Home / General / See If You Can Spot the False Dichotomy: Rank Bigotry Edition

See If You Can Spot the False Dichotomy: Rank Bigotry Edition


Shorter Verbatim one of the Powerline stooges:  “The purpose of the Marines is to fight America’s enemies. It is no [sic] part of their purpose to facilitate the self-actualization of gays.”

For further grim amusement, consider his additional claim that “[i]n this context, any appreciable risk to the fighting capacity of the Marine Corps is too much.”  Of course, non-bigots can ask exactly the same question: in this context, it’s particularly stupid and dangerous to turn away qualified military personnel in order to accommodate the discriminatory prejudices of an increasingly small minority of Americans.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • No [sic] needed. “Not part” would have worked there too, and I suspect that’s what you’re expecting to see, but “no part” is both correct and probably intended.

    Of course, no part of the sentence is *correct,* but you know what I mean.

    • Scott Lemieux

      Yep, fair enough.

  • Its even worse. Reading the entry he’s basically just slavishly nodding his head to a comment by Marine Commandant James Amos against repealing DADT. Amos’ argument is (roughly) Marines sleep two to a room so obviously we can’t have any gays in the ranks. It’d be nice to think that such an open display of bigotry would lose both of these schmucks their jobs, but somehow I doubt it.

  • Hogan

    The purpose of the internet is to facilitate the sharing of porn. It is no part of its purpose to broadcast the drivelings of homophobic douchebags.

  • Matt

    Of course the right-wing is worried about gay people in the military – if they send their kids off to train for the race war and they meet a REAL LIVE gay person (instead of a Jack Chick stereotype), they might start to question the whole racket. Aren’t we imposing on them enough by making them serve with non-whites? ;)

  • Murc

    I’ve always been somewhat appalled by the outright contempt shown the armed forces by people taking this line of reasoning.

    Basically they’re saying that our soldiers are so ill-trained, so undisciplined, and so badly led that they can’t be trusted to do their jobs if they know that specific servicemen around them are gay. That just seems like the kind of thing that ought to inspire actual members of the service to invite them to step outside.

    • cpinva

      also, those hardened fighters would, were an openly gay marine be assigned to their unit, spend their days wetting their camos in fear, instead of going out and killing something.

      apparently, the commandant doesn’t think all that much of his marines.

  • Kevin

    Validating the bigotry of homophobes is part of their mission though, apparently.

  • BigHank53

    If you can convince yourself that the GAYS are EVIL and out to contaminate our BODILY FLUIDS with their near-satanic BUGGERY, and so are ENEMIES of freedom-loving AMERICANS….then the whole arguement makes more sense.

    I find if you imagine the speaker on a steercorner with a hand-lettered sandwichboard (front side hates the gays, back side hates the Trilateral Commission) it’s more comprehensible. These people are turd-fondling crazy. Some of them can still manage complete sentences and dress well, so they look ordinary.

  • Nitahoyo

    The ironic thing is that moron truly seems to think that there aren’t already gays in Marines… HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Trust me, that’s not true!!

  • joe from Lowell

    The HRC poo-poo’ed the bs unsourced rumor story about DADT’s demise, and now the Pentagon’s report has leaked. It’s not good news for the Powerline stooges’ side of the argument.

    Scott, I’ve been explaining this to you for months; DADT is going to be repealed in the lame duck session.

It is main inner container footer text