Pandagon

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

You want to discredit this guy, in part, because he is not really "worried about speech that goes after a group" regardless of (a) who the "target" is (ie within your "special interest" group or not); and (b) who said it (ie washed-up jock, staff/employee of a presidential candidate, etc. ).

Yet, you apply a totally different standard to GLAAD. Certainly, GLAAD is worried about speech that goes after a group. And certainly one can argue that some of the things that GLAAD raises a stink about are being "blown out of proportion" as well.

Further, Marcotte's comments were getting tons of play well before Donahue got involved. I mean, I only recognize his name because it was in an article about the comments in the paper about 2 days after I had read what she said. So, GLAAD could have spoke out against the comments without throwing in with Donahue per se. If the target was Donahue, that's one thing, but the comments were much more far-reaching than that.

You say I'm applying a different standard, but I don't think I am. GLAAD, as a group, hasn't made a name for itself going after Catholics, they made a name for themselves defending homosexuals.

Donahue, on the other hand, has made a living going after homosexuals (Media Matters has a pretty good short list on some of his finer moments). This issue was not getting play in the mainstream media until Donahue stepped in, because it wasn't a big deal. It may have been mentioned (as you said you heard about it before you heard about Donahue), but it was obviously not the kind of thing that was going to blow up, or it would have without his help. If it was that offensive and that out of line, it would have created its own national stir without some ******* stepping in for some time to mug for the cameras. It didn't. It took hatemonger extraordinaire to get it on the front pages. If it were actually something, it would have been there to begin with.

That's not a different standard, but if you insist that it is, then it is rightfully. You cannot honestly say that A personally attacks B, B speaks out on attacks against B's people, but must come to the defense of A for the sake of being nice. Doesn't work that way. There was no reason to address the issue before Donahue came into it, because it wasn't an issue to begin with, I will still contend.