Assholes get featured on the front page
Why?
Because I have an interest in demonstrating to my readers how “nice” people are often the most insulting, patronizing jerks right out of the gate.
Many of you miss this entirely because you fall for it. You fall for the faux-civil language. You say to yourselves, “Well, since he didn’t swear directly at the host, and since he put it in the form of what civil language sounds like, he’s being respectful.”
This is not respectful. It’s veiled aggression. It’s disrespect, and it’s strawmanning.
Tom Sherry? I don’t respect you either.
Listen up readers:
I am not losing my mind.
I am not out of control.
I do not have inappropriate levels of anger.
Your personal comfort level with anger (especially male anger) is not synonymous with what is "appropriate" for me to feel or express.
I apologize for nothing, I will not dial my tone down even one notch.
But I will ban the next person who dares to speculate on my mental health because they're too afraid of plain spoken and angry men.
Your subscription does not buy you the right to engage with me in public that way.
The tone is reason enough to be annoyed by Mr. Sherry to be sure, but he's also flatly, factually wrong. "Disagreement in the absence of contempt is truly possible." That is true about things without immediate moral salience. It is not true about immediate, ongoing horrors involving immense harm and suffering that are happening *right now*. The nature of these battles is such that if he experiences no contempt, the side of evil has already won. Gender ideology turns children into beings who are assigned moral autonomy over their bodies and we are simply quibbling about details--lifelong sterilization today, sexual contact with adults tomorrow. The absence of active, consciously experienced contempt for this ideology is in itself a moral wrong.
He is also wrong about the meaning of "loving one's enemies." Enabling an evasion of responsibility is not loving. Fostering dependence is not loving. It doesn't matter how right the other party involved thinks they are, either. If I were at your house and you experienced a psychotic break in which you were convinced that nuclear holocaust would result at once unless you burned your own house down, the most loving thing I could do would be to stop you from harming yourself and your future security, even if I had to enlist another male to physically tackle you. It is not at all hard to name myriad scenarios where aggressively and even painfully stopping someone from doing massive harm, when harm is what they think they must do, is what love *requires*.
If even one person in his life truly loved Dylan Mulvaney, we would likely have never heard of him.