What is progress?

[iustitia]

I often see use of the term 'progress' to denote a cheap political victory or directed change rather than a natural change within society.


Wrong. We already have that with the bigots and homophobes who are against progress in childbearing.

The actual definition of 'progress' is "a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage". What does 'progress' actually mean in the American political lexicon, in your opinion?

[Captain Obvious]

"Progress" is the phase right before the collapse.

Historically, I don't need to tell you that.

[Mister D]

I often see use of the term 'progress' to denote a cheap political victory or directed change rather than a natural change within society.



The actual definition of 'progress' is "a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage". What does 'progress' actually mean in the American political lexicon, in your opinion?

The ideology of progress is nothing more than secularized Christianity. It purports to be "rational" but is truly our ancestral faith emptied of any transcendent reference.

[Mister D]

I often see use of the term 'progress' to denote a cheap political victory or directed change rather than a natural change within society.



The actual definition of 'progress' is "a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage". What does 'progress' actually mean in the American political lexicon, in your opinion?

You also make a good point. Progress by definition has a goal (i.e an end point). Babble about a "better society" doesn't cut the mustard, so to speak.

[Green Arrow]

The term "progress," like many terms, is completely meaningless in the context of American politics. Progress, racism, patriotism, all meaningless. American politics has effectively given us Orwell's "Newspeak" and the general public lap it up like honey.

It's a wonder we even speak a semblance of English anymore.

[Reason10]

I often see use of the term 'progress' to denote a cheap political victory or directed change rather than a natural change within society.



The actual definition of 'progress' is "a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage". What does 'progress' actually mean in the American political lexicon, in your opinion?

Progress would be Obama in an orange jump suit.

[Ransom]

I often see use of the term 'progress' to denote a cheap political victory or directed change rather than a natural change within society.



The actual definition of 'progress' is "a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage". What does 'progress' actually mean in the American political lexicon, in your opinion?

It means an era in this country before Jan 20, 2009.

And Jan 17th, 2017 will be the end of an error.

[Ransom]

Progress would be Obama in an orange jump suit.

They only target infidels, not believers.

[Ransom]

The term "progress," like many terms, is completely meaningless in the context of American politics. Progress, racism, patriotism, all meaningless. American politics has effectively given us Orwell's "Newspeak" and the general public lap it up like honey.

It's a wonder we even speak a semblance of English anymore.

General public = Green Arrow. Moving on.

[donttread]

I often see use of the term 'progress' to denote a cheap political victory or directed change rather than a natural change within society.

"Progress" at one time meant safer conditions, better housing, better education. Now it means more distractions, less good jobs and more megacorp profits. Maybe all former great nations have fallen because none have ever tried to back up a little


The actual definition of 'progress' is "a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage". What does 'progress' actually mean in the American political lexicon, in your opinion?

[donttread]

screwed up the text box again the middle paragraph in most ten is mine

[donttread]

progress at one time meant safer conditions , better housing, better education. Now it means more distractions, less good jobs and more megacorp profits. Maybe all former "great nations" have fallen because none of them tried to back up a little.

[Crayola Chaos]

"Progress" is the phase right before the collapse.

Historically, I don't need to tell you that.

Progress is having a good lawyer and beating the rap or else a court appointed flunkie will have you doing 5 to 10 in the penitentiary selling yo ass for cigarettes.

[Ransom]

progress at one time meant safer conditions , better housing, better education. Now it means more distractions, less good jobs and more megacorp profits. Maybe all former "great nations" have fallen because none of them tried to back up a little.

However donttread. If you only would read. You'll find our greatest leaps as a nation concerning, better education and better housing, indeed better lifestyle came at a time when corporations were making massive profits, had much much much more money ands assets and employees than the government. It came at a time of safer conditions relative to previous generations. It required foreign intervention as well.

[Chris]

Political progress is the mistaken notion based on scientific and technological advances that man can through government redesign and perfect man.

[PolWatch]

Progress is having a good lawyer and beating the rap or else a court appointed flunkie will have you doing 5 to 10 in the penitentiary selling yo ass for cigarettes.

Please stay on topic

[midcan5]

Ask a simple question about a word and out come the right wing negative partisans, minds on a single track, they must reference Obama. Talk about narrow minded. 'Progress' requires context, but the interesting thing is how some, especially on the right, use language as a weapon against others and against ideas. Guess that's better than using a gun though. Stanley Fish has a fascinating piece on how the right has co-opted the language of the left. But to use a mom meme if everyone else sees negativity, do you too need to follow the crowd thinkers? IMNSHO The right wing in America have become ideological crowd thinkers and if you have been paying attention you already know all you need to know. Seems we've come full circle.

So two pieces to stir the pot, enjoy.

'A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress'
http://conceptualguerilla.com/essays/the-big-picture-essays-on-political-philosophy-and-history/a-short-history-of-conservative-obstruction/

Darn, I can't find the Stanley Fish piece now and have to go. I'll look later, but here's a interview that may touch on it. His book is a good read and will make you think on many pages.

http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-February-1998/fish.html


"It is of no help to us that there is an absolute truth of the matter of things because unfortunately, none of us are in a position to say definitively what that is - although we all think that we are." Stanley Fish

[Chris]

Ask a simple question about a word and out come the right wing negative partisans, minds on a single track, they must reference Obama. Talk about narrow minded. 'Progress' requires context, but the interesting thing is how some, especially on the right, use language as a weapon against others and against ideas. Guess that's better than using a gun though. Stanley Fish has a fascinating piece on how the right has co-opted the language of the left. But to use a mom meme if everyone else sees negativity, do you too need to follow the crowd thinkers? IMNSHO The right wing in America have become ideological crowd thinkers and if you have been paying attention you already know all you need to know. Seems we've come full circle.

So two pieces to stir the pot, enjoy.

'A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress'
http://conceptualguerilla.com/essays/the-big-picture-essays-on-political-philosophy-and-history/a-short-history-of-conservative-obstruction/

Darn, I can't find the Stanley Fish piece now and have to go. I'll look later, but here's a interview that may touch on it. His book is a good read and will make you think on many pages.

http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-February-1998/fish.html


"It is of no help to us that there is an absolute truth of the matter of things because unfortunately, none of us are in a position to say definitively what that is - although we all think that we are." Stanley Fish



All that BS and not a word on progress.

[Mister D]

All that BS and not a word on progress.

lol Incredible, no?

[Mister D]

Political progress is the mistaken notion based on scientific and technological advances that man can through government redesign and perfect man.

It's interesting to note that the first wave of progressives (e.g. Voltaire) believed in enlightened despotism. In the end, Rousseau's democratic ideals won out.

[donttread]

However donttread. If you only would read. You'll find our greatest leaps as a nation concerning, better education and better housing, indeed better lifestyle came at a time when corporations were making massive profits, had much much much more money ands assets and employees than the government. It came at a time of safer conditions relative to previous generations. It required foreign intervention as well.

I can't say for sure , but I would wager the megacorps are making more than they ever have before , which would invalidate your argument

[domer76]

I often see use of the term 'progress' to denote a cheap political victory or directed change rather than a natural change within society.



The actual definition of 'progress' is "a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage". What does 'progress' actually mean in the American political lexicon, in your opinion?

Expansion of civil liberties, for one.

[domer76]

However donttread. If you only would read. You'll find our greatest leaps as a nation concerning, better education and better housing, indeed better lifestyle came at a time when corporations were making massive profits, had much much much more money ands assets and employees than the government. It came at a time of safer conditions relative to previous generations. It required foreign intervention as well.

Corporate profits are at an all time high. They are sitting on almost $2 trillion in profits.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP

Another: "In 2013, after-tax corporate profits as a share of the economy tied with their highest level on record (in 1965), while labor compensation as a share of the economy hit its lowest point since 1948."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/01/opinion/wages-and-salaries-still-lag-as-corporate-profits-surge.html?_r=0

[donttread]

Corporate profits are at an all time high. They are sitting on almost $2 trillion in profits.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP

Another: "In 2013, after-tax corporate profits as a share of the economy tied with their highest level on record (in 1965), while labor compensation as a share of the economy hit its lowest point since 1948."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/01/opinion/wages-and-salaries-still-lag-as-corporate-profits-surge.html?_r=0

So as I suspected Ransom's point is well... pointless

[Chris]

Expansion of civil liberties, for one.

Under political progress civil liberties means equality by unequal means. For example, equality quotas in the workplace and university treat minorities specially.

[kilgram]

Under political progress civil liberties means equality by unequal means. For example, equality quotas in the workplace and university treat minorities specially.
Why unequal means?

Someway you have to achieve equality. If a group has been discriminated his whole life, and that is the reality in the case of women or minorities, you must do something to change the situation. And one solution is temporally apply quotas until there is equality.

If the ones in power are the ones of ever, you cannot expect that they will voluntary give up part of their power. That only happens in your illusive world.

In the real world, the power must be removed by force from the ones that have it.

Things are not utopic. Reality is harsh. Things don't work as you would expect it would work in the theory. In the real world, and not in the world of the fantasy, you must try to see thousand different ways that you would never expect, and more in "social science" and even doing that, you will get unexpected results, that you never considered.

And when a system assures that ones are in top and others bottom, whatever the way it is done, you can be certain that you will never have equality. Neither in law neither in society.

[Mister D]

Equality is nonsense and unachievable.

[kilgram]

Equality is nonsense and unachievable.
Equality is not nonsense.

What is unachievable is not fighting against the injustice. That is evil.

[domer76]

So as I suspected Ransom's point is well... pointless
Your suspicions are correct.

[Mister D]

Equality is not nonsense.

What is unachievable is not fighting against the injustice. That is evil.

You will never achieve equality. Best to give that ideal up.

[domer76]

Under political progress civil liberties means equality by unequal means. For example, equality quotas in the workplace and university treat minorities specially.
You can define it any way you wish. It doesn't mean you are correct.

Another sign of progress in this country, BTW, would be to eliminate the death penalty

[domer76]

Equality is nonsense and unachievable.
When I refer to equality, I refer to equal treatment under the law. I realize you look at gays as something less than a full human, so the equal treatment concept is foreign to you.

[Mister D]

When I refer to equality, I refer to equal treatment under the law. I realize you look at gays as something less than a full human, so the equal treatment concept is foreign to you.

You won't achieve that either.

[Chris]

You can define it any way you wish. It doesn't mean you are correct.

Another sign of progress in this country, BTW, would be to eliminate the death penalty


I wasn't defining anything, domer, I was describing how progressive seek to achieve equality, through unequal means. That doesn't work. It perpetuates inequality.


Why would eliminating the death penalty imply progress? What do you mean by that?

[Mister D]

I wasn't defining anything, domer, I was describing how progressive seek to achieve equality, through unequal means. That doesn't work. It perpetuates inequality.


Why would eliminating the death penalty imply progress? What do you mean by that?

Because you hate gays! Or something...

[Chris]

When I refer to equality, I refer to equal treatment under the law. I realize you look at gays as something less than a full human, so the equal treatment concept is foreign to you.


Rule of law would be good. But you don't achieve that by treating people differently under the law, such as with quotas, as I explained.

Why do you need to make things up about what I think about gays? Do you think you can arrive at truth through lies like that?

[domer76]

I wasn't defining anything, domer, I was describing how progressive seek to achieve equality, through unequal means. That doesn't work. It perpetuates inequality.


Why would eliminating the death penalty imply progress? What do you mean by that?
I'm not defending affirmative action or quotas at all, but I will ask a simple question.

Do you think inequality was realized through equal means?

Eliminating the death penalty in this country would be a move towards that equal treatment under the law as well as remove the terminal consequences of the flaws in our justice system. Look at the demographics of capital punishment. Look at the costs. Finally, look at the number of false convictions. There needs to be a zero error factor in these instances and there is not.

[kilgram]

You will never achieve equality. Best to give that ideal up.
Why?

Surrender to the inequality and to the injustice is permitting those two evil win and become greater. Never!

[Mister D]

Why?

Surrender to the inequality and to the injustice is permitting those two evil win and become greater. Never!

Because it's an unachievable ideal. How many more are to be murdered in its name?

[Chris]

I'm not defending affirmative action or quotas at all, but I will ask a simple question.

Do you think inequality was realized through equal means?

Eliminating the death penalty in this country would be a move towards that equal treatment under the law as well as remove the terminal consequences of the flaws in our justice system. Look at the demographics of capital punishment. Look at the costs. Finally, look at the number of false convictions. There needs to be a zero error factor in these instances and there is not.




Do you think inequality was realized through equal means?

Is that your attempt to respond to my challenge of how do you achieve equality through unequal means?


Eliminating the death penalty in this country would be a move towards that equal treatment under the law as well as remove the terminal consequences of the flaws in our justice system. Look at the demographics of capital punishment. Look at the costs. Finally, look at the number of false convictions. There needs to be a zero error factor in these instances and there is not.

How is eliminating the death penalty equal treatment? If all who commit heinous crimes are put to death isn't that equal treatment? You're not addressing the question either of how it's progress--progress toward what?

[domer76]

You won't achieve that either.

I know. As long as people can kill queers and get away with it, that suits you fine, doesn't it?

[Mister D]

I know. As long as people can kill $#@!s and get away with it, that suits you fine, doesn't it?

lol

[domer76]

Rule of law would be good. But you don't achieve that by treating people differently under the law, such as with quotas, as I explained.

Why do you need to make things up about what I think about gays? Do you think you can arrive at truth through lies like that?
The gay refernce should have been directed at D

[Chris]

domer, why do you need to make things up?

Is making things up progress?

[Chris]

The gay refernce should have been directed at D

D doesn't want to kill queers. Why lie?

[domer76]

lol
You've already demonstrated your lol attitude when you rejoiced at the torture and murder of Mathew Shepard in another thread. I could locate your exact words if you'd like. One was "awesome!".

[domer76]

Is that your attempt to respond to my challenge of how do you achieve equality through unequal means?



How is eliminating the death penalty equal treatment? If all who commit heinous crimes are put to death isn't that equal treatment? You're not addressing the question either of how it's progress--progress toward what?

I submit the death penalty is revenge, not justice. Of you concede that revenge is your motive for invoking capital punishment, so be it. I do not. It costs more. It is not a deterrent. Innocent people die. There are no "go backs" to rehabiliate an erroneous conviction.

[domer76]

domer, why do you need to make things up?

Is making things up progress?
I have made up nothing.

[domer76]

D doesn't want to kill queers. Why lie?
You'd have to refer back to a thread where he expressed joy at the murder and torture of Mathew Shepard, the gay kid in Wyoming. He was more than happy with that outcome. Referred to it as "awesome"

[Chris]

I have made up nothing.

What you say about D is made up.

[Chris]

You'd have to refer back to a thread where he expressed joy at the murder and torture of Mathew Shepard, the gay kid in Wyoming. He was more than happy with that outcome. Referred to it as "awesome"

You would have to first demonstrate what you think he meant and then tie that to your general claims here. Good luck with that.

All this I suppose is a convenient distraction to your inability to define progress.

[domer76]

What you say about D is made up.

I'm on my cell phone right now. When I return to my computer, I'll do a text search and find it for you.

[Chris]

I'm on my cell phone right now. When I return to my computer, I'll do a text search and find it for you.

You'll still need to explain what was meant and tie it to your general claims here. Good luck.

[metheron]

I often see use of the term 'progress' to denote a cheap political victory or directed change rather than a natural change within society.



The actual definition of 'progress' is "a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage". What does 'progress' actually mean in the American political lexicon, in your opinion?

In America today I think it stands for furthering ones political agenda. Be it a Conservative point or a Liberal one. Country be damned, it is all about winning points, not betterment of country.

I wish it would mean more of a good for the country thing. Like lowering the debt, agreeing on a budget, Congressional compromise, etc......It could also be a cost neutral way to take care of the citizenry better.

[Mister D]

I'm on my cell phone right now. When I return to my computer, I'll do a text search and find it for you.

Yes, please do.

[Peter1469]

Shepard's death had nothing to do with his sexuality.

[iustitia]

Shepard's death had nothing to do with his sexuality.
^This.

The same goes for most high profile cases that propped up the gay movement in the past.

[domer76]

You'll still need to explain what was meant and tie it to your general claims here. Good luck.
His words speak for themselves. Ask him. What you will find, however, when I mention his comment, he never denies it. An lol, perhaps, bot no denial.

[domer76]

Shepard's death had nothing to do with his sexuality.
Bullshit. They singled him out for that reason only

[Chris]

His words speak for themselves. Ask him. What you will find, however, when I mention his comment, he never denies it. An lol, perhaps, bot no denial.

IOW, you can't explain.

[Mister D]

His words speak for themselves. Ask him. What you will find, however, when I mention his comment, he never denies it. An lol, perhaps, bot no denial.

We're still waiting. :smiley:

[Mister D]

^This.

The same goes for most high profile cases that propped up the gay movement in the past.

True

[kilgram]

Because it's an unachievable ideal. How many more are to be murdered in its name?
Murdered? There is no necessity to murder to get equality.

And remember that the violence comes normally from the top.

The equality is achievable. Today we are much more equal than 100 years ago. Why do you say it is an unachievable goal?

Reality shows you the opposite.

[Chris]

How do you make different people the same other than by treating them differently. That is the problem with egalitarianism.

[iustitia]

Bullshit. They singled him out for that reason only

Yeah, no.


The men responsible for his death were convicted of first-degree murder and given two life sentences. They were not charged with a hate crime, as that wasn’t possible under Wyoming’s criminal law. But after lengthy wrangling in congress, President Obama finally signed the Matthew Shepard Act in 2009, a law which defined certain attacks motivated by victim identity as hate crimes.

But the Matthew Shepard story is not yet finished. A new twist came last year with the publication of another book, this one by investigative journalist Stephen Jimenez, who has spent 13 years interviewing more than 100 people with a connection to the case. His conclusion, outlined in The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths about the Murder of Matthew Shepard, is that the grotesque murder was not a hate crime, but could instead be blamed on crystal meth, a drug that was flooding Denver and the surrounding area at the time of Matthew’s death. This new theory has, understandably, caused a lot of anger.

Jimenez has faced a barrage of criticism since the publication of his book and has had readings to promote the book boycotted. Jimenez claims, however, that many of his critics have not actually read it. The Advocate (http://www.advocate.com/), America’s leading LGBT magazine, published a piece last year entitled: “Why I’m Not Reading the ‘Trutherism’ About Matt Shepard”. Jimenez has been accused of being a revisionist, a criticism usually reserved for extreme rightwing ideologues that deny the Holocaust, and labelled a homophobe.

“People object to the idea of the book, rather than what is in the book,” says Jimenez. “The anger directed at me has been pretty extreme.”

Jimenez had no intention of causing such controversy. He’s an award-winning writer and TV producer, and visited Laramie shortly after the murder to gather material for a screenplay about the case. When he started he was convinced that Matthew died at the hands of homophobes, but he soon discovered that Matthew’s tragedy began long before the night he was killed.

Jimenez found that Matthew was addicted to and dealing crystal meth and had dabbled in heroin. He also took significant sexual risks and was being pimped alongside Aaron McKinney, one of his killers, with whom he’d had occasional sexual encounters. He was HIV positive at the time of his death.

“This does not make the perfect poster boy for the gay-rights movement,” says Jimenez. “Which is a big part of the reason my book has been so trashed.”

Matthew’s drug abuse, and the fact that he knew one of his killers prior to the attack, was never explored in court. Neither was the rumour that the killers knew that he had access to a shipment of crystal meth with a street value of $10,000 which they wanted to steal.

Matthew was born into an affluent family and had attended state school in Casper, Wyoming. The 21-year-old political science major at Laramie University stood only 5ft 2in, and his blond hair, braces and slight frame gave him an air of vulnerability and innocence. In his junior year of high school, Matthew moved with his family to Saudi Arabia. There were no American high schools in Saudi at the time, so he was sent to the American School in Switzerland. By the time he enrolled at Laramie he spoke three languages and had aspirations to be a human-rights advocate. Somewhere along the line, however, Matthew fell from being a grade-A student to a drug-addicted prostitute who diced with danger. He suffered periods of depression, possibly as a result of being gang raped a few years earlier while on holiday in Morocco. But this is not the Matthew Shepard who became a celebrated figure for the gay-rights movement in America.

Laramie is considered the most liberal town in Wyoming. It sits in a flat, treeless sweep of high plains. With the ranching industry in decline, employment here is dominated by the University of Wyoming. It has a quaint western charm: tree-lined streets, beautiful parks, and a renovated historic downtown at the edge of the railway yard with small shops and restaurants. It is surrounded by rolling prairie, ranches, the Snowy Mountain range and vast, wide-open spaces. But the town also has a number of mobile home parks at the edges, some more rundown than others.

On the evening of 6 October 1998, Matthew went to the Fireside bar, a local hangout that was purportedly gay-friendly. It was karaoke night, and locals rubbed shoulders with workers calling in for a swift drink on their way home. Shortly afterwards Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney arrived. The three men chatted briefly before leaving the bar and getting in a truck belonging to McKinney’s father.

In the truck Matthew was robbed of his keys, wallet and shoes and beaten repeatedly by one or both of the men. He was then taken from the truck, pistol whipped up to 18 times on the head, and kicked between the legs. Matthew was tied to a fence, set on fire, and left unconscious.

After leaving Matthew tied to the fence, McKinney and Henderson headed for Matthew’s home, but on the way encountered two young Hispanic men, Emiliano Morales and Jeremy Herrera, slashing tyres for fun. The men got into a fight, resulting in McKinney cracking open Morales’s head with the same gun he had used on Matthew. Police officer Flint Waters arrived, grabbed Henderson (he and McKinney had run in different directions), and found the truck, the gun, Matthew’s shoes and credit card.

I spoke to Waters, who has since retired from the police, having seen him praise The Book of Matt on social media. “I believe to this day that McKinney and Henderson were trying to find Matthew’s house so they could steal his drugs. It was fairly well known in the Laramie community that McKinney wouldn’t be one that was striking out of a sense of homophobia. Some of the officers I worked with had caught him in a sexual act with another man, so it didn’t fit – none of that made any sense.”

But when Matthew’s friends Walt Boulden and Alex Trout heard of the attack they rushed to the hospital. They contacted the Associated Press and a number of local gay organisations that same day. Boulden, a 46-year-old college instructor who says he was the last person to talk to Matthew before he met McKinney and Henderson, linked the attack to Wyoming legislature’s failure to pass a hate-crimes bill. Boulden later said the assault was identified as a hate crime by a policeman.

Stephen Jimenez is an award-winning journalist and gay man. So why has he put such time and effort into attempting to prove that Matthew’s murder was not a hate crime, especially as it has seen him accused of being an ally to the rightwing Christian fundamentalists who deny the reality of homophobia?

“The view was that homophobic rednecks walked into a bar and saw an obviously gay man with money and targeted him and beat him to death for that reason,” says Jimenez. “But that isn’t what happened. Nothing in this book takes away from the iniquity and brutality of the crime or the culpability of his murderers, but we owe Matthew and other young men like him the truth.

“Aaron and Matthew had a friendship. They’d been involved sexually, they bought and sold drugs from each other. That complicates the original story of two strangers walking into a bar and targeting Matthew – someone they did not know – because he was gay.”

Although McKinney has never acknowledged that he knew Matthew, Jimenez found a dozen sources that had seen them together. One is Kathleen Johnson, the former owner of Laramie antiques store Granny’s Attic, who knew Henderson, McKinney and Matthew.

The young, unemployed men had not had easy lives. Henderson’s mother was a chronic alcoholic who had been repeatedly beaten by his father. McKinney had spent much of his childhood alone, left by his mother with his grandparents, who locked him in the basement to keep him out of trouble. “Russell Henderson used to hang around with gay people,” Johnson told me. “Laramie had a big gay population. I knew what people’s sexual orientation was because my best friend’s son was gay. I saw them hanging around with Russell.”

The police did not investigate the killers’ relationship to the gay community.

Five days after the attack, on 12 October, Matthew died. On 14 October a celebrity vigil was held on the steps of the US Capitol, attended by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Ellen DeGeneres (http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/ellen-degeneres). Elton John sent flowers to Matt’s funeral, Barbra Streisand telephoned the Albany county sheriff’s office to demand quick action on the case, and Madonna called an assistant to university president Philip Dubois to complain about what had happened. The day Matthew died, President Clinton told journalists at the White House: “In our shock and grief one thing must remain clear: hate and prejudice are not American values.”

JoAnn Wypijewski, an author and former senior editor at the Nation, was one of the many journalists who came to Laramie after the news of Matthew’s attack. She was there for Harper’s Magazine and was the only journalist to suggest early on that methamphetamine may have played a role in Matthew’s death. “The case was used to highlight the fact of violence against gay people,” Wypijewski told me. “Hate-crime legislation under Clinton included provisions for race and enhanced penalties for crimes against women – these were used as sweeteners [to those on the Left]. They were like the identity politics of criminal law. This is what gave some other groups the idea that hate-crime legislation was a good thing.”

Wypijewski thinks the reason some sections of the gay community are so angry about the Jimenez book is obvious: “Jimenez has taken away their angel, and there is the reflexive sense that as a community its suffering was being at last recognised. The people shaping the news require a very simple story – they have to be angels and villains.”

John Stoltenberg is a gay-rights activist who lived with the feminist writer Andrea Dworkin (http://www.theguardian.com/news/2005/apr/12/guardianobituaries.gender) until her death in 2005. He’s a long-time supporter of The Laramie Project, but has also blogged positively about The Book of Matt. “Keeping Matthew as the poster boy of gay-hate crime and ignoring the full tragedy of his story has been the agenda of many gay-movement leaders,” he says. “Ignoring the tragedies of Matthew’s life prior to his murder will do nothing to help other young men in our community who are sold for sex, ravaged by drugs, and generally exploited. They will remain invisible and lost.”

Ted Henson is a former lover and long-term friend of Matthew’s. The pair originally met when Matt was growing up in Saudi Arabia. Henson told me he believes that The Book of Matt is “nothing more than the truth” and that he was “never certain” that the murder was an anti-gay hate crime. “I don’t know why there is so much hostility towards Steve,” he told me. “Matt would not have wanted to be seen as a martyr, but would have wanted the truth to come out.”

Other Laramie residents believe there is another form of prejudice at work in the way Matthew’s story has been told. One that concerns the oft-repeated notion that Wyoming is full of gay-hating bigots. Ray Hageman reported on the case for Wyoming radio in 1998 and was always sceptical of the media construction of the story. “National media couldn’t resist a narrative that fits with its preconceived notions about people in rural western states,” Hageman told me. “Y’know, us simple folks with the piece of straw hanging from our mouths, spitting tobacco and shooting pop cans from the front porch. The folks in Laramie just had to take it, because a fellow who happened to be gay was murdered in their town.”

The Matthew Shepard Foundation stands firm about the murder being fuelled by homophobic hatred. I asked for a reaction regarding the book, but was sent a pre-prepared statement by executive director Jason Marsden, who was a friend of Matthew’s. “We do not respond to innuendo, rumour or conspiracy theories,” reads the statement first issued when The Book of Matt was published. “Instead we remain committed to honouring Matthew’s memory and refuse to be intimidated by those who seek to tarnish it. We owe that to the tens of thousands of donors, activists, volunteers and allies to the cause of equality who have made our work possible.”

On 16 September the Casper Star Tribune, the local paper in Matthew’s home town, published an editorial claiming that an award Jimenez had recently received for his book “deserves rejection”, saying: “From the beginning there have been those who want to ignore the sadistic homophobic motives of Shepard’s attackers and instead insist the matter was a drug deal gone bad.”

The debate will no doubt rage on. Matthew Shepard’s murder will always be, for some, a symbol of the hatred many lesbians and gay men face in the US and beyond. The town of Laramie can take some comfort from reacting with such dignity and humanity in the aftermath and lending its name to The Laramie Project, which has changed hearts and minds. But the mystery remains – not so much why Matthew died, but why the gay community, after almost five decades of campaigning for equal rights, relies so fundamentally on the image of the perfect martyr to represent the cause.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/26/the-truth-behind-americas-most-famous-gay-hate-murder-matthew-shepard

[domer76]

IOW, you can't explain.
I'm not in the guy's head. He indicated Mathew Shepard's torture and murder was "awesome". You fucking figure it out.

[domer76]

Yeah, no.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/26/the-truth-behind-americas-most-famous-gay-hate-murder-matthew-shepard

You lost the audience at "could".

[Mister D]

Murdered? There is no necessity to murder to get equality.

And remember that the violence comes normally from the top.

The equality is achievable. Today we are much more equal than 100 years ago. Why do you say it is an unachievable goal?

Reality shows you the opposite.

Too bad no one explained that to the communists.

Yes, and always will be a top. Those who comprise it may change but it will always exist. It's part and parcel of civilization.

We are? How so?

[Chris]

I'm not in the guy's head. He indicated Mathew Shepard's torture and murder was "awesome". You fucking figure it out.


You're not in his head is right but you pretend to be when you make up things about what's in there.

You seem angry.

[Mister D]

You lost the audience at "could".

You just got ho slapped. :afro:

[Mister D]

You're not in his head is right but you pretend to be when you make up things about what's in there.

You seem angry.

He's really into gay "rights".

[Chris]

He's really into gay "rights".

That's special.

[domer76]

You're not in his head is right but you pretend to be when you make up things about what's in there.

You seem angry.
Let me ask you this. When, not if, I find that, how would you like that crow to be served? Baked, broiled or grilled?

[domer76]

That's special.

Unlike some, I'm an advocate of equal protection under the law. Amazingly, even for pricks

[Chris]

Let me ask you this. When, not if, I find that, how would you like that crow to be served? Baked, broiled or grilled?

Why do you seem bent on making everything personal? You've killed any change of this discussion continuing.

[Chris]

Unlike some, I'm an advocate of equal protection under the law. Amazingly, even for pricks

Oh, the name calling. That's special too. How boorish and boring.

[Hal Jordan]

You lost the audience at "could".

Well, that's simply because unless you are somehow all-knowing, you can't know with 100% certainty...

[Mister D]

Let me ask you this. When, not if, I find that, how would you like that crow to be served? Baked, broiled or grilled?

I just can't wait for you to make a complete fool of yourself. :grin:

[domer76]

We're still waiting. :smiley:

The thread was "democracy without religion". My post was on 2/19/15 at 5:58 PM. My phone doesn't tell the post #. I can get that when I return to my computer. Your response was 4 minutes later. Here are the quotes:

Domer: "Did you do a little jig when Matthew Shephard was killed?"

Mr. D: "Shephard's death was awesome!"

[Mister D]

The thread was "democracy without religion". My post was on 2/19/15 at 5:58 PM. My phone doesn't tell the post #. I can get that when I return to my computer. Your response was 4 minutes later. Here are the quotes:

Domer: "Did you do a little jig when Matthew Shephard was killed?"

Mr. D: "Shephard's death was awesome!"

Why don't you post the link? :grin:

[kilgram]

Too bad no one explained that to the communists.

Yes, and always will be a top. Those who comprise it may change but it will always exist. It's part and parcel of civilization.

We are? How so?
I don't know why do I discuss with declared fascists. It is sickening.

[domer76]

Why don't you post the link? :grin:
Are you dense? My phone doesn't allow that easily. Did you not dee where I would get that later? But you can look it up pretty easily yourself with that info. Are you lazy, too?

[Mister D]

Are you dense? My phone doesn't allow that easily. Did you not dee where I would get that later? But you can look it up pretty easily yourself with that info. Are you lazy, too?

Don't worry. We'll wait. Let us know when you have it. :grin:

[Mister D]

I don't know why do I discuss with declared fascists. It is sickening.

I have some sympathy for fascism but I am not a fascist.

[Green Arrow]

I don't know why do I discuss with declared fascists. It is sickening.

I think it's enjoyable and highly interesting.

[Cigar]

:grin: Progress = Change

[Chris]

:grin: Progress = Change


Then that equality changes and the assertion becomes false.

[Green Arrow]

:grin: Progress = Change

Does everyone remember that thing I said earlier in the thread about how "progress" is basically a meaningless term?

Exhibit A.

[Cigar]

Does everyone remember that thing I said earlier in the thread about how "progress" is basically a meaningless term?

Exhibit A.

Not meaningless to the people crying whining and bitching for the last 6 years :laugh:

If losing by margins of 9.5 and 5 Millinon is meaningless, then expect more meaningless Ass-kicking in the future. :grin:

Change Did Come to America ... just not the Change you wanted. :tongue:

[Mister D]

Not meaningless to the people crying whining and $#@!ing for the last 6 years :laugh:

If losing by margins of 9.5 and 5 Millinon is meaningless, then expect more meaningless Ass-kicking in the future. :grin:

Change Did Come to America ... just not the Change you wanted. :tongue:

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you are?

[domer76]

Don't worry. We'll wait. Let us know when you have it. :grin:
I already did. Pretty easy to find. But I'll be sure to fill all of you in after a bit.

[Mister D]

Does everyone remember that thing I said earlier in the thread about how "progress" is basically a meaningless term?

Exhibit A.

I almost feel embarrassed for him.

[Mister D]

I already did. Pretty easy to find. But I'll be sure to fill all of you in after a bit.

There is no link. Still waiting.

[domer76]

Well, that's simply because unless you are somehow all-knowing, you can't know with 100% certainty...

The quotes are 100% accurate, Hal. They speak for themselves.

[domer76]

You just got ho slapped. :afro:

The story us loaded with "could haves", "may", "theory".....

[Cigar]

I almost feel embarrassed for him.


Getting your ASS_KICKED by 9.5 and 5 Million Votes is Embarrassing.

MAybe you'll only lose by 3 or 4 Million against a Woaman :grin:

The Winners are going off to the Golf Course to Retire Undefeated and live off your Money.

:grin: Eat That ...

[iustitia]

Shepard's death was awesome! Oh wait...you're mad because you weren't invited to the party. Ah, my bad, brah.

Gomer, please stop embarrassing yourself. It's hard to feel bad for you.

[iustitia]

Getting your ASS_KICKED by 9.5 and 5 Million Votes is Embarrassing.

MAybe you'll only lose by 3 or 4 Million against a Woaman :grin:

The Winners are going off to the Golf Course to Retire Undefeated and live off your Money.

:grin: Eat That ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMFiYITIp_w

[Cigar]

IT must really piss Racist off knowing they are going to die off not being able to beat the on Black Man they haaad a chance at beating.

Now you can go Die

[Mister D]

IT must really piss Racist off knowing they are going to die off not being able to beat the on Black Man they haaad a chance at beating.

Now you can go Die

When racists see your comments you help confirm the belief that blacks are generally illiterate morons.

[Peter1469]

You still believe that? (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/14/matthew-shepard-murder-wyoming-book) That was the initial story. But that is all it was, just a story. There was no gay hate going on. This was known early on, yet the homosexual community kept their lie up for the PR purposes.




t now appears, however, that the conventional wisdom may be wrong. A new book by investigative journalist Stephen Jimenez has challenged many of the central assumptions about Shepard’s murder and argues that anti-gay hatred was not the primary motivation for his killing, if it was a factor at all. Instead, Jimenez makes a persuasive case – based on interviews with the murderers, their former girlfriends, friends of Shepard’s, and police investigators – that Shepard was already acquainted with his killers, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson. That acquaintance hardly casts Shepard in the best light.

All three of them, Jimenez argues, were involved in Laramie’s crystal meth subculture, as users and dealers. McKinney and Shepard may also have had a casual sexual relationship.

“Shepard’s sexual preference … certainly wasn’t the motive in the homicide,” Jimenez quotes police investigator Ben Fritzen as saying. “What it came down to really is drugs and money.” A number of other sources close to the story and the protagonists confirmed much the same thing.

As Jimenez reconstructs it, McKinney was coming down from a week-long meth binge and desperate to cover his mounting debts. He believed, rightly or wrongly, that Shepard could lead him to a delivery of about $10,000 worth of meth coming in from Denver, which he intended to steal. McKinney’s plan was to beat the information out of Shepard, but the beating, fueled by severe drug-induced paranoia, ran quickly out of control.




Bullshit. They singled him out for that reason only

[Mister D]

Gomer, please stop embarrassing yourself. It's hard to feel bad for you.

:laugh: Yeah, I wanted him to spend his time looking for this only to make a fool of himself in the end. I thought he was just fucking with me but apparently he genuinely missed the sarcasm there.

[iustitia]

Nah, you're a huge homophobe brah. You probably killed Matthew Shepard yourself. DUN DUNN DUNNNNNNN

It really is sad, though. Modernists want so bad to believe in stupid causes that they'll invent martyrs out of meth-addicted prostitutes. Literally.

[Cigar]

When racists see your comments you help confirm the belief that blacks are generally illiterate morons.

It must make Racist like you feel like crap knowing you can't beat illiterate morons. :grin:

Now go Die a Loser ... :laugh:

[Chris]

The quotes are 100% accurate, Hal. They speak for themselves.

The quotes say nothing.

[Mister D]

Nah, you're a huge homophobe brah. You probably killed Matthew Shepard yourself. DUN DUNN DUNNNNNNN

It really is sad, though. Modernists want so bad to believe in stupid causes that they'll invent martyrs out of meth-addicted prostitutes. Literally.

Sad and quite disturbing as well. MTV, for example, made a propaganda film called (I believe) The Matthew Shepard Story. These people are obviously in the business of indoctrinating children but they're so self-righteous they can't perceive the reality of what they're really doing. They make their values normative and if you don't share them you;re a morally reprehensible cretin.

[Guerilla]

Progress is changing societies perceptions to one of a more sound basis, I suppose.

[domer76]

domer, why do you need to make things up?

Is making things up progress?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/39680-democracy-without-religion?p=967591&viewfull=1#post967591
Post #107

[domer76]

D doesn't want to kill queers. Why lie?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/39680-democracy-without-religion?p=967591&viewfull=1#post967591

Post #107

[domer76]

What you say about D is made up.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/39680-democracy-without-religion?p=967591&viewfull=1#post967591

Post #107

[domer76]

Yes, please do.

Here it is, pal. Your own words.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/39680-democracy-without-religion?p=967591&viewfull=1#post967591

[Chris]

Here it is, pal. Your own words.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/39680-democracy-without-religion?p=967591&viewfull=1#post967591

It doesn't imply what you made up earlier.

[Mister D]

It doesn't imply what you made up earlier.

I honestly thought he was just trying to mess with me. Apparently, he really believes it. lol

[domer76]

Well, that's simply because unless you are somehow all-knowing, you can't know with 100% certainty...

One more time, Hal. Here's the statement. Pretty plain, isn't it?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/39680-democracy-without-religion?p=967591&viewfull=1#post967591

[domer76]

I just can't wait for you to make a complete fool of yourself. :grin:

We'll continue with proving EXACTLY what I said:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/39680-democracy-without-religion?p=967591&viewfull=1#post967591

[Mister D]

One more time, Hal. Here's the statement. Pretty plain, isn't it?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/39680-democracy-without-religion?p=967591&viewfull=1#post967591

:laugh: Gomer, you're embarrassing yourself.

[domer76]

Don't worry. We'll wait. Let us know when you have it. :grin:

Are you ready one more time, or have you had enough?

[Mister D]

Are you ready one more time, or have you had enough?

:laugh:

[domer76]

Gomer, please stop embarrassing yourself. It's hard to feel bad for you.

Here it is for you to read. Tell me where I mislead or misstated anything? It's D who is the liar in this case.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/39680-democracy-without-religion?p=967591&viewfull=1#post967591

[Mister D]

Here it is for you to read. Tell me where I mislead or misstated anything? It's D who is the liar in this case.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/39680-democracy-without-religion?p=967591&viewfull=1#post967591

Gomer, take his advice.

[Chris]

I honestly thought he was just trying to mess with me. Apparently, he really believes it. lol

Attempt to rescue reputation.

[domer76]

:laugh: Yeah, I wanted him to spend his time looking for this only to make a fool of himself in the end. I thought he was just fucking with me but apparently he genuinely missed the sarcasm there.

You filthy fucking liar! Those were your words and now that you've been called on them, you use the pitiable excuse of sarcasm. You could have indicated that at any time since then when it's been brought to your attention. But you didn't. Instead, you accuse me of falsification.

Those are your words, you piece of human filth. And I'll keep reminding you of them. You said them. You own them.

[domer76]

The quotes say nothing.

Are you illiterate as well?

[domer76]

It doesn't imply what you made up earlier.

I made up nothing. I recounted it EXACTLY.

[Chris]

Are you illiterate as well?

So now you feel you need to make stuff up to insult me with?

[domer76]

So now you feel you need to make stuff up to insult me with?

Let me know where I can send the crow.

[Chris]

I made up nothing. I recounted it EXACTLY.


Right, you linked some quotes. But the quotes don't say what you made up about D.

[Mister D]

You filthy $#@!ing liar! Those were your words and now that you've been called on them, you use the pitiable excuse of sarcasm. You could have indicated that at any time since then when it's been brought to your attention. But you didn't. Instead, you accuse me of falsification.

Those are your words, you piece of human filth. And I'll keep reminding you of them. You said them. You own them.

You mad bro? Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself.

I kind of feel bad for egging you on though. :undecided:

[iustitia]

Sad and quite disturbing as well. MTV, for example, made a propaganda film called (I believe) The Matthew Shepard Story. These people are obviously in the business of indoctrinating children but they're so self-righteous they can't perceive the reality of what they're really doing. They make their values normative and if you don't share them you;re a morally reprehensible cretin.

Thinking about it, the same is true for Harvey Milk. That dude was made a gay martyr too apparently. He defended his communist pal Jim Jones and his People's Temple cult right up to 1978. When he wasn't banging runaway teenage boys with drug problems, Milk employed Temple members to work his phones. Milk was killed by Dan White, a fellow Democrat and colleague of Milk's, who was pissed that he couldn't get his job back after resigning. White actually intended to kill Mayor George Moscone, another Democrat, and Milk was in the wrong place at the wrong time. If anything he killed Milk because he convinced Moscone not to let White get back his position.

But he was openly gay, so what a hero, let's put him on stamps and give him the Medal of Freedom and make a movie about him getting killed by Dan White because he's secretly a frustrated closet homo! Milk. Ugh.

[Mister D]

Thinking about it, the same is true for Harvey Milk. That dude was made a gay martyr too apparently. He defended his communist pal Jim Jones and his People's Temple cult right up to 1978. When he wasn't banging runaway teenage boys with drug problems, Milk employed Temple members to work his phones. Milk was killed by Dan White, a fellow Democrat and colleague of Milk's, who was pissed that he couldn't get his job back after resigning. White actually intended to kill Mayor George Moscone, another Democrat, and Milk was in the wrong place at the wrong time. If anything he killed Milk because he convinced Moscone not to let White get back his position.

But he was openly gay, so what a hero, let's put him on stamps and give him the Medal of Freedom and make a movie about him getting killed by Dan White because he's secretly a frustrated closet homo! Milk. Ugh.

Good point. Yeah, that's about as plausible as Shepard being singled out for his sexuality.