noble and generous military that has ever marched on this planet"?! I don't want to talk shit about the US Army or anything, but I don't see how this kind of statement can be supported. There's no data for this. It's just a completely subjective (and ultimately meaningless) opinion.

[EdNEMO]

I feel everyone on both sides is basically coming up with logic to defend their thoughts. (Which is quite understandable.)

Dixon's opinion is funny in that he states, he is not homophobic but worries that this will open the floodgates and the liberals will come out of the woodwork and decimate the armed forces with forced vegatarianism and mandatory hugging.

I think when you get down to it, homosexuals make Dixon feel uncomfortable. I find this is generally due to religion, lack of confidence in your self, or confusion with your own sexuality. I feel that people should really sit down and think about what it is that really bothers them. Pick one of the 3, work on it and be honest with yourselves.

And that finishes my lunchtime thoughts on Dixon.

(On a side note, I do love his comic writing.)

[Stressfactor]

And if Dixon needed any OTHER proof that KEEPING DADT would ALSO hurt the military...

Here's just a few of the Bright stars -- honest to god, medal decorated, freakin' WAR HEROES who are in the process or have been tossed out of the military because their status of being homosexual was discovered -- in many cases THEY weren't the ones telling either -- someone ELSE told ON them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#40759665

So, yeah, let's kick out a soldier who has saved lives and lived up the the high standards of military service just because of who he loves.

[Infra-Man]

http://i373.photobucket.com/albums/oo172/hvigilla/WTF/buckleywtf.jpg

[Lester C.]

I don't want to fall into the very tempting trap of attacking Dixon personally for a political view but I strongly disagree with him on this. Anyone that wants to join the military when we are fighting on two fronts, and live in this volatile world where it looks like North and South Korea is about to throw down deserves our respect even if you disagree with the conflicts being fought. I'll even go as far as to say that gay people in the armed services deserve more respect than their heterosexual counterparts because they would be fighting and dying for a nation where many would be glad to see them go.

[Patch]

(On a side note, I do love his comic writing.)

I do too. Dixon knows how to bring the hero to superhero.

I don't agree with Dixon that openly gay military personnel jeopardize a damn thing, or are the first drop in the fall of the armed forces, but I like his comic writing (and the bashing in this thread could show a bit more levity-- be a bit less severe).

[Reverend Smooth]

being free to express oneself is a fundamental right as an American. Folks sometimes mistake people choosing not to support an artist as being somehow anti-free-speech.

What would make someone against free speech in this case is if they tried to get his publisher to yank his books, or to get them made illegal, banned, etc. IE, literally silencing him.

Deciding not to support someone by not buying their product is not the same thing. He is still free to say whatever he chooses; the consumer can choose to send their dime to him or not.

It's a perfectly reasonable choice. He's selling comics. As much as we like them, they are not a necessity. Unless he's shut in by illness, he can get work and make a living.

IE, you can support a jerk's right to free speech without actively contributing to his lifestyle. Not buying a book doesn't mean you want him silenced, it means you don't want to be involved.

And I'm not inclined to be less severe about anything. He bashes gays, he can suck my dick. :) I also believe that people should be held personally accountable for saying nasty things about gays and liberals (or whoever). A political view when it applies to the rights of others is in fact a personal attack on others. There is no separating the person from the politics because politics are ultimately about people. It doesn't matter if he names someone specifically or says 'the liberals' or 'the gays', he is attacking liberal people and gay people. He is attacking anyone on this forum who is gay and wants to serve or their friends, family, etc, etc. It doesn't matter if he singles them out by name or not, it's actually worse IMO, because he's attacking whole swaths of people whom he hasn't even bothered to meet before condemning.

[EdNEMO]

I do too. Dixon knows how to bring the hero to superhero.

I don't agree with Dixon that openly gay military personnel jeopardize a damn thing, or are the first drop in the fall of the armed forces, but I like his comic writing (and the bashing in this thread could show a bit more levity-- be a bit less severe).

I think a lot of it has to do with people feeling attacked and personally offended and I understand that. I often feel the same way when I hear about animal abuse or gun rights/right to defend.

It is important to be moderate and remember that a person's unpleasant opinion is just that, opinion. Chuck Dixon has nothing to do with DADT. He has no impact regarding anything about it, he just happens to write comics. Now, if he wrote a comic that focused on that, that would be a different story and I would probably drop the title. But this is not the case here.

[EdNEMO]

IE, you can support a jerk's right to free speech without actively contributing to his lifestyle. Not buying a book doesn't mean you want him silenced, it means you don't want to be involved.

And I'm not inclined to be less severe about anything. He bashes gays, he can suck my dick. :) I also believe that people should be held personally accountable for saying nasty things about gays and liberals (or whoever).

Has he really bashed gays? He has an unpopular opinion on DADT. But it didn't look like he was bashing gays to me. He may me completley homophobic and anti-gay but I have not seen that. I disagree with his reasoning on this issue, but I have not seen any hate-speech.

(And this is purely based on what I have seen. If I have missed something, please let me know.) If the guys says, "I hate guys" or anything like that I will tell him off as well.

[Lester C.]

I do too. Dixon knows how to bring the hero to superhero.

I don't agree with Dixon that openly gay military personnel jeopardize a damn thing, or are the first drop in the fall of the armed forces, but I like his comic writing (and the bashing in this thread could show a bit more levity-- be a bit less severe).

I understand the bashing. I don't agree with it, primarily because it accomplishes nothing, but I understand it. Being heterosexual attack on gay issues are view from the perspective of someone attacking my political beliefs. I don't like it, but at the same time I'm not going to take it personally.

However if I were gay then I would go on the rampage if I read Dixon's post because it wouldn't just be an attack on me but on my very identity. Such an attack would not just be political but personal as well and I'd respond in kind.

[Basque]

I don't want to fall into the very tempting trap of attacking Dixon personally for a political view

How is this a trap?

Like Reverend Smooth (if I understand him correctly), I don't think it makes sense to separate the person from their politics. It's like political ideas or opinions are these disembodied, free-floating things that just happen to attach themselves to certain people without them being involved. What makes us individuals if not our ideas, opinions, attitudes, feelings and actions? A person's political views ties into all of this.

And we're not talking about partisan politics either. I can understand making an effort not to judge someone for being a Democrat or Republican, or whatever.

I don't think it's acceptable to be a homophobe. I think we need to stop making excuses that allow people to go on being homophobes and expressing their views unchallenged.

If someone has a problem with homosexuality, then I have a problem with them. Yes, with them PERSONALLY. I don't have a problems with their politics or their opinions. I have a problem with THEM. I simply don't believe in this myth that you can be a good person who just happens to have bad opinions.

[Lester C.]

How is this a trap?

Like Reverend Smooth (if I understand him correctly), I don't think it makes sense to separate the person from their politics. It's like political ideas or opinions are these disembodied, free-floating things that just happen to attach themselves to certain people without them being involved. What makes us individuals if not our ideas, opinions, attitudes, feelings and actions? A person's political views ties into all of this.

And we're not talking about partisan politics either. I can understand making an effort not to judge someone for being a Democrat or Republican, or whatever.

I don't think it's acceptable to be a homophobe. I think we need to stop making excuses that allow people to go on being homophobes and expressing their views unchallenged.

If someone has a problem with homosexuality, then I have a problem with them. Yes, with them PERSONALLY. I don't have a problems with their politics or their opinions. I have a problem with THEM. I simply don't believe in this myth that you can be a good person who just happens to have bad opinions.

The problem is that if you examine a person view's hard enough you are going to find a political issue on which you disagree strongly. If everyone is held to the standard where you won't like them if you disagree with them, then expect to have a very hostile relationship with everyone that thinks different than you which is everybody if you dig deep enough.

Bottom line for me is that the goal here to get the Chuck Dixons of the world onboard with this and calling them names, even if deserving, isn't the way to get that done. That said if Chuck went on a rant about how black people shouldn't get married or be in the military I'd snap too. I get it.

[Gaelforce]

Add me to the list of 'will never buy another Chuck Dixon' book again.

Btw, as to OSC? I get a huge kick out of the very warm acknowlegement he gave a friend of mine in one of his books for the work she did for him...

But shhhh...don't tell him she's a lesbian...

[jesterwitch]

you know. . unlike OSC, who actively works against my Civil Rights as a gay American, I'm able to accept Dixon's opinion for what it is.

an opinion.

it's a stupid opinion, but it's his to have.

I actually won't stop reading his books, as I enjoy his writing.

but unless I've missed something and he is actively participating in trying to take away my rights (as opposed to just voicing a stupid opinion), I'm personally able to separate the man from his politics.

(same way I'm able to enjoy EVS', or John Byrne's work).

I'm with sonofbaldwin on this one. While Dixon is entitled to his opinion, I'm not going to be supporting him with my funds to buy his comics. Anyone, IMO, that supports not giving everyone equal rights won't see a penny of my support.

[Treacle]

The problem is that if you examine a person view's hard enough you are going to find a political issue on which you disagree strongly. If everyone is held to the standard where you won't like them if you disagree with them, then expect to have a very hostile relationship with everyone that thinks different than you which is everybody if you dig deep enough.

Some opinions are more morally objectionable than other opinions. We're not talking about if you like grape soda or orange soda. We're talking about if you think some people are less deserving of civil rights than other people.

[ShaunN]

I think that everyone has to decide this question for him/herself: what personal flaws and behaviours are so offensive to you that you will not support an artist?

I've argued before that I try to make a distinction between the artist and the person. I think that this kind of distinction is specific to art; for politicians, for example, personality flaws are character flaws which may seriously influence the kind of political figure they are and the kinds of decisions they make. For that reason, I took Bill Clinton's personal conduct more seriously than many of my peers.

When it comes to art, however, the issue is much murkier. Picasso was a horrible human being; does that mean that we boycott Picasso art exhibits? As I've noted, I find Bill Willingham's views on the Middle East to be, in essence, fundamentally racist; but I like Willingham's work. In another thread, I've argued for the need to make a distinction between Mel Gibson and his work. He may be a racist, sexist and homophobe, but he is still a good actor. Roman Polanski is a child rapist and an unrepetant pedophile who, unlike Gibson, enjoys the respect and accolades of Hollywood. I find him repulsive, but he is, undeniably, a good filmmaker. And I've also commented, in the past, on the strange willingness for Hollywood to forgive a rapist like Mike Tyson. Tyson isn't much of an actor, but if he was, I would not hold his personal conduct against him. But I also would not cross the street to see him in real life.

I respect people who decide to express their personal disdain for an artist by boycotting his or her work. That is a perfectly defensible position. But I fear that it does open a Pandora's Box of deciding exactly which causes and political opinions matter enough to you to institute a boycott against one person and not another.

[Gail Simone]

I do too. Dixon knows how to bring the hero to superhero.

I don't agree with Dixon that openly gay military personnel jeopardize a damn thing, or are the first drop in the fall of the armed forces, but I like his comic writing (and the bashing in this thread could show a bit more levity-- be a bit less severe).

Whatever.

[Gail Simone]

Has he really bashed gays? He has an unpopular opinion on DADT. But it didn't look like he was bashing gays to me. He may me completley homophobic and anti-gay but I have not seen that. I disagree with his reasoning on this issue, but I have not seen any hate-speech.

(And this is purely based on what I have seen. If I have missed something, please let me know.) If the guys says, "I hate guys" or anything like that I will tell him off as well.

Read his message board for a few years.

[Lester C.]

Some opinions are more morally objectionable than other opinions. We're not talking about if you like grape soda or orange soda. We're talking about if you think some people are less deserving of civil rights than other people.

Here is the thing. Even with the Democratic lame duck congress, the repeal of DADT was only possible because a number of Republican congressmen broke rank. Given the fact that the Chuck Dixon's of the world are the ones in power, compromises and accords have to be reached, because they are the ones holding the reigns of power. Thus I honestly feel that while personal attacks might be deserved, such attacks would be extremely counterproductive to gay civil rights.

[Gail Simone]

I always find it amusing that the same audience that will tear their own heads off if they don't like a Spider-man story will suddenly turn all hall monitor if someone is actually offended about something that, oh, what's the word...?

Oh, yes, MATTERS.

Iron Man is vaguely unmoral? That's a tragedy and the creators deserve a lynching.

But someone upset about homophobia or racism or misogyny, well, they should file a sternly but politely worded letter to the editor and address it post haste!

feh.

[Treacle]

Here is the thing. Even with the Democratic lame duck congress, the repeal of DADT was only possible because a number of Republican congressmen broke rank. Given the fact that the Chuck Dixon's of the world are the ones in power, compromises and accords have to be reached, because they are the ones holding the reigns of power. Thus I honestly feel that while personal attacks might be deserved, such attacks would be extremely counterproductive to gay civil rights.

And there has never been a civil rights campaign of any kind in this country that succeeded by telling the people in power what awesome individuals they were and asking if they would please, pretty please mind going out of their way and doing minority groups a favor by treating them equally.

[jesterwitch]

I'm not a mind-reader, but I'd wager the reason these people don't look to other miltaries or societies who have successfully included LGBT soldiers is because the argument about the health and well-being of the soldiers is a smokescreen for the fact that they are homophobes. It's bigotry in search of a rationale.

MOTTO! :)

Out of the many posts on that thread, this one burned my ass the most: :angry:

By The Sprat:

I can't speak for Meyer, but just to clarify, this objection is usually not so much a matter of "You know how those gay men are-- they just jump on any dude with a pulse!" and so on. Most of us are well aware that gays are generally as discriminating in their tastes as straights.

But imagine a heterosexual male soldier walking in to an open shower full of naked female soldiers. When they shout and tell him to GTFO, is he entitled to say "Whaaaaat? It's not like I think all of you are hot! Sheesh, grow up." That's the situation you put soldiers in with full integration of open homosexuals.

Talk about justifying your homophobia. :-x

[Lester C.]

And there has never been a civil rights campaign of any kind in this country that succeeded by telling the people in power what awesome individuals they were and asking if they would please, pretty please mind going out of their way and doing minority groups a favor by treating them equally.

A civil rights movement only takes off when you have enough people in power and enough voters working together. I'm not saying don't fight hard, I'm saying fight smart.

[bert]

I'm with sonofbaldwin on this one. While Dixon is entitled to his opinion, I'm not going to be supporting him with my funds to buy his comics. Anyone, IMO, that supports not giving everyone equal rights won't see a penny of my support.

and that's fair enough.

but to me, he's not causing harm, simply voicing an opinion.

that might change, as might my opinion of Dixon. . but right now, I don't see him actively working to harm me as a Gay man (nor anything Homophobic within his comics he produces).

loved him on BOP. . certainly he doesn't hold a candle to Gail, but that's because she's great, and he's simply very good (at least as far as BOP is concerned).

as I said, other's mileage may vary, but for me, I'll continue to buy something I'm interested in if it's got Dixon's name on it or not.

[Basque]

The problem is that if you examine a person view's hard enough you are going to find a political issue on which you disagree strongly. If everyone is held to the standard where you won't like them if you disagree with them, then expect to have a very hostile relationship with everyone that thinks different than you which is everybody if you dig deep enough.

I completely disagree with this. And yet I feel no hostility at all toward you. Just like I feel no hostility toward any of my friends who all have their own opinions, some of which I disagree with.

There aren't really a lot of opinions I feel strongly enough about to consider another human being not worthy of my sympathy. In fact, I can pretty much reduce it to one thing: hating people for stupid reasons. And by stupid reasons, I mean race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc.

I consider hating people for those types of reasons fundamentally wrong. And that's the kind of thing I have in mind when I say that you can't be "a good person" and have bad politics. I'm not talking about being conservative vs. liberal. I'm talking about bigotry.

I don't go out of my way to dig through people's views, looking for things we might disagree on and then deciding I don't want to have anything to do with these people. If I did that, then yes, my life would be pretty sad and I'd be a very lonely person. But when I encounter homophobia or racism, I don't split hairs about it.


Bottom line for me is that the goal here to get the Chuck Dixons of the world onboard with this and calling them names, even if deserving, isn't the way to get that done.

Why does Chuck Dixon deserve my respect?

I mean, I agree with you to some extent. I've gotten into some arguments (on Tumblr, especially) with people who, for example, told others to "go die in a fire." because of a single comment they deemed sexist. Without ever giving that person the benefit of the doubt or attempting to explain to them why their comment was problematic, or learning something about who they are and where they come from. In one notorious example of this, the person who said the offending comment was a 14-year-old girl. I got into very heated arguments with the group of bloggers who told her things like "go die in a fire" and I was using some of the same arguments you're using, i.e., if you want to educate someone one sexism, throwing immediate insults at them is not the way to do it.

But on the other hand, Chuck Dixon is not a 14-year-old kid. He's not ignorant. He's not just someone who said something hurtful without realizing it. He's an intelligent, well-informed, and very eloquent writer who expresses opinions that he's obviously thought about a great deal and spent a lot of time arguing about over the years. Chuck Dixon not going to be won over by any argument at this point. Chuck Dixon is a bigot and will probably die a bigot. And as such, I don't really feel he deserves my respect. And I don't know how else or better to express my frustrations in the face of his hateful rants than to call him an idiot and a douchebag and a bigot.


That said if Chuck went on a rant about how black people shouldn't get married or be in the military I'd snap too. I get it.

I'm not sure what to make of this. But okay.

[Corrina]

As an aside, women can now serve on submarines. They'd been barred to doing so because of logistical issues like separate sleeping quarters and whatnot but the military finally changed its mind on that.

Just the "women not allowed in combat" has also gone by the wayside--perhaps not formally-- because as it turned out in Iraq, everywhere was combat.

Why is this important? Anyone barred from serving on a particular vessel or in a particular post may have their chances of promotion badly hurt. For a while, it was a de facto way of keeping female soldiers from being promoted.

Anyway, a heterosexual male who walked into a shower full of female soldiers would likely be met by:

1. Various penis jokes related to size.
2. various insults about how he can't find his own shower.
3. possible violent reaction.

The problem hasn't been that situation. It's been where there's many men and only one women. I hardly think heterosexual men are going to be outnumbered by gay men. (And, btw, it doesn't seem to stop straight men from having penis measuring contests, which I never really understood...)

[jesterwitch]

and that's fair enough.

but to me, he's not causing harm, simply voicing an opinion.

that might change, as might my opinion of Dixon. . but right now, I don't see him actively working to harm me as a Gay man (nor anything Homophobic within his comics he produces).

loved him on BOP. . certainly he doesn't hold a candle to Gail, but that's because she's great, and he's simply very good (at least as far as BOP is concerned).

as I said, other's mileage may vary, but for me, I'll continue to buy something I'm interested in if it's got Dixon's name on it or not.

Whatever. You do what you do. But you're not ever going to convince me to pick up his stuff again. So let's just stop right now.

[Basque]

but to me, he's not causing harm, simply voicing an opinion.

I think words and ideas are more powerful than you give them credit for. Why do you think we have to fight for basic human rights? Why do you think things like bullying and gay bashing exist? There is no separation between Chuck Dixon "voicing an opinion" (i.e., spreading hate) and someone beating the shit out of you for holding hands with your boyfriend on the street. I'm not saying Chuck Dixon is personally responsible for violent hate crimes. But he's spreading the hate and he's contributing to the general climate of hostility against queers.

Hate spreads through words.

[Shurato2099]

There is a fine, and often undefined, line when trying to get someone (or a group of someones) to change their opinion on something and when those opinions are deeply held, character defining ones almost impossible to find. There are, however, two extreme tactics that are guaranteed to almost never work the way you want:

The first is: "MUUUHHHH!!! YOU SUCK, THIS SUCKS, CHANGE IT OR YOU CONTINUE TO SUCK! MUUUHHH!!" While viscerally satisfying, the 'MUUHH!' approach generally results in a fist to the face and often in multiple directions. 'MUUHH!!' only works if your target has any desire for your positive regard whatsoever, otherwise you're either noise or a nuisance to be removed as quickly as possible.

The second is: "I think you're a really great guy, and you do some wonderful things I'm sure, but could you please stop eating babies? Pretty please?" This normally results in a light snort, a pat on the head and a request for you to please pass the mustard before you toddle off on your way. 'Pretty please' generally only works if you already have a level of positive regard from your target and he/she/it is inclined to do you this favor because of it.

The middle ground is filled with all manner of attempts at reasoned or emotional discourse in an attempt to sway the target in some manner, often by trying to have the target acknowledge your position as valid (the hard part, by the way) and then coaxing him/her/it/them closer to said position over time ... which generally requires finding that fine line before the discourse devolves into 'MUUHH!!' from sheer frustration on one side or the other.

After reading some of Mr. Dixon's opinions on the subject of this thread, my first impulse as to an argumentative gambit involves large, heavy, purely metaphorical sticks.

[Basque]

There is a fine, and often undefined, line when trying to get someone (or a group of someones) to change their opinion on something and when those opinions are deeply held, character defining ones almost impossible to find. There are, however, two extreme tactics that are guaranteed to almost never work the way you want:

The first is: "MUUUHHHH!!! YOU SUCK, THIS SUCKS, CHANGE IT OR YOU CONTINUE TO SUCK! MUUUHHH!!" While viscerally satisfying, the 'MUUHH!' approach generally results in a fist to the face and often in multiple directions. 'MUUHH!!' only works if your target has any desire for your positive regard whatsoever, otherwise you're either noise or a nuisance to be removed as quickly as possible.

The second is: "I think you're a really great guy, and you do some wonderful things I'm sure, but could you please stop eating babies? Pretty please?" This normally results in a light snort, a pat on the head and a request for you to please pass the mustard before you toddle off on your way. 'Pretty please' generally only works if you already have a level of positive regard from your target and he/she/it is inclined to do you this favor because of it.

The middle ground is filled with all manner of attempts at reasoned or emotional discourse in an attempt to sway the target in some manner, often by trying to have the target acknowledge your position as valid (the hard part, by the way) and then coaxing him/her/it/them closer to said position over time ... which generally requires finding that fine line before the discourse devolves into 'MUUHH!!' from sheer frustration on one side or the other.

After reading some of Mr. Dixon's opinions on the subject of this thread, my first impulse as to an argumentative gambit involves large, heavy, purely metaphorical sticks.

Well put.

[Gail Simone]

I go through this all the time, and I think it's very possible to continue to enjoy the work of someone when you find their philosophies unappealing.

I think it's up to the individual to judge what that line is, and no one else really gets to make that choice.

[Gail Simone]

And sorry I was a bit more snippy than I had intended on the previous page.

Sorry, guys. I'm just sick of this barely buried homophobia out there, it's just wearying. I know you didn't mean to lecture.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

It's ok. I like you, your not like the other people here, in the trailer park.

OMG!! :eek:

Burrow owl.

[Basque]

I go through this all the time, and I think it's very possible to continue to enjoy the work of someone when you find their philosophies unappealing.

I think it's up to the individual to judge what that line is, and no one else really gets to make that choice.

Yeah, I agree. I've been coming down on Dixon pretty hard, but as I said earlier in the thread, I still (reluctantly) enjoy some of his work, and I'm not judging anyone if they decide that they're okay with it.

What I was reacting against in my earlier comments was the idea that we have to separate the man from the politics. I think that's impossible. But I can separate the artistic value of the work from the opinions of the author.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

you know. . unlike OSC, who actively works against my Civil Rights as a gay American, I'm able to accept Dixon's opinion for what it is.

an opinion.

it's a stupid opinion, but it's his to have.

I actually won't stop reading his books, as I enjoy his writing.

but unless I've missed something and he is actively participating in trying to take away my rights (as opposed to just voicing a stupid opinion), I'm personally able to separate the man from his politics.

(same way I'm able to enjoy EVS', or John Byrne's work).

What did I do?! I don't care if gays are in the military, I just despise liberals! Don't group my classy, upper-crust north eastern elitist Conservatism with this kind of thing.

[Lester C.]

What did I do?! I don't care if gays are in the military, I just despise liberals! Don't group my classy, upper-crust north eastern elitist Conservatism with this kind of thing.

Like it or not Ethan as one of Dc's most prolific artist as well as a member of this forum, I think you are going to be the face of the conservative party. I almost dropped your name myself, but then realize you hadn't posted on the thread yet and to do so without you being here wouldn't have been right.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

Like it or not Ethan as one of Dc's most prolific artist as well as a member of this forum, I think you are going to be the face of the conservative party. I almost dropped your name myself, but then realize you hadn't posted on the thread yet and to do so without you being here wouldn't have been right.

I don't know what you meant by any of those words as a group. Individually, I think I understand them. But together...nothing.

I don't mind being the face of Conservatism in comics. I'm fucking handsome.:cool:

[Lester C.]

I don't know what you meant by any of those words as a group. Individually, I think I understand them. But together...nothing.

I don't mind being the face of Conservatism in comics. I'm fucking handsome.:cool:

That's how I roll.:cool:

[Teal_Lantern]

I always find it amusing that the same audience that will tear their own heads off if they don't like a Spider-man story will suddenly turn all hall monitor if someone is actually offended about something that, oh, what's the word...?

Oh, yes, MATTERS.

Iron Man is vaguely unmoral? That's a tragedy and the creators deserve a lynching.

But someone upset about homophobia or racism or misogyny, well, they should file a sternly but politely worded letter to the editor and address it post haste!

feh.

I :heart: this post.

[bert]

Whatever. You do what you do. But you're not ever going to convince me to pick up his stuff again. So let's just stop right now.

I'm not TRYING to convince you of anything.

I'm stating something that applies to me.

so please lose the attitude towards me -- I like you, and wish you absolutely no ill will.

I'm ALLOWED to have a fucking opinion here.

[bert]

What did I do?! I don't care if gays are in the military, I just despise liberals! Don't group my classy, upper-crust north eastern elitist Conservatism with this kind of thing.

Repubican/Conservative stuff. . I wasn't intending to lump you in to anti-DADT stuff that Dixon is spewing.

so apologies if you took it that way. . wasn't intended

[Gail Simone]

For the record, Ethan loathed that thread as much as the rest of us.

However, he still thinks Scrooge was a lib, which is just CRAZY!

:)

[EdNEMO]

OMG!! :eek:

Burrow owl.

Keith P and I have been going back and forth with the "Stuart" lines. I think you are the first person to catch them.

And everyone, for the record. I am largely conservative. But I am not blind to specific issues. Almost no issue is completely black and white.

EVS and I fall into the same category of conservatives who are not religious. And therefore we, (I am using the royal "we" here, please don't cut off my head), don't have a problem with gays.

All sexes, all races, everyone is equal. That just is. There isn't any debate in my opinion.

As for DADT, I have always believed it is crap. Homophobia, sexism and racism are all ideas that as a people, should have been outgrown a while ago. The fact that they haven't is not going to be helped by not buying a comic, picketing their business or cursing at them. It is done by disecting their arguments and figuring out why they feel that way. Religion? Parents taught them specifically? Closet gays? Find out the reason then logically explain it to them. This may convince the 1% that will listen as opposed to the 0% the other options will get.

[bert]

What I was reacting against in my earlier comments was the idea that we have to separate the man from the politics. I think that's impossible. But I can separate the artistic value of the work from the opinions of the author.

which is exactly what I've been saying for pages now. . .

really.

[EdNEMO]

For the record, Ethan loathed that thread as much as the rest of us.

However, he still thinks Scrooge was a lib, which is just CRAZY!

:)

Scrooge as a lib? I don't know. Lib's tend to want to give everything away, that doesn't seem to be Scrooge's style. Scrooge was always ticked at anyone not willing to work.

(This is intended as a joke. Not all Libs and Cons are the same.)

[Ethan Van Sciver]

Keith P and I have been going back and forth with the "Stuart" lines. I think you are the first person to catch them.

And everyone, for the record. I am largely conservative. But I am not blind to specific issues. Almost no issue is completely black and white.

EVS and I fall into the same category of conservatives who are not religious. And therefore we, (I am using the royal "we" here, please don't cut off my head), don't have a problem with gays.

All sexes, all races, everyone is equal. That just is. There isn't any debate in my opinion.

Except for the Mexicans.

[Basque]

which is exactly what I've been saying for pages now. . .

really.

Not exactly. You've been saying that, yes, but among other things*, and it's those other things I disagree with.

*like the idea that freedom of speech means nobody is allowed to protest when someone voices their opinion, or the idea that spewing forth hateful opinions is "not harmful."

[Ethan Van Sciver]

For the record, Ethan loathed that thread as much as the rest of us.


I DID NOT! I just thought it was boring and po-faced.

[Ravenwing263]

And...why does he think that last part ''won't be reposted''.

Let's see. I disagree with what you're saying, and this is the douchiest part, so I won't share that with everyone, just the other stuff that makes you look mildly douchey.

?

Because he thinks he's being really nice to gay folks because he's advocating DADT instead of just killin' the fagot, that's why.


I personally wouldn't care iof the next Audie Murphy was gay. I'd be just as proud of that man or woman.

See that? He thinks that saying he'd be "proud" of gay Audie Murphy will prove that he doesn't hate fags, he hates "tinkering" and "social engineering" and therefore his detractors - who, of course, don't have any points of their own but are just mindless "liberal conspiracy" shills - will omit that part. Since he was being so nice, and all.

After all, it's not like anyone's civil rights are involved here, amiright?


And building landing strips for gay martians.

I initially read this as "gay martinis" which is a fabulous image.

[Nick Soapdish]

I like how removing a policy that artificially forces a segment of the population to hide their identity is "social engineering".

[Basque]

I initially read this as "gay martinis" which is a fabulous image.

Isn't "gay martini" a tautology?

[Chris Jones]

Not exactly. You've been saying that, yes, but among other things*, and it's those other things I disagree with.

*like the idea that freedom of speech means nobody is allowed to protest when someone voices their opinion, or the idea that spewing forth hateful opinions is "not harmful."

He hasn't said any of that. He's said that HE DOESN'T THINK that Dixon's opinions are actively harming the gay community. He never said that protesting Dixon's writing was objectively silly. Quit riding the guy.

[Patrick Gerard]

For the record, Ethan loathed that thread as much as the rest of us.

However, he still thinks Scrooge was a lib, which is just CRAZY!

:)

That IS crazy. If he were, he'd be Professor Scrooge, he'd be making Cratchit work to help run a community center that isn't closed because Scrooge doesn't recognize individual religions, and the visit by the ghosts would be a lot more psychedelic, since it would be an acid flashback.

Also, Belle would be an artsy lesbian played by Tori Amos who Scrooge conceived a surrogate child for and developed unrequited feelings towards.

Also, if you make Scrooge a liberal then his transformation at the end would basically have him reform into being a neo-con, not a traditional conservative.

[shrike]

Ehn, I've always hated Dixon's work. He constantly recycles the same tired cliched story lines (please don't ask specifics; people who know me from years back know what I'm talking about, I hate beating that dead horse).

At least I can now say openly I find him as a person just as fucking stupid and inane as his writing. Funny he's got a problem with courageous gays and lesbians that want to serve our country. I'm guessing his lazy, fat ass would never be as brave or patriotic as them.

[Ravenwing263]

Isn't "gay martini" a tautology?

Not if there's no vermouth.

[Keith P.]

I have no problem with being undiplomatic. To people like Dixon and his ilk: Fuck you and fuck what you believe. I cant wait until your kind are extinct. It can't happen fast enough.

[Keith P.]

And for the record EVS is just a big cuddle wuddle bear.

[shrike]

I have no problem with being undiplomatic. To people like Dixon and his ilk: Fuck you and fuck what you believe. I cant wait until your kind are extinct. It can't happen fast enough.

Amen. And kudos to DC a while back for dumping his ass from their titles.

He also better pray to god he never finds himself in a bind like other artists and writers who have called on the generosity of comics fans for assistance financially. Because I'm telling you now he is making himself one hard sell in any capacity.

[vanityman]

EVS's comments are even funnier because he refers to himself as a gunsel under his profile pic

http://www.worldwidewords.org/topicalwords/tw-gun1.htm

[EdNEMO]

EVS's comments are even funnier because he refers to himself as a gunsel under his profile pic

http://www.worldwidewords.org/topicalwords/tw-gun1.htm

You realize that is set by the board by number of posts? :D

[vanityman]

You realize that is set by the board by number of posts? :D

i didn't...i just thought this board was a bunch of nra gay guys : )

maybe i need to up my post quotient to see some of the action

[EdNEMO]

i didn't...i just thought this board was a bunch of nra gay guys : )

maybe i need to up my post quotient to see some of the action

If it makes you feel better, I am a gun guy. :)

[vanityman]

i thought that was a gun in your pocket

bigger question: when setting up the board, did they misunderstand the word 'gunsel' or were they making a joke?

[CutterMike]

I don't know what you meant by any of those words as a group. Individually, I think I understand them. But together...nothing.

I don't mind being the face of Conservatism in comics. I'm fucking handsome.:cool:

Not true -- we're just good friends! :D

[EdNEMO]

i thought that was a gun in your pocket

bigger question: when setting up the board, did they misunderstand the word 'gunsel' or were they making a joke?

Gunsel, Trouble Boy, etc...We are all digital ruffians and forum thugs.

[Chris Jones]

Also check out how he claims he isn't a homophobe but this is one of the first things he writes:


Anyone who thinks that this hasn't been, from the start, the Far Left's way of "getting back" at the military is living in Oz.

"Getting back?" So, like, having gay people in the military is some kind of PUNISHMENT, you think?

Oopsy Daisy, Chuck.

[RobStaeger]

i thought that was a gun in your pocket

bigger question: when setting up the board, did they misunderstand the word 'gunsel' or were they making a joke?

I've been wondering that myself.

[Basque]

I have no problem with being undiplomatic. To people like Dixon and his ilk: Fuck you and fuck what you believe. I cant wait until your kind are extinct. It can't happen fast enough.

You know, I should've just said that. (I talk too much.)

[Patrick Gerard]

I don't know what you meant by any of those words as a group. Individually, I think I understand them. But together...nothing.

I don't mind being the face of Conservatism in comics. I'm fucking handsome.:cool:

The question is, who's the handsome fella you're boinking and is he as well endowed as St. Nicholas?

[Meyeraustin]

Hi all,
I'm one of the Evil White Guys (EWG) from the Dixonverse board.

We've had a pretty damn good conversation about DADT over at Bleeding Cool.

You can check it out here:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/forums/showthread.php?32058-Five-Comics-Creators-On-Don-t-Ask-Don-t-Tell

I point it out because it's the only time I've seen a calm and rationale discussion of DADT that didn't devolve into "Bigot! Racist! Homophobe!"

It's a really good discussion. Check it out.

[Meyeraustin]

you know. . unlike OSC, who actively works against my Civil Rights as a gay American, I'm able to accept Dixon's opinion for what it is.

an opinion.

it's a stupid opinion, but it's his to have.

I actually won't stop reading his books, as I enjoy his writing.

but unless I've missed something and he is actively participating in trying to take away my rights (as opposed to just voicing a stupid opinion), I'm personally able to separate the man from his politics.

(same way I'm able to enjoy EVS', or John Byrne's work).

Thank you,
God I love stuff like this. I like when people say "I disagree with the man in this or that regard but I ca still enjoy his work."

I like Chuck, he's a good guy. Nothing he has ever done is worthy of the animus I see here.

[Meyeraustin]

You know, of the MANY things that piss me off about the whole thing, this one bugs me the most--how quickly Chuck is willing to dismiss THE OPINIONS OF THE TROOPS. Why ask them, he says? Why run a military based on that? Let's go with what CHUCK thinks.

And the closest Chuck has gotten to real military service is looking ridiculous sitting in a tank in a photo op.

I have to respect the opinions of the military members who posted, even if they flatly disagree with me. They know more about this than I ever will, or Chuck ever will. To so casually just dismiss the fact that the report that the GOP ASKED FOR discounts all of Chuck's claims is offensive and insulting to the troops in every way.

It's just the usual chickenhawk nonsense that deserves all the scorn it gets and more.

Well, I know a recent poll had 67% against it in Marine combat units.

My biggest point was the difference between most military jobs, which are basically office jobs, with combat jobs where you are constantly in ridiculous situation of physical intimacy. I mean seriously "nuts to butts" was the phrase used by DIs when telling us how to squeeze into tight vehicles.

[Meyeraustin]

Definitely.

But there's also the fact that these people tend to look at the US Army as "the greatest fighting force on the planet."

Chuck Dixon says so himself:



That is such a ridiculously dishonest statement. He starts with "ask anyone around the world..." implying that all you'd have to do to verify this opinion is ask any person at all to confirm it, but then goes on to add "and (if they were honest) they'd tell you..." Yeah. So ask anyone in the world who's the greatest army on the planet? They'll say the US Army. And if they don't? Well, they're just being dishonest. See? That proves I'm right?

Why bother checking what other armies are doing? They're not as great as the US Army, so it doesn't count.

Also, "historically, the most noble and generous military that has ever marched on this planet"?! I don't want to talk shit about the US Army or anything, but I don't see how this kind of statement can be supported. There's no data for this. It's just a completely subjective (and ultimately meaningless) opinion.

I don't think many German, Italians, French, English, Japanese and Africans would agree with you. The US military has a history of humanitarian missions second to none in recorded history.

[Basque]

I don't think many German, Italians, French, English, Japanese and Africans would agree with you. The US military has a history of humanitarian missions second to none in recorded history.

Completely besides the point.

[Meyeraustin]

Has he really bashed gays? He has an unpopular opinion on DADT. But it didn't look like he was bashing gays to me. He may me completley homophobic and anti-gay but I have not seen that. I disagree with his reasoning on this issue, but I have not seen any hate-speech.

(And this is purely based on what I have seen. If I have missed something, please let me know.) If the guys says, "I hate guys" or anything like that I will tell him off as well.

Thank you, again.

He's got an opinion. That's it. It's different than most of you alls, but it's not hate speech whatever.

[Meyeraustin]

Completely besides the point.

Your point that it was impossible to prove whether the US military was noble or great and I gave some evidence (IMO).

[Meyeraustin]

Read his message board for a few years.

I have and I have never seen anything to warrant the kind of accusations I see here.

I think the worst thing you could say is that he has an older guy's POV on the subject matter. That's it.

[Basque]

Your point that it was impossible to prove whether the US military was noble or great and I gave some evidence (IMO).

You listed a bunch of countries you claim would disagree with me. That's not evidence.

But this is not a discussion I want to get involved in. Like I said, I don't want to talk shit about the military. That's absolutely not what this debate is about and I don't want the conversation to get sidetracked.

[Meyeraustin]

MOTTO! :)

Out of the many posts on that thread, this one burned my ass the most: :angry:

By The Sprat:


Talk about justifying your homophobia. :-x

I'm the Meyer in question and that came after the discussion got deflected about gender separation. Genders are separated because of sexual attraction and the problems it created. So then it became "Well not all gay men are attracted to all other men" and then is became discussions like this.

Not everything is bigotry or homophobia. There are differences in opinion.

[Meyeraustin]

You listed a bunch of countries you claim would disagree with me. That's not evidence.

But this is not a discussion I want to get involved in. Like I said, I don't want to talk shit about the military. That's absolutely not what this debate is about and I don't want the conversation to get sidetracked.

OK, cool.

[Shurato2099]

Your point that it was impossible to prove whether the US military was noble or great and I gave some evidence (IMO).

'Noble' and 'great' being subjective terms, you've got a long road to hoe to conclusively prove that one. Some may say yes, others would disagree and there would be some very good reasons on both sides.

And this has bugged me for a while now, not just you but a number of times it has come up:

Africa is a continent, not a country.

[BnL]

Thank you,
God I love stuff like this. I like when people say "I disagree with the man in this or that regard but I ca still enjoy his work."

I like Chuck, he's a good guy. Nothing he has ever done is worthy of the animus I see here.

Some of us feel that discriminatory views directed toward us (or those close to us) doesn't qualify as a mere "difference of opinion," but rather as an attack against us for something we have no control over. But thanks for letting us know how we're supposed to feel about bigotry.

[vanityman]

I have and I have never seen anything to warrant the kind of accusations I see here.

I think the worst thing you could say is that he has an older guy's POV on the subject matter. That's it.

i was a regular participant on dixonverse years ago and stopped reading it because of several things he said about gays

don't remember the specifics but i seem to remember it having something to do with gays being teachers, and then the whole rawhide kid stuff...i didn't bash him elsewhere i just stopped going there

[Treacle]

I have and I have never seen anything to warrant the kind of accusations I see here.

I think the worst thing you could say is that he has an older guy's POV on the subject matter. That's it.

There are lots of opinions older folks grew up with that are simply unacceptable today.

I don't view age as an excuse.

[Meyeraustin]

Some of us feel that discriminatory views directed toward us (or those close to us) doesn't qualify as a mere "difference of opinion," but rather as an attack against us for something we have no control over. But thanks for letting us know how we're supposed to feel about bigotry.

Can we can the sarcasm and passive-aggression? Where is the "attack"?

[Meyeraustin]

There are lots of opinions older folks grew up with that are simply unacceptable today.

I don't view age as an excuse.

Yes, and I guarantee that many of the things you think of today will seem ridiculous or backward or bigoted to your grandchildren.

[Treacle]

Yes, and I guarantee that many of the things you think of today will seem ridiculous or backward or bigoted to your grandchildren.

Then I sincerely hope I have the good sense and human decency to change my mind when the time comes for it.

Also, wrong is wrong is wrong...doesn't matter what time period it happens in. Just because everyone thought homophobia was okay 50 years ago didn't mean it was okay.

[Meyeraustin]

Then I sincerely hope I have the good sense and human decency to change my mind when the time comes for it.

Also, wrong is wrong is wrong...doesn't matter what time period it happens in. Just because everyone thought homophobia was okay 50 years ago didn't mean it was okay.

I don't think the past was as backward as you imagine and I don't think the present is as enlightened as it likes to think it is.

[Treacle]

I don't think the past was as backward as you imagine and I don't think the present is as enlightened as it likes to think it is.

Ummm...actually, the past was exactly as backward as I imagine it was. I know this because I paid attention in history class. And because my parents lived firsthand through some of this backwards history.

I also know that the present isn't perfect. But that's not the point I'm making.

The point I'm making is that there is no excuse for homophobia. Of any kind. Ever.

And if you don't understand that, it says some very unsettling things about you as a person.

[BnL]

Can we can the sarcasm and passive-aggression? Where is the "attack"?

Can "we"? I don't know, since I can't speak for you. If I had to guess though, judging by your response here, I would wager that you may have difficulty "canning" your passive-aggression. But in regard to my own abrasive tone, I think it's the perfect response to your condescension.

And the attack (no need for quotes) is in arguing in favor of discrimination, as well as the assertion that liberals don't care about our soldiers and only want to hurt the military.

[Meyeraustin]

Can "we"? I don't know, since I can't speak for you. If I had to guess though, judging by your response here, I would wager that you may have difficulty "canning" your passive-aggression. But in regard to my own abrasive tone, I think it's the perfect response to your condescension.

And the attack (no need for quotes) is in arguing in favor of discrimination, as well as the assertion that liberals don't care about our soldiers and only want to hurt the military.

One of my big points in the lengthy BC post was that people in the military do not have the full rights of civilians. I can't express myself in public, act as I pelase, go where I want, as a military member. EVERYbody acts different in the military just to get along. You think I told my infantry buddies that I hated drinking, hated sports, loved George Michael music, and drew pictures on the weekend? Of course not.

As for the "social justice" thing, Mr. Dixon has always been a big believer and supporter in our military and he seems to espouse the old saw "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." We have a great military and I believe he felt that any changes that were done to make people feel better or not in the interest of the military and the country.

[Chris Jones]

One of my big points in the lengthy BC post was that people in the military do not have the full rights of civilians. I can't express myself in public, act as I pelase, go where I want, as a military member. EVERYbody acts different in the military just to get along. You think I told my infantry buddies that I hated drinking, hated sports, loved George Michael music, and drew pictures on the weekend? Of course not.

As for the "social justice" thing, Mr. Dixon has always been a big believer and supporter in our military and he seems to espouse the old saw "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." We have a great military and I believe he felt that any changes that were done to make people feel better or not in the interest of the military and the country.

Your first paragraph is irrelevant to the conversation, and the second paragraph is fairly nonsensical as well, since there obviously WAS a problem if lots of good soldiers who never caused a hassle were being ejected due to something they had no control over.

[Meyeraustin]

Your first paragraph is irrelevant to the conversation, and the second paragraph is fairly nonsensical as well, since there obviously WAS a problem if lots of good soldiers who never caused a hassle were being ejected due to something they had no control over.

The point of the first paragraph is that no soldier has the full rights of a civilian while in the military and that everyone, in one form or another hides something of themselves in order to "go along to get along."

And I totally agree that losing qualified soldiers during the war is ridiculous. I stated that several times in the BC discussion.

[Fake Pat]

As for the "social justice" thing, Mr. Dixon has always been a big believer and supporter in our military and he seems to espouse the old saw "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." We have a great military and I believe he felt that any changes that were done to make people feel better or not in the interest of the military and the country.

It was broken. Homophobic=broken. It's pretty simple.

[Fake Pat]

I have and I have never seen anything to warrant the kind of accusations I see here.

I think the worst thing you could say is that he has an older guy's POV on the subject matter. That's it.

Wow.

[BnL]

One of my big points in the lengthy BC post was that people in the military do not have the full rights of civilians. I can't express myself in public, act as I pelase, go where I want, as a military member.

That's to be expected. But this is about extending to gay servicemembers the same rights that everyone else in the armed forces have. Straight soldiers are allowed to publicly acknowledge their (opposite-sex) partners, and until now, gay soldiers couldn't.


EVERYbody acts different in the military just to get along. You think I told my infantry buddies that I hated drinking, hated sports, loved George Michael music, and drew pictures on the weekend? Of course not.

It's your choice to not talk about those things in order to fit in. There is no policy preventing you from doing so under penalty of ejection from the military. Plus, I think don't think those hobbies and interests are really comparable to sexual orientation.


As for the "social justice" thing, Mr. Dixon has always been a big believer and supporter in our military and he seems to espouse the old saw "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." We have a great military and I believe he felt that any changes that were done to make people feel better or not in the interest of the military and the country.

He specifically said that the issue is not about doing the right thing for gay people. He said that the goal of liberals in pushing for repeal of DADT is in fact to exact revenge upon the military.

[Fake Pat]

Thank you, again.

He's got an opinion. That's it. It's different than most of you alls, but it's not hate speech whatever.

His opinion is that homophobic policy is good.

The problem isn't that people disagree, it's that he's supporting homophobia.

[Meyeraustin]

It was broken. Homophobic=broken. It's pretty simple.

But it wasn't systemically broken. You don't change a broken AC while you're driving. You pull over and fix it.

[Meyeraustin]

His opinion is that homophobic policy is good.

The problem isn't that people disagree, it's that he's supporting homophobia.

In fact, he pointed out that he did not have a problem with the next Audie Murphy being gay and he said that the military will execute this new direction of abolishing DADT with professionalism. His main point, I believe, was a constant need to "fix" the military for political reasons.

Case in point, you know when I dug my first real fighting hole? In combat. Why did I never dig one in training. because we were not allowed because of environmental reasons. Endangered some wood nymph or something.

[Fake Pat]

But it wasn't systemically broken. You don't change a broken AC while you're driving. You pull over and fix it.

Yes, it was. If homophobia is wrong (it is), a homophobic system is broken.

[Fake Pat]

In fact, he pointed out that he did not have a problem with the next Audie Murphy being gay and he said that the military will execute this new direction of abolishing DADT with professionalism. His main point, I believe, was a constant need to "fix" the military for political reasons.

Case in point, you know when I dug my first real fighting hole? In combat. Why did I never dig one in training. because we were not allowed because of environmental reasons. Endangered some wood nymph or something.

Again, whether he has a problem with gay people is irrelevant. He came out in support of homophobic policy.

[Gail Simone]

Thank you,
God I love stuff like this. I like when people say "I disagree with the man in this or that regard but I ca still enjoy his work."

I like Chuck, he's a good guy. Nothing he has ever done is worthy of the animus I see here.

In your opinion.

In some others, Chuck has had a many-years-long pattern of gross and offensive comments about lgbtq people and their desire to obtain the same civil liberties as other U.S. citizens.

And some of us thing that is pretty fucking scorn-worthy, as it happens.

[Gail Simone]

Well, I know a recent poll had 67% against it in Marine combat units.

My biggest point was the difference between most military jobs, which are basically office jobs, with combat jobs where you are constantly in ridiculous situation of physical intimacy. I mean seriously "nuts to butts" was the phrase used by DIs when telling us how to squeeze into tight vehicles.

The Marines have been by FAR the most resistant to the idea of of repealing DADT. The other services are nowhere NEAR that kind of level.

But I'm sure you know that.

[Gail Simone]

I have and I have never seen anything to warrant the kind of accusations I see here.

I think the worst thing you could say is that he has an older guy's POV on the subject matter. That's it.

Well, what can I say?

I could not disagree more.

[Gail Simone]

I don't think many German, Italians, French, English, Japanese and Africans would agree with you. The US military has a history of humanitarian missions second to none in recorded history.

Some Japanese don't have quite the rosy view of the US military that you seem to be claiming here, Meyer.

But I'm sure you know that, too.

[Fake Pat]

The Marines have been by FAR the most resistant to the idea of of repealing DADT. The other services are nowhere NEAR that kind of level.

But I'm sure you know that.

I hope a poll never comes out that shows 67% of Marines don't want black people in the service.

Apparently that would make kicking out black people A-OK.

[Meyeraustin]

In your opinion.

In some others, Chuck has had a many-years-long pattern of gross and offensive comments about lgbtq people and their desire to obtain the same civil liberties as other U.S. citizens.

And some of us thing that is pretty fucking scorn-worthy, as it happens.

Gail, can we agree that you are, seemingly, more easily-offended than most? Or at least you seem to have a temper? Offensive is kind of vague.

I have been going to his board, for years and reading interviews for decades. I have never heard him disparage, insult or demean LGBT people.

[Gail Simone]

I don't think the past was as backward as you imagine and I don't think the present is as enlightened as it likes to think it is.

Meyer, you're speaking to a black woman with that comment.

Do you have any idea how goofy that makes you look?

I think she might have a better idea of how the past treated people without straight white male privilege.

[jesterwitch]

I'm the Meyer in question and that came after the discussion got deflected about gender separation. Genders are separated because of sexual attraction and the problems it created. So then it became "Well not all gay men are attracted to all other men" and then is became discussions like this.

Not everything is bigotry or homophobia. There are differences in opinion.

Yeah. Keep derailing the conversation, buddy. This isn't just about our military. And it's not just about our own individual opinions it's about our basic human rights.

If a certain gay man hits on a straight man in the shower, who cares! What's there to be afraid of? What does it matter to YOU? If that particular gay person hits on another straight person in the shower and they knew that wasn't appropriate then that has to do with that individuals gay persons character. NOT--and I repeat--It's NOT due to the fact that they are gay. If anyone attacks anyone anywhere for any reason, then the appropriate disciplinary action should be taken. Straight or Gay, it doesn't matter.

Don't even bother responding to this post because I'm done posting on this particular thread.

[Meyeraustin]

Some Japanese don't have quite the rosy view of the US military that you seem to be claiming here, Meyer.

But I'm sure you know that, too.

Yes, of course, every nation has people that don't like the US military. Every country also has people that don't like fluffy kittens.

[Patrick Gerard]

But it wasn't systemically broken. You don't change a broken AC while you're driving. You pull over and fix it.

I'm not even sure how that analogy is supposed to work but if my AC was ejecting my friends out of the car, you're damn straight I'd take immediate action to fix that.

DADT is NO different than saying that black people have to wear prosthetic makeup to look white so as not to distract the racists from doing their job.

NO ONE has a right to object to homosexuality, period. At least insofar as it leads to homosexuals not being allowed to be homosexual or find jobs as openly homosexual people. Anywhere. Period. End of discussion.

You can't agree with that, you might as well be Osama Bin Laden or the Devil in my eyes. Unacceptable behavior. It's bad enough to have to deal with people close to me who are brainwashed into hating homosexuals, I'm not going to have any understanding for strangers who want to hurt people I care about, regardless of what sacrifices they've made or what elected office they hold or what comic books they've written.

It's evil behavior. It's wrong. And I won't it slide or say it's not a big deal. It's absolutely a big deal.

You're fucking with people's LIVES when you spew this kind of crap. I don't give a damn what you find distracting or what you think some marine would find distracting. It's your job and his job to get the FUCK over it and let people be who they are.

[Fake Pat]

Gail, can we agree that you are, seemingly, more easily-offended than most? Or at least you seem to have a temper? Offensive is kind of vague.

I have been going to his board, for years and reading interviews for decades. I have never heard him disparage, insult or demean LGBT people.

He supports a homophobic policy. Is it getting any clearer for you?

[Meyeraustin]

Yeah. Keep derailing the conversation, buddy. This isn't just about our military. And it's not just about our own individual opinions it's about our basic human rights.

If a certain gay man hits on a straight man in the shower, who cares! What's there to be afraid of? What does it matter to YOU? If that particular gay person hit on another straight person in the shower and they knew that wasn't appropriate then that has to do with that individuals gay persons character. NOT--and I repeat--It's NOT due to the fact that they are gay. If anyone attacks anyone anywhere for any reason, then the appropriate disciplinary action should be taken. Straight or Gay, it doesn't matter.

Don't even bother responding to this post because I'm done posting on this particular thread.

Again, why so hostile? Is everyone who does not agree with you a bigot or homophobe?

Please don't derail this into "showers" territory.

[Fake Pat]

Yes, of course, every nation has people that don't like the US military. Every country also has people that don't like fluffy kittens.

And yet you act like the fact that every nation has people that like the US military means something.

You can't have it both ways.

[Treacle]

Gail, can we agree that you are, seemingly, more easily-offended than most? Or at least you seem to have a temper? Offensive is kind of vague.

Wow.

That is bold.

[Meyeraustin]

The Marines have been by FAR the most resistant to the idea of of repealing DADT. The other services are nowhere NEAR that kind of level.

But I'm sure you know that.

The Marines are resistant to EVERYthing. We are the only service with the same dress uniform from WW2. We only recently put a small group of Force Recon operators attached to SOCOM, even though they have been asking us for 20 years.

[Fake Pat]

Again, why so hostile? Is everyone who does not agree with you a bigot or homophobe?

Please don't derail this into "showers" territory.

Everyone who disagrees is supporting a bigoted or homophobic policy. What their personal feelings are beyond that is irrelevant.

[Gail Simone]

Gail, can we agree that you are, seemingly, more easily-offended than most? Or at least you seem to have a temper? Offensive is kind of vague.

I have been going to his board, for years and reading interviews for decades. I have never heard him disparage, insult or demean LGBT people.

Meyer, really, please feel free to get lost. I know your line of bullshit from CBR, and Dixonverse already. I appreciate your military service, but I know the line of shit you sling and I don't have any patience for it.

I strongly suspect you, who already agree with Chuck on most issues, want to believe the best. Most sane people read his last screed quite differently than you did. And I've had many conversations with Chuck about lgbtq issues where he showed such a deep and profound ignorance of the topic at hand that it's a bit dazzling.

Contrary to whatever is going on in your mind, I don't WANT to dislike Chuck. I have admired him as a writer for ages, he wrote some of my favorite stories, and I love the characters he created. But I would have the same hard time being friends with a racist as I do with a homophobe. Whether that makes me 'testy,' to you don't bother me even slightly.

Really. Stay if you like, or feel free to go back to where they eat Chuck's drivel about gay people with a bile-filled spoon.

[Darque_Angel]

I had no idea that Mr. Dixon felt this way. I sometimes think I was happier when writers and artist were just names on pages and I didn't really know anything about them.

If men and women are going to put their lives on the line to defend the rights and freedoms of this country they should be entitled to those rights. It was wrong when we segregated our military based on race and its wrong when we do it based on sexual orientation. If everyone regardless of race, creed, religion, sexual orientation and gender is not equally protected by the laws of this land then everything we stand for is a lie. Why is that so hard for some people to grasp?

Eva

[Patrick Gerard]

Again, why so hostile? Is everyone who does not agree with you a bigot or homophobe?

Please don't derail this into "showers" territory.

They absolutely are if they're advocating action against a group they're uncomfortable with or that they passive aggressively suggest other people have a problem with, instead of being rational and expecting people in a professional environment to get the fuck over the hangups they have.

[Gail Simone]

Wow.

That is bold.

I know Meyer's bullshit, it's not exactly new material.

[Meyeraustin]

Meyer, you're speaking to a black woman with that comment.

Do you have any idea how goofy that makes you look?

I think she might have a better idea of how the past treated people without straight white male privilege.

I speak to everyone equally. My point was that a lot of people like to pat themselves on the back for being more "with-it" than Gramps, but Gramps was more with it the Great-Gramps and so on.

[vanityman]

Gail, can we agree that you are, seemingly, more easily-offended than most? Or at least you seem to have a temper? Offensive is kind of vague.

I have been going to his board, for years and reading interviews for decades. I have never heard him disparage, insult or demean LGBT people.

again, as someone who frequented the dixonverse boards years ago, he was pretty straight forward about his discomfort with gay people...he wasn't as blatant as "god hates fags" but he took a lot of heat for it outside of his forum

i would suggest you perform a simple google search to see all the articles about it going back at least 10 years

[Fake Pat]

Really. Stay if you like, or feel free to go back to where they eat Chuck's drivel about gay people with a bile-filled spoon.

And where, as of the last time I checked, debating the morality of homosexuality was apparently a valid conversation.

Amazing, huh?

[Gail Simone]

Yes, of course, every nation has people that don't like the US military. Every country also has people that don't like fluffy kittens.

Or perhaps they remember nuclear bombs being dropped on their cities?

I don't even know what to say to this. Is it really your worldview to say the first world is all in love with the US military?

[Treacle]

I speak to everyone equally. My point was that a lot of people like to pat themselves on the back for being more "with-it" than Gramps, but Gramps was more with it the Great-Gramps and so on.

Except that's not what you said. This is what you said--


I don't think the past was as backward as you imagine and I don't think the present is as enlightened as it likes to think it is.

That is a patently false statement.

The past was exactly as backward as I imagine. And for you to assert otherwise makes it seem like you're grossly unfamiliar with American history.

[Fake Pat]

I speak to everyone equally. My point was that a lot of people like to pat themselves on the back for being more "with-it" than Gramps, but Gramps was more with it the Great-Gramps and so on.

So. Fucking. What?

[Meyeraustin]

Meyer, really, please feel free to get lost. I know your line of bullshit from CBR, and Dixonverse already. I appreciate your military service, but I know the line of shit you sling and I don't have any patience for it.

I strongly suspect you, who already agree with Chuck on most issues, want to believe the best. Most sane people read his last screed quite differently than you did. And I've had many conversations with Chuck about lgbtq issues where he showed such a deep and profound ignorance of the topic at hand that it's a bit dazzling.

Contrary to whatever is going on in your mind, I don't WANT to dislike Chuck. I have admired him as a writer for ages, he wrote some of my favorite stories, and I love the characters he created. But I would have the same hard time being friends with a racist as I do with a homophobe. Whether that makes me 'testy,' to you don't bother me even slightly.

Really. Stay if you like, or feel free to go back to where they eat Chuck's drivel about gay people with a bile-filled spoon.

Here's the original post:
"Look, I hope it all works out. I personally wouldn't care iof the next Audie Murphy was gay. I'd be just as proud of that man or woman. And I'm sure our troops will do all they can to make this new non-policy work because they are good, decent, tolerant men and women. These are the same branches of the service that integrated blacks into their ranks long before the rest of the country did the same. And those traditions continue. You won't see the gay bashing I'm sure the MSM is salivating for just as they breathlessly awaited the mass lynching of Arab-Americans post 9-11. I'm certain it will all go smoothly. Our commanders (even those that oppose it) will make sure of that and our service men and women will follow orders. They will serve as they have always served; as a good example for the rest of us of what an American can be.

But it is still wrong to tinker in the name of social justice with the greatest fighting force on the planet. And I don't mean "greatest" simply in terms of ass-kicking skils. I mean, historically, the most noble and generous military that has ever marched on this planet. You ask anyone around the world which army they'd rather see show up in time of trouble and (if they were honest) they'd tell you they'd rather have the G.I.s on the ground than the U.N. or NATO or any of their neighbors.

But the Far Left, through incremental moves in the media and the courts and legislation, are insistant on meddling with how our military works. With one hand they lay on new policies, rules and restrictions while disarming our guys with the other hand. START treaty? Seriously?"

I'm not seeing a bigotry or homophobia. I'm seeing the guy say he hopes it succeeds and he will be as proud of a gay heroic soldier as anyone else.

[Gail Simone]

And where, as of the last time I checked, debating the morality of homosexuality was apparently a valid conversation.

Amazing, huh?

That conversation finally got so stupid I couldn't even look at it any more.

What most of that group knows about gay civil liberties wouldn't fill Conan's hairy thong.

[Fake Pat]

I'm not seeing a bigotry or homophobia. I'm seeing the guy say he hopes it succeeds and he will be as proud of a gay heroic soldier as anyone else.

You're also seeing him say it was WRONG TO DO IT.

Supporting a homophobic policy. That. Ain't. Good.

[Meyeraustin]

again, as someone who frequented the dixonverse boards years ago, he was pretty straight forward about his discomfort with gay people...he wasn't as blatant as "god hates fags" but he took a lot of heat for it outside of his forum

i would suggest you perform a simple google search to see all the articles about it going back at least 10 years

You know what? I actually did that one day. I tried to find this damning evidence that everyone else refers to obliquely. All I found out was that he made a false assumption that the artist on the Rawhide Kid was tricked into drawing it, not knowing that they were ret-conning him to be gay. That's it.

Chuck posts all the time. if he had some ugly side to his character it would have slipped out in one of his thousands of posts. I haven't seen it.

[Gail Simone]

Here's the original post:
"Look, I hope it all works out. I personally wouldn't care iof the next Audie Murphy was gay. I'd be just as proud of that man or woman. And I'm sure our troops will do all they can to make this new non-policy work because they are good, decent, tolerant men and women. These are the same branches of the service that integrated blacks into their ranks long before the rest of the country did the same. And those traditions continue. You won't see the gay bashing I'm sure the MSM is salivating for just as they breathlessly awaited the mass lynching of Arab-Americans post 9-11. I'm certain it will all go smoothly. Our commanders (even those that oppose it) will make sure of that and our service men and women will follow orders. They will serve as they have always served; as a good example for the rest of us of what an American can be.

But it is still wrong to tinker in the name of social justice with the greatest fighting force on the planet. And I don't mean "greatest" simply in terms of ass-kicking skils. I mean, historically, the most noble and generous military that has ever marched on this planet. You ask anyone around the world which army they'd rather see show up in time of trouble and (if they were honest) they'd tell you they'd rather have the G.I.s on the ground than the U.N. or NATO or any of their neighbors.

But the Far Left, through incremental moves in the media and the courts and legislation, are insistant on meddling with how our military works. With one hand they lay on new policies, rules and restrictions while disarming our guys with the other hand. START treaty? Seriously?"


THIS is the exact reason you made yourself unwelcome at CBR, because this is pure bullshit.

For the record, that is NOT the original post. That is a cherry-picked PART of the original post. The entire original is both stupider AND more offensive.

AND, that post is part of a LINE of dumb comments, and may I add that that that was AFTER Chuck edited it from the original?

AND may I also add that it follows a long, long pattern of portraying EVERY attempt at gay rights as the REVENGE OF THE LEFT ON EVERYTHING DECENT?

The idea that neither you nor Chuck finds that offensive is both sad and unsurprising. And I have exhausted what little patience I had with your rhetorical nonsense.

If you can't represent what Chuck ACTUALLY said, then don't pretend you can.

[Fake Pat]

You know what? I actually did that one day. I tried to find this damning evidence that everyone else refers to obliquely. All I found out was that he made a false assumption that the artist on the Rawhide Kid was tricked into drawing it, not knowing that they were ret-conning him to be gay. That's it.

Chuck posts all the time. if he had some ugly side to his character it would have slipped out in one of his thousands of posts. I haven't seen it.

Re-read that one you just posted.

You know, the one where he supports a homophobic policy.

[Meyeraustin]

You're also seeing him say it was WRONG TO DO IT.

Supporting a homophobic policy. That. Ain't. Good.

He said it was wrong to tinker with a high-functioning organization for political reasons. He then says that he hopes the plan succeeds.

[Treacle]

Chuck posts all the time. if he had some ugly side to his character it would have slipped out in one of his thousands of posts. I haven't seen it.

That's probably because your definition of ugly isn't everyone else's definition of ugly.

[EdNEMO]

I think at this point if there is a question about how Chuck Dixon feels about gays, he should really answer himself. Maybe even bullet-point it.

I have made my feelings quite clear.

I think homosexuals, both sexes, all races and people who immigrated from any country deserve the exact same rights as everyone else. I don't think I can be much more clear than that.

DADT has always been like seperate water fountains as far as I was concerned. And I am not gay. I know a lot of gay people, but I can't claim any for friends, and even I can say, there is nothing different about a gay person going into the military than a heterosexual.

I will also say this. I have met Chuck Dixon. I liked Chuck Dixon. He was a very nice person and I have enjoyed his work over the years. And if he said he hated gays, I would tell him off. Just like I would if he made a "black" joke or a "Pollock" joke.

People basically have two options. Keep your mouth shut or say exactly what you mean. If there is some confusion, clarify.

[Meyeraustin]

THIS is the exact reason you made yourself unwelcome at CBR, because this is pure bullshit.

For the record, that is NOT the original post. That is a cherry-picked PART of the original post. The entire original is both stupider AND more offensive.

AND, that post is part of a LINE of dumb comments, and may I add that that that was AFTER Chuck edited it from the original?

AND may I also add that it follows a long, long pattern of portraying EVERY attempt at gay rights as the REVENGE OF THE LEFT ON EVERYTHING DECENT?

The idea that neither you nor Chuck finds that offensive is both sad and unsurprising. And I have exhausted what little patience I had with your rhetorical nonsense.

If you can't represent what Chuck ACTUALLY said, then don't pretend you can.

I didn't cherry-pick it, I copied and pasted it from the first post in this thread. I am waaaaaaaaaaaaay too lazy to cherry-pick anything, even actual cherries.

[Gail Simone]

again, as someone who frequented the dixonverse boards years ago, he was pretty straight forward about his discomfort with gay people...he wasn't as blatant as "god hates fags" but he took a lot of heat for it outside of his forum

i would suggest you perform a simple google search to see all the articles about it going back at least 10 years

But, but...Meyer doesn't see anything wrong, so everything MUST be just dandy!

Bleah.

[BnL]

Here's the original post:
"Look, I hope it all works out. I personally wouldn't care iof the next Audie Murphy was gay. I'd be just as proud of that man or woman. And I'm sure our troops will do all they can to make this new non-policy work because they are good, decent, tolerant men and women. These are the same branches of the service that integrated blacks into their ranks long before the rest of the country did the same. And those traditions continue. You won't see the gay bashing I'm sure the MSM is salivating for just as they breathlessly awaited the mass lynching of Arab-Americans post 9-11. I'm certain it will all go smoothly. Our commanders (even those that oppose it) will make sure of that and our service men and women will follow orders. They will serve as they have always served; as a good example for the rest of us of what an American can be.

But it is still wrong to tinker in the name of social justice with the greatest fighting force on the planet. And I don't mean "greatest" simply in terms of ass-kicking skils. I mean, historically, the most noble and generous military that has ever marched on this planet. You ask anyone around the world which army they'd rather see show up in time of trouble and (if they were honest) they'd tell you they'd rather have the G.I.s on the ground than the U.N. or NATO or any of their neighbors.

But the Far Left, through incremental moves in the media and the courts and legislation, are insistant on meddling with how our military works. With one hand they lay on new policies, rules and restrictions while disarming our guys with the other hand. START treaty? Seriously?"

I'm not seeing a bigotry or homophobia. I'm seeing the guy say he hopes it succeeds and he will be as proud of a gay heroic soldier as anyone else.

That's not the entire original post. He also said:


Anyone who thinks that this hasn't been, from the start, the Far Left's way of "getting back" at the military is living in Oz.

A statement like that--thinly veiled, Glenn Beck-esque accusations that liberals are not "real Americans," and wish only to sabotage the United States and undermine it's most important principles--is worthy of every bit of contempt that has been leveled at it.

[Meyeraustin]

Or perhaps they remember nuclear bombs being dropped on their cities?

I don't even know what to say to this. Is it really your worldview to say the first world is all in love with the US military?

No, but I truly believe that it has been the most noble and has contributed more to all nations of the world than any other. My combat deployments were about .001% combat and everything else was installing generators out in town, bringing people food and water, guarding their power facilities, etc.

[Gail Simone]

I didn't cherry-pick it, I copied and pasted it from the first post in this thread. I am waaaaaaaaaaaaay too lazy to cherry-pick anything, even actual cherries.


Well, then let me enlighten you.

Because that ISN'T the original post, that you seem to be basing your opinions on.

THIS is the actual post.

"nd the demonzing will continue as the negative impacts of this new policy (or lack of one) begin to arise. Anyone pointing out the consequence sof this vote will be shouted down as a homophobe and have their reputation attacked.

Anyone who thinks that this hasn't been, from the start, the Far Left's way of "getting back" at the military is living in Oz.

The most ludicrous example I can thnink of is the use of polls within the services when reporting in this issue. Firstly, the MSM's use of polls is always to be questioned. Secondly, since when has our military acted in response to polls from the troops? Amd thirdly, since when has the MSM and Far Left ever cared what our soliders, sailors, airmen and marines thought on any given subject? Frankly, I can never remember a poll taken among our guys and gals asking for thier opinion on anything. Probably because the New York Times and NBC wouldn't like the results. Goid forbid we should find out that morale remains high in a time of war despite the sacrifices being made. Same reason we get an "Awww...." for the wounded troops between stories about pop stars and multi-birth moms but never hear one of these guys interviewed.

And this issue really has nothing to do with homosexuals. The whole issue of gays in the military is a Trojan Horse to allow more liberal social engineering into our armed services. They've finally broken the Marines who will have to follow this new non-policy without question or modification. That's a huge victory for the Left. But they could have done it with vegan vegetarians just as well.

Next will be racial quotas for the different branches. (they've already tried affirmative action with the SEALs) Followed by lifestyle quotas. "Not enough lesbians in your unit? We'll fix that with a court order." And environmentalism; building a tank with a smaller carbon footprint and to hell with the guys riding inside of it or how much firepower it packs. The services are already lawyered up so how hard can this be?

Let's take vegetarians as an example. Vegans aren't bad people. Their life decisions don't hurt anyone. Heck, I married one. But when her chocie of diet was going to hurt someone (when she was pregnant) she gave up her choice and added dairy and chicken and fish to her diet.

So we take away the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for vegans. Now they must be accomidated. Each unit must have the proper percentage of vegan MREs. Each naval vessel must have separate meals prepared for swabbies who prefer mung beans and brown rice to BBQ and cream gravy. And those provisions must be stocked in quantity because who knows how many vegans there are and who might decide to switch to vegan in the middle of a deployment. And the food has to be the highest quailty tax payer money can buy. No second class frozen stuff like the kosher meals the airlines used to serve. If the saffron sauteed tofu isn't top of the line then the lawsuits will fly. And never mind that a vegan diet does not meet the basic caloric requirements for a combat soldier, sailor or marine. This is about fairness and lifestyle choices not fightin' ability or protecting the lives of your buddies or your fellow country men. It's what goes in your tummy that counts. You are what you eat not my country 'tis of thee, right?

If this post is quoted elsewhere on the web you won't se this section reported:

Look, I hope it all works out. I personally wouldn't care iof the next Audie Murphy was gay. I'd be just as proud of that man or woman. And I'm sure our troops will do all they can to make this new non-policy work because they are good, decent, tolerant men and women. These are the same branches of the service that integrated blacks into their ranks long before the rest of the country did the same. And those traditions continue. You won't see the gay bashing I'm sure the MSM is salivating for just as they breathlessly awaited the mass lynching of Arab-Americans post 9-11. I'm certain it will all go smoothly. Our commanders (even those that oppose it) will make sure of that and our service men and women will follow orders. They will serve as they have always served; as a good example for the rest of us of what an American can be.

But it is still wrong to tinker in the name of social justice with the greatest fighting force on the planet. And I don't mean "greatest" simply in terms of ass-kicking skils. I mean, historically, the most noble and generous military that has ever marched on this planet. You ask anyone around the world which army they'd rather see show up in time of trouble and (if they were honest) they'd tell you they'd rather have the G.I.s on the ground than the U.N. or NATO or any of their neighbors.

But the Far Left, through incremental moves in the media and the courts and legislation, are insistant on meddling with how our military works. With one hand they lay on new policies, rules and restrictions while disarming our guys with the other hand. START treaty? Seriously?

And they won't be happy until all five branches of the service (not forgetting you, Coast Guard) are more like our college campuses than the guys who charged Devil's Den or landed on Omaha Beach. "


And don't bother, I already get that you're fine with it.


A lot of people see it differently. And as part of a long, long pattern, I agree with them.

[Fake Pat]

He said it was wrong to tinker with a high-functioning organization for political reasons. He then says that he hopes the plan succeeds.

None of that changes a damn thing I said.

He said it was wrong to end a homophobic policy. The end.

[Fake Pat]

No, but I truly believe that it has been the most noble and has contributed more to all nations of the world than any other. My combat deployments were about .001% combat and everything else was installing generators out in town, bringing people food and water, guarding their power facilities, etc.

So then, as long as good stuff like that happens, having (hypothetically, of course) a policy of only allowing white people in would be OK?

[Gail Simone]

No, but I truly believe that it has been the most noble and has contributed more to all nations of the world than any other. My combat deployments were about .001% combat and everything else was installing generators out in town, bringing people food and water, guarding their power facilities, etc.

Ugh.

Do you ever, and I mean, EVER, not shift your argument completely when your oddball claims are disputed?

"The Japanese adore us You won't find many Japanese who think badly of us!"

"Uh, not really...considering Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and hey, what about the recent protests against continued US military presence in Japan?"

"What I MEANT to say is that we build roads!"

Sheesh.

[Meyeraustin]

Well, then let me enlighten you.

Because that ISN'T the original post, that you seem to be basing your opinions on.

THIS is the actual post.

"nd the demonzing will continue as the negative impacts of this new policy (or lack of one) begin to arise. Anyone pointing out the consequence sof this vote will be shouted down as a homophobe and have their reputation attacked.

Anyone who thinks that this hasn't been, from the start, the Far Left's way of "getting back" at the military is living in Oz.

The most ludicrous example I can thnink of is the use of polls within the services when reporting in this issue. Firstly, the MSM's use of polls is always to be questioned. Secondly, since when has our military acted in response to polls from the troops? Amd thirdly, since when has the MSM and Far Left ever cared what our soliders, sailors, airmen and marines thought on any given subject? Frankly, I can never remember a poll taken among our guys and gals asking for thier opinion on anything. Probably because the New York Times and NBC wouldn't like the results. Goid forbid we should find out that morale remains high in a time of war despite the sacrifices being made. Same reason we get an "Awww...." for the wounded troops between stories about pop stars and multi-birth moms but never hear one of these guys interviewed.

And this issue really has nothing to do with homosexuals. The whole issue of gays in the military is a Trojan Horse to allow more liberal social engineering into our armed services. They've finally broken the Marines who will have to follow this new non-policy without question or modification. That's a huge victory for the Left. But they could have done it with vegan vegetarians just as well.

Next will be racial quotas for the different branches. (they've already tried affirmative action with the SEALs) Followed by lifestyle quotas. "Not enough lesbians in your unit? We'll fix that with a court order." And environmentalism; building a tank with a smaller carbon footprint and to hell with the guys riding inside of it or how much firepower it packs. The services are already lawyered up so how hard can this be?

Let's take vegetarians as an example. Vegans aren't bad people. Their life decisions don't hurt anyone. Heck, I married one. But when her chocie of diet was going to hurt someone (when she was pregnant) she gave up her choice and added dairy and chicken and fish to her diet.

So we take away the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for vegans. Now they must be accomidated. Each unit must have the proper percentage of vegan MREs. Each naval vessel must have separate meals prepared for swabbies who prefer mung beans and brown rice to BBQ and cream gravy. And those provisions must be stocked in quantity because who knows how many vegans there are and who might decide to switch to vegan in the middle of a deployment. And the food has to be the highest quailty tax payer money can buy. No second class frozen stuff like the kosher meals the airlines used to serve. If the saffron sauteed tofu isn't top of the line then the lawsuits will fly. And never mind that a vegan diet does not meet the basic caloric requirements for a combat soldier, sailor or marine. This is about fairness and lifestyle choices not fightin' ability or protecting the lives of your buddies or your fellow country men. It's what goes in your tummy that counts. You are what you eat not my country 'tis of thee, right?

If this post is quoted elsewhere on the web you won't se this section reported:

Look, I hope it all works out. I personally wouldn't care iof the next Audie Murphy was gay. I'd be just as proud of that man or woman. And I'm sure our troops will do all they can to make this new non-policy work because they are good, decent, tolerant men and women. These are the same branches of the service that integrated blacks into their ranks long before the rest of the country did the same. And those traditions continue. You won't see the gay bashing I'm sure the MSM is salivating for just as they breathlessly awaited the mass lynching of Arab-Americans post 9-11. I'm certain it will all go smoothly. Our commanders (even those that oppose it) will make sure of that and our service men and women will follow orders. They will serve as they have always served; as a good example for the rest of us of what an American can be.

But it is still wrong to tinker in the name of social justice with the greatest fighting force on the planet. And I don't mean "greatest" simply in terms of ass-kicking skils. I mean, historically, the most noble and generous military that has ever marched on this planet. You ask anyone around the world which army they'd rather see show up in time of trouble and (if they were honest) they'd tell you they'd rather have the G.I.s on the ground than the U.N. or NATO or any of their neighbors.

But the Far Left, through incremental moves in the media and the courts and legislation, are insistant on meddling with how our military works. With one hand they lay on new policies, rules and restrictions while disarming our guys with the other hand. START treaty? Seriously?

And they won't be happy until all five branches of the service (not forgetting you, Coast Guard) are more like our college campuses than the guys who charged Devil's Den or landed on Omaha Beach. "


And don't bother, I already get that you're fine with it.


A lot of people see it differently. And as part of a long, long pattern, I agree with them.

OK, I get that. Difference of opinion. But why the vitriol? I disagree with you fairly frequently, but I'm not angry at you in the least. Even when you insult me, I just chalk it up to you being a red-head :)

[Gail Simone]

I'm off to go try to get revenge against everything decent with my sneaky plan of trying to hope for the same rights for all US citizens.

I'm not sure how it all connects, but well, Chuck assures me it does.

[Fake Pat]

OK, I get that. Difference of opinion. But why the vitriol? I disagree with you fairly frequently, but I'm not angry at you in the least. Even when you insult me, I just chalk it up to you being a red-head :)

Because you're defending someone for supporting a homophobic policy.

It is incredibly simple.

[Meyeraustin]

Ugh.

Do you ever, and I mean, EVER, not shift your argument completely when your oddball claims are disputed?

"The Japanese adore us You won't find many Japanese who think badly of us!"

"Uh, not really...considering Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and hey, what about the recent protests against continued US military presence in Japan?"

"What I MEANT to say is that we build roads!"

Sheesh.

I think compared to the absolute ruin the Imperial Japan Government wrought in its own people, and the incredivle success that Japan had after we defeated them and then rebuilt their country, that they do see us as being beneficial to their nation's history.

[Fake Pat]

Notice how Meyer keeps avoiding the "swap race with orientation" stuff? I sure do.

[Patrick Gerard]

He said it was wrong to tinker with a high-functioning organization for political reasons. He then says that he hopes the plan succeeds.

You might as well suggest the same of Nazis. Yeah, I went Godwin with this but sometimes the analogy fits.

A system that is "high-functioning" for some people at the exclusion of others, based on nature, genetics, and heredity, is not the kind of "high-functioning" that is acceptable.

It's like you bake someone a cake and they take one bite and die. Sure, it's a high-functioning POISON but it's not supposed to be poison. It's supposed to be a fucking cake.

A military or any public organization which excludes people on the basis of nature is not high-functioning. It may be pragmatically efficient at its stated goals but so was Hitler. So's a poisoned birthday cake. That goal needs adjusted if it excludes people... And you only have to look as far as the Manhattan Project and people like Einstein to recognize that excluding people on the basis of nature or biology WASN'T pragmatic.

Something truly pragmatic is concerned with the best people in the best jobs, no matter what tint their skin color is or what god they worship or what makes their loins quiver. It's the intolerance that defies pragmatism here.

[Fake Pat]

I think compared to the absolute ruin the Imperial Japan Government wrought in its own people, and the incredivle success that Japan had after we defeated them and then rebuilt their country, that they do see us as being beneficial to their nation's history.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8478070.stm

[Gail Simone]

OK, I get that. Difference of opinion. But why the vitriol? I disagree with you fairly frequently, but I'm not angry at you in the least. Even when you insult me, I just chalk it up to you being a red-head :)

Meyer, grow up, seriously.

Do you not get this?

I honestly could not care less what you think of me.

I don't mean to be hurtful, but I simply wouldn't give it a moment's regard if you thought I was the anti-Christ. It's true.

But you are defending what looks to be some genuinely shitty homophobia, and that I DO care about. I have lgbtq friends on active duty, people who, like yourself, chose to make sacrifices and join the military. Hearing dumbass comments like those on Chuck's board about these people who are serving with honor makes me ill.

THAT'S why I'm not drinking tea with an extended pinkie.

Good night, everyone.

[Gail Simone]

I think compared to the absolute ruin the Imperial Japan Government wrought in its own people, and the incredivle success that Japan had after we defeated them and then rebuilt their country, that they do see us as being beneficial to their nation's history.

So the answer to my question about shifting the argument when caught saying something ridiculous is...you're fine with it, yes?

[Tobias M]

THAT'S why I'm not drinking tea with an extended pinkie.

Good night, everyone.

Night Gail, keep on being awesome :D

[BnL]

Notice how Meyer keeps avoiding the "swap race with orientation" stuff? I sure do.

Yes, and I even noticed how Chuck himself addressed racial integration of the armed forces without really "addressing" it (IE, he doesn't acknowledging that, according to his own logic, it's exactly the same kind of "social engineering" as repealing DADT is, but somehow racial integration is admirable, and repealing DADT is a nightmare).

[Meyeraustin]

Notice how Meyer keeps avoiding the "swap race with orientation" stuff? I sure do.

It's apples and oranges. Gays were not segregated into all-gay units. It's not a direct correlation.

Look, I know it's fun to jump on me because I have "straight white male privilege" and everything. My original point was how refreshing the length BC discussion on DADT was in that people sniped very little and seemed to see things from different perspectives. I already said repeatedly that DADT should be repealed, but I think it should have waited until we were out of Afghanistan.

[Patrick Gerard]

OK, I get that. Difference of opinion. But why the vitriol? I disagree with you fairly frequently, but I'm not angry at you in the least. Even when you insult me, I just chalk it up to you being a red-head :)

Yeah. Don't mind the women folk. Just a mild case of hysteria and the vapors. Heaven help us if they could actually have divergent opinions.

[Meyeraustin]

Yeah. Don't mind the women folk. Just a mild case of hysteria and the vapors. Heaven help us if they could actually have divergent opinions.

Oh, simmer. It was a joke. You can't be so sensitive about everything.

Am I ginger-phobic? :)

[BnL]

It's apples and oranges. Gays were not segregated into all-gay units. It's not a direct correlation.

It's not exactly the same, but it's extremely disingenuous to claim that the situations are not analogous. And again, even though it's not the exact same situation, desegregation still seems to me like it qualifies as the kind of "social engineering of the military" that Chuck was railing against in regards to DADT repeal.

[Fake Pat]

It's apples and oranges. Gays were not segregated into all-gay units. It's not a direct correlation.

Look, I know it's fun to jump on me because I have "straight white male privilege" and everything. My original point was how refreshing the length BC discussion on DADT was in that people sniped very little and seemed to see things from different perspectives. I already said repeatedly that DADT should be repealed, but I think it should have waited until we were out of Afghanistan.

It's not. It's irrational, stupid, ugly, baseless discrimination in both cases.

[Meyeraustin]

It's not exactly the same, but it's extremely disingenuous to claim that the situations are not analogous. And again, even though it's not the exact same situation, desegregation still seems to me like it qualifies as the kind of "social engineering of the military" that Chuck was railing against in regards to DADT repeal.

Integration was actually done mostly for logistical reasons. After WW2, the military was down to bare-bones. When Korea started up, they had to coalesce several under-strength units into a fewer number of full-strength units. Thus, it was done for military efficiency.

[Fake Pat]

Integration was actually done mostly for logistical reasons. After WW2, the military was down to bare-bones. When Korea started up, they had to coalesce several under-strength units into a fewer number of full-strength units. Thus, it was done for military efficiency.

So, if they didn't need black people, allowing black people in would have been wrong.

Amazing.

(also completely ignoring the fact that our military could absolutely use all the gay servicemen and women who have been barred)

[EdNEMO]

It's so funny to me to read both sides of an issue. I see what Dixon is saying, but don't agree with it. Basically, one does not follow the other.

Meyeraustin, I think you have fallen into a defensive position that does not do you any favors. There are people commenting on this thread that I feel are the worst sort of people. And in this argument we are on the same side. I hate that! But it is important to realize that the only person who can explain exactly what they mean is Chuck himself.

If he is against having liberals and hippies adding mandatory vegan diets or adding people to military units who are not the best available, I am 100% with him.

I do not think they need more gays in military units. Or African Americans or women. I have always felt it should be the best person for the job. But that is not what this is about. It would appear that Chuck Dixon is against repealing DADT. Which is an extremely offensive and prejudice rule.

His reasons are based on possiilities, not the very factual issue that this is a BS bigoted law in the first place.

[Meyeraustin]

So, if they didn't need black people, allowing black people in would have been wrong.

Amazing.

(also completely ignoring the fact that our military could absolutely use all the gay servicemen and women who have been barred)

Yes, and that brings me back to apples and oranges.

Integration was brought up repeatedly during WW2, but it was continually tabled because they were too busy fighting the war.

But I do see your point. I hated seeing anyone kicked out. It was ludicrous. My point throughout is that opposing DADT being repealed now, does not make you a homophobe or a bigot. It simply might mean you think that is something that should wait until peacetime to be resolved.

[BnL]

Integration was actually done mostly for logistical reasons. After WW2, the military was down to bare-bones. When Korea started up, they had to coalesce several under-strength units into a fewer number of full-strength units. Thus, it was done for military efficiency.

So if it were merely done because it was the fair thing to do, it would have been terrible?

Well okay then. If the standard is making the military more efficient, then we can just say that repeal of DADT was necessary because millions of dollars were wasted on training soldiers who only wound up being ejected from the military anyway. The policy also weakened the military by removing Arabic translators (who are in short supply) while we're engaged in a military conflict in the Middle East.

Now what's the excuse for supporting DADT?

[Fake Pat]

Yes, and that brings me back to apples and oranges.

Integration was brought up repeatedly during WW2, but it was continually tabled because they were too busy fighting the war.

But I do see your point. I hated seeing anyone kicked out. It was ludicrous. My point throughout is that opposing DADT being repealed now, does not make you a homophobe or a bigot. It simply might mean you think that is something that should wait until peacetime to be resolved.

Whoa. Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Meyer, you have truly revealed yourself here.

[Fake Pat]

So if it were merely done because it was the fair thing to do, it would have been terrible?

Well okay then. If the standard is making the military more efficient, then we can just say that repeal of DADT was necessary because millions of dollars were wasted on training soldiers who only wound up being ejected from the military anyway. The policy also weakened the military by removing Arabic translators (who are in short supply) while we're engaged in a military conflict in the Middle East.

Now what's the excuse for supporting DADT?

YES. He actually said yes.

Sweet lord.

[Treacle]

YES. He actually said yes.

Sweet lord.

That looks like a good place to end the conversation for me.

Because really, he's said everything that needs to be said about the kind of person he is.

[Fake Pat]

Yes, and that brings me back to apples and oranges.

Integration was brought up repeatedly during WW2, but it was continually tabled because they were too busy fighting the war.

But I do see your point. I hated seeing anyone kicked out. It was ludicrous. My point throughout is that opposing DADT being repealed now, does not make you a homophobe or a bigot. It simply might mean you think that is something that should wait until peacetime to be resolved.

Good thing I'm not arguing that.

It still DOES mean you're supporting a homophobic and bigoted policy, even if just for a short period of time.

And that's awful. Truly, truly awful.

[Meyeraustin]

So if it were merely done because it was the fair thing to do, it would have been terrible?

Well okay then. If the standard is making the military more efficient, then we can just say that repeal of DADT was necessary because millions of dollars were wasted on training soldiers who only wound up being ejected from the military anyway. The policy also weakened the military by removing Arabic translators (who are in short supply) while we're engaged in a military conflict in the Middle East.

Now what's the excuse for supporting DADT?

BnL, seriously...peace. I'm not trying to fight you. I'm just saying there are other sides to the argument.

What you are saying is absolutely true. Kicking out Arabic translaters while fighting in Arab lands in militarily inefficient.

[Fake Pat]

BnL, seriously...peace. I'm not trying to fight you. I'm just saying there are other sides to the argument.

What you are saying is absolutely true. Kicking out Arabic translaters while fighting in Arab lands in militarily inefficient.

And we all agree.

There is the side that thinks homophobic policy is wrong, and there are people who don't. The latter is morally reprehensible.

[Meyeraustin]

Whoa. Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Meyer, you have truly revealed yourself here.

Stop trying to character assassinate me. The "yes" in question was in reference to this :

"(also completely ignoring the fact that our military could absolutely use all the gay servicemen and women who have been barred)"

As, in I was saying "yes" to that sentence above and agreeing with you.

[BnL]

BnL, seriously...peace. I'm not trying to fight you. I'm just saying there are other sides to the argument.

Sure. It's just that none of the arguments that I've seen raised by the other side on this issue don't stand up to scrutiny.

[Meyeraustin]

That brings me back to the original point. Why try to destroy me or Chuck Dixon because we disagree with you. Why does this discussion have to be so ugly. Why could everyone discuss it rationally at BC but here it has to be a witch-hunt.

[Fake Pat]

Stop trying to character assassinate me. The "yes" in question was in reference to this :

"(also completely ignoring the fact that our military could absolutely use all the gay servicemen and women who have been barred)"

As, in I was saying "yes" to that sentence above and agreeing with you.

So then explain why barring blacks was wrong but barring gays isn't.

[Meyeraustin]

Sure. It's just that none of the arguments that I've seen raised by the other side on this issue don't stand up to scrutiny.

That's fine, that's cool. Let's just dial down the animosity.

[HamsterRage]

But it wasn't systemically broken. You don't change a broken AC while you're driving. You pull over and fix it.

This is just utter nonsense.

When you discharge translators who have a complete understanding of Middle Eastern Languages based on their sexual preference.... your military is broke.

When you discharge USMC, Army, Navy and Air Force based on their sexual preference at a time of 2 wars and all time low recruitment... your military is broke.

When you force those who remain to live a lie... your military is broke.

Chuck Dixon should shut the fuck up. If he's really so hard up for the military he should have served his country.

[Fake Pat]

That brings me back to the original point. Why try to destroy me or Chuck Dixon because we disagree with you. Why does this discussion have to be so ugly. Why could everyone discuss it rationally at BC but here it has to be a witch-hunt.

Because there is no rational discussion to be had.

Homophobia is irrational. Policy based on homophobia is irrational. Therefore, support for homophobic policy is irrational.

Again, simple.

[spankminister]

I don't get how Dixon's post quotes with pride the racial integration of the armed forces, then with the same breath, parrots the same line used by critics opposed to blacks and whites serving together: "The military needs to be effective, and is not the place for progressive experiments for social justice."

This is about discrimination, and I wish conservatives would stop trotting out their old favorite boogeyman, quotas. "If we repeal DADT, suddenly every fireteam will be full of limp-wristed fairies, and we'll lose all combat effectiveness!" seems to be the gist of his concern. News flash: homosexuals are already serving in the armed forces with honor and distinction, and they have been for a long time.

Also moronic is Dixon suddenly becoming an armchair dietician and supply manager. Vegans? Yeah, like there's no one else in the military who has other dietary requirements due to food allergies/keeping kosher, etc. Hey Chuck? Agree/disagree: Should only straight carnivorous Christian males should be allowed to serve in the military because it makes the logistics easier?

[Meyeraustin]

So then explain why barring blacks was wrong but barring gays isn't.

Both are wrong. refer back to my "broken AC" analogy. This needs to be fixed, but not while the car is barreling down the highway.

This is what I would have done. Executive order that stated that no one will be discharged for violating DADT until the war is done. Then after it is doen get the law repealed. A president could do that. Just say anyone's paperwork for discharge is being archived and not being proceeded with. "Twenty lashes with a wet noodle"

[BnL]

That brings me back to the original point. Why try to destroy me or Chuck Dixon because we disagree with you. Why does this discussion have to be so ugly. Why could everyone discuss it rationally at BC but here it has to be a witch-hunt.

This question has been answered several times. You obviously don't consider the gay ban in the military bigoted. But many of us do, and we've explained why we think so as best we can. Bigotry makes us angry, hence the angry tone in this thread.

[Fake Pat]

Both are wrong. refer back to my "broken AC" analogy. This needs to be fixed, but not while the car is barreling down the highway.

This is what I would have done. Executive order that stated that no one will be discharged for violating DADT until the war is done. Then after it is doen get the law repealed. A president could do that. Just say anyone's paperwork for discharge is being archived and not being proceeded with. "Twenty lashes with a wet noodle"

Then supporting either of them is wrong.

You've now called the very position you were defending wrong. Way to go.

[Meyeraustin]

This is just utter nonsense.

When you discharge translators who have a complete understanding of Middle Eastern Languages based on their sexual preference.... your military is broke.

When you discharge USMC, Army, Navy and Air Force based on their sexual preference at a time of 2 wars and all time low recruitment... your military is broke.

When you force those who remain to live a lie... your military is broke.

Chuck Dixon should shut the fuck up. If he's really so hard up for the military he should have served his country.

A part of it is broken, but not the majority.

[Meyeraustin]

This question has been answered several times. You obviously don't consider the gay ban in the military bigoted. But many of us do, and we've explained why we think so as best we can. Bigotry makes us angry, hence the angry tone in this thread.

Well you can control your tone. You're not lunatics.

[BnL]

That's fine, that's cool. Let's just dial down the animosity.

I've tried to take a calmer tone in my last several posts.

[Fake Pat]

Well you can control your tone. You're not lunatics.

You don't need to be a "lunatic" to despise bigotry and support for it.

[Treacle]

Well you can control your tone. You're not lunatics.

You're derailing the topic at hand by making arguments about tone.

People's perceived tone of voice isn't the issue here.

Your support of bigotry and homophobia is.

[Meyeraustin]

Then supporting either of them is wrong.

You've now called the very position you were defending wrong. Way to go.

And again with the animosity.

You're in an airplane that is going down. The engine is on fire and the radio is on fire. You only have enough flame retardant to out one out. Which do you choose?

[Meyeraustin]

I've tried to take a calmer tone in my last several posts.

I've noticed and I really appreciate that.

[Tobias M]

And again with the animosity.

You're in an airplane that is going down. The engine is on fire and the radio is on fire. You only have enough flame retardant to out one out. Which do you choose?

You choose to continue making weak analogies?

[Fake Pat]

And again with the animosity.

You're in an airplane that is going down. The engine is on fire and the radio is on fire. You only have enough flame retardant to out one out. Which do you choose?

I notice you didn't even attempt to debate my point.

At least you're now admitting you and Chuck were wrong. That's a good start.