At least that's what Nate Livingston thinks I believe. I'm not going to link to him, but you can check the trackbacks on my post on outing gays for political gain. He seems to have decided to misrepresent that post, throwing in all sorts of false assumptions and caricatures of conservatives, conservative Christians, and whatever other sort of dirty words he might choose.
He wants people to believe that he really read in my post something about Democrats making some Republicans be gay so that they could then out them rather than finding out that Republicans are gay and then outing them. He wants people to believe that he found something in my post about a vast conspiracy rather than a tendency among Democrats who are now doing something at odds with what Democrats traditionally have stood for. He also insults black Christian conservatives by describing them as "people who call themselves Black Christian conservatives" as if they're not really. Hmm. I guess that's not too disingenuous, is it? He also wants people to believe that conservatives won't say anything about this because she's conservative, which fails to see the main point about the whole thing. Outing her was extremely cruel and out of step with what Democrats have become known for being -- the party that cares and supports the gay community.
He points to what the daughter of a famous politician seems to have posted in chat rooms that her family would never go to. These posts sure look as if they might be hers (or someone who put in a lot of work over a long time to make it look to be hers). He then treats it as incontrovertible proof that (1) she is a lesbian, (2) she doesn't mind if everyone knows about it, and (3) it's not harmful to her or insensitive to her that her family almost assuredly would find out about it through bloggers rather than from her.
Then he makes a strange comment: Responsible Christian conservatives shouldn't be expected to comment on the morality or immorality of Keyes' lifestyle because she, unlike Dick Cheney's daugther, is one of them.
I can think of three possibilities. (1) She didn't put this stuff up, and someone is trying to make this look like her. If so, it's cruel to put her to put her through this purely because it makes her father look bad (not that it really does, but people will see it that way). (2) She did, and she has kept it from her family. If so, it's cruel for bloggers to put her through this at their convenience and for their political gain rather than allowing her to break the news to her family at her own time. (3) She did, and they know. Her father had no intention of communicating all the details of his daughter's sex life to the general public, so he answered the direct question about he would deal with such a situation in a way that treated it in the abstract even though he had already done exactly what he was saying. If so, then this is cruel for bringing something about her into the public light that she preferred to keep within private circles, including the chat rooms that aren't generally frequented by political bloggers or the general public, and her attempts not to use her full name or indicate exactly who she is show that she did want to keep this semi-private.
So it's cruel no matter what, and it's cruel to her. That's why conservatives won't post it. I don't think Sam or Ambra posted the Britney Spears picture he posts either, so I don't know how he can call them hypocrites for doing it with Britney but not with the daughter of a Republican. He says it's because she's "one of them". Well, so is Britney, believe it or not. She happens to be a Republican and a Bush supporter. Some Republicans participate in our society's voyeuristic attitude toward sex scandals, but I have opposed that since just about the beginning of my blog. So I'm not sure why I should be expected to delight in exposing the sins of every little person whose family members are in the public eye. That's not what my blog is about, nor is it what Sam or Ambra seeks to do. I don't see why thinking gay sex, gay relationships, and defining one's identity in terms of same-sex relations requires going out of your way to criticize someone. Mr. Livingston, I presume, must think that being conservative requires taking every single opportunity to out every single gay person who is liberal but avoiding doing so with any conservatives. That's the sense I get from the "their own" comment. I don't know of very many conservatives who go around doing this with liberals, though, so why should they be expected to do it with conservatives?
This is more about her than about her father. Her father did make a comment about those who define their identity in terms of their same-sex orientation and then live a lifestyle in accordance with that. If his daughter is one of those people, then it applies to her. What's the problem? He already admitted this in the very interview when he made the comment about Cheney's daughter. I argued in the comments on the original post that this doesn't make him a hypocrite, something I thought would be obvious, but somehow those who are doing this to his daughter don't seem to see that. I'm not going to repeat all that here. Anyway, this says nothing about him. It's entirely about her, not him, and it's cruel to her. That was my original point, and I stand by it.
Well, is this her? That's a separate question, of course, though Nate seems to think he's doing nothing wrong because he thinks it's obvious that it's her. As I've argued, it doesn't matter if this picture is her or if the person with the blog is really her. Either way, it's cruel. It's an interesting question whether it's her, though, for those who want to be sex scandal voyeurs. The picture doesn't really look like her, as a matter of fact. It's not that it looks like someone else, but it doesn't really look like anyone. It's a back view of the side of her face. That doesn't give much indication that we should think it's her, though it doesn't give any indication that it's not. I've seen a picture that's indisputably of her, and I didn't get any sense from this picture that it was the same person, though again I didn't get any sense that it's not. This person has been posting things for a long time under names and locations that fit with her, so if it's a hoax it's well done and has been a long time in process. Even so, I don't consider it conclusive evidence that it's even her. Whether it is or isn't, the bloggers who have been drawing attention to it have been doing something extremely cruel. That point is what I wanted to emphasize to begin with, and even if the evidence is pretty conclusive that it's really her, that doesn't change things.
Update: It doesn't surprise me to discover that this guy is a racist. Follow the trackback on this post. He calls black conservatives "white" and then puts 'black' in quotes when referring to how they describe themselves. I guess that explains the "people who call themselves Black Christian conservatives" reference I was wondering about above.
What strikes me as more interesting about this post is his conclusion that Republicans are moving toward racism. He bases this on a Republican effort against a racist in a congressional race in a district where the Republicans knew they had no chance and thus weren't motivated to run, but they ended up with a racist running instead and winning the nomination because by the time they realized the problem it was too late to get a name on the ballot against him in the primary. How is it a vast conspiracy of Republicans moving toward racism when the Republicans were the ones trying to prevent this guy from getting the nomination?
I've also discovered that my favorite troll, a genuine white segregationist who thinks blacks are stupid, objectively ugly savages, while Jews are inherently immoral and the only party to be blamed for the death of Jesus (and in control of the Republican party and the entirety of what he calls Judaio-Christianity) who says "get off my blog, you pervert" whenever I've tried to comment on his posts, links to him favorably. That's interesting, isn't it? Unfortunately, since I'm unwilling to link directly to either of them, this link will cease to be useful once that link leaves the front page of that blog. I'm not going to sacrifice conviction for informativeness, though.