Have I Lost Credibility?

According to one anonymous poster, I've lost credibility because I defended Peter Porcupine's right to remain anonymous. Pretty funny, eh? Funny how someone's basis for an attack is sort of like casting stones when their house is glass. It's also funny like a group of legislators who say 'we're only voting on this amendment because we have to,' and then go and block another amendment procedurally.

When I defended PP's right to remain anonymous, I was afraid that I'd lose the respect of some of my readers. However, I've always been the type of person who writes what I think is true - based on my life experiences, my studies and my personal code of ethics. I'm not going to write things purely to appeal to the base of people who read my site: then I'd truly be singing to the choir. I'll get things wrong and have gotten things wrong, that doesn't mean I should lose credibility or respect - it just means people will respectfully disagree, which is something I absolutely support. Healthy debate is what makes the blogosphere interesting and worth reading - or is being personally challenged out of style nowadays?

I'm sorry if people disagreed with my feelings on PP, but "outing" her wasn't something I supported then or do now. I support PP's right to remain anonymous - as I support the rights of the anonymous poster who just attacked me to remain hidden behind his or her comfy desk. However, here's what really rubbed me: instead of saying "well, Ryan, I disagree with you there," the commenter went much further. Read the whole reply for full effect:

Tell that to Ryan's BFFs David "let the people vote" Kravitz and Peter "I'm not anti-sodomite, I'm pro-constitution" Porcupine. Or any of the host of 'phobes (EaBo, MCRD, John Howard) Laurel is gamely battling over at the Blue Cess Pool. Ryan, you've sacrificed some of your own credibility standing up for these creeps, especially PP. Maybe it's time to call in some favors...

First, let's start off: I've never stood up for EaBo, MCRD or John Howard. If I had a blog like BMG, which is more of a community than a place where people come to read someone's thoughts, I'd remove the cancer from my blog's body. I've been at the forefront in defending against their hate. Feel free to read my comments and the high proportion that have been dedicated to debunking EaBo, MCRD and John Howard. It's a dirty job and, like Laurel, I realize someone has to do it.

What's more odd is the fact that one day, at Boston Latin during a Deval event, I was cheered by lefty bloggers all the state over for having the guts to take Blue Mass Group to task and say a lot of the things people were thinking privately (and emailing me about), but not saying out loud. The next - and David Kravitz is suddenly my Best Friend Forever? Does that person really read my blog? Have people forgotten that I have criticized BMG strongly for allowing the trolls to take it over?

How did I go from the person the entire lefty blogosphere in Massachusetts rallied around because of my hardline stance, to being called soft on that stance when I haven't done anything to indicate a change in said stance? Furthermore, people will do well to remember that I challenged David Kravitz on his "let the people vote" opinion as early as last summer. I was so harsh and angry, I later apologized.

However, some of my points remain valid to this day: I like David, he's a bright guy, but he needs to be a little more progressive and a little less legalistic. The "process people" were wrong then, wrong now and will be wrong until there's a process that actually works. David should at least recognize the fact that the ballot initiative process is long-since dead and we shouldn't resurrect it just because it gives people the chance to step on them queers. As we saw last January, the legislature was willing to let the process die once again - just about five minutes later - for any bill but the one that effected gay and lesbian people. But wait, I forgot... how could I have possibly written that stuff? I'm supposed to be David's lap dog. /sarcasm off.

Is this how people really feel? Or, is this one, anonymous commenter just some crazy outlier? In truth, it doesn't really matter: I'm never going to stop writing what I think is right, but I don't want my name to be tarnished either. Unlike completely anonymous posters (even without an alias), I have a reputation that I can actually value. I can actually take pride in my body of work because it's there for everyone to see. I'm not ashamed of the fact that I defended someone's right to be anonymous - and I'd do it again, whether it's PP or some random Joe who thinks it's a good idea to write a bunch of baseless attacks against me. Heck, Laurel was so worried about PP being able to retain her anonymity that she appealed to me to delete my BMG diary because it alerted a number of people to who PP really was - something I agreed to do. Would that same commenter now like to call Laurel a PP/David BFF?

The world isn't so black and white. Everyone needs to realize that. With the marriage amendment, tensions are high right now. I get that. But, as both bloggers and readers of blogs, let's try to remain informed and make informed opinions. If we can't do that, it hurts our cause. The amendment needs to be stopped at all costs. I'm trying my hardest to do that - working night and day. I've opened the silos on Senator Murray for not having the right priorities as Senate President - and have urged others to do the same: it's one of the few things we can do to win now, with just a few days left and a number of solid "yes" votes no amount of lobbying will change. Let's just stay on focus and actually get the job done, instead of going on the attack on one another. We each have a role to play, so play it.

The Day I Met Peter Porcupine

The day I met Peter Porcupine, I had no idea who (s)he was. Not only did I not know who Peter was in person, but I didn't really read Peter's blogs or know that (s)he paid that much attention to my own. Sure, Peter left a few comments, but as far as I was concerned, Peter was the homophobic, Republican talking-head everyone kept saying (s)he was - and why shouldn't I believe it?

*****

It was about 8pm and I was going to one of Deval Patrick's civil engagement meetings he held across the state, just after being elected. This one was at UMASS Dartmouth, in the Foster Administration Building. Picture unwelcoming, cold concrete with a small room and about fifty people packed in it. All of a sudden, a stranger went to shake my hand and said hello. "You know me as Peter Porcupine," the person said.

Peter was very friendly for someone I was told was so, well, not.

I've never been the type to be hoodwinked by people who are fakely nice. It's something I can usually spot from a mile away. I'm sure there are people who are more skilled in asshat detection than I am, but there's been nothing Peter Porcupine has ever done to indicate (s)he was as closed-minded and homophobic as is often portrayed in the blogosphere. (S)he didn't have to introduce herself to me; (s)he did that of her own volition.

I'll readily admit there are a whole host of issues where (s)he sees night and I see day, but that doesn't mean I'm going to join in the circus of outing Peter. It's one thing to out the real homophobic people - a la Mark Foley - but (s)he's not Mark Foley. While (s)he does support an up-or-down vote, (s)he would vote against a ban. Furthermore, (s)he's exactly the kind of person who could actually convince others of that ilk to vote against any ban if we can't bridge the current four-vote gap - something I'll publicly call for her to do if it gets to that point.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have tea with this person. I don't support blanket anonymity. There may even be legitimate conflicts of interest in Peter having a pseudonym. However, I don't see these recent posts about the real identity of Peter being about any of those potential conflicts. Indeed, QueerToday went so far as to suggest she may be getting ready to stalk queer youth - a serious assertion with absolutely no basis in fact. We're being just as bitter towards her as so many right-wingers are toward us - and that bitterness seems just as utterly pointless as Pat Robertson's drivel or Ann Coulter's existence. It seems to me that some people are revealing Peter's identity for merely for the sake of revealing Peter's identity, as if it were the best weapon to use against Peter.

However, this weapon being wielded against Peter Porcupine seems to me like a double-edged sword. Peter Porcupine should come out of the alias closet - when QueerToday's FireCrotch, Pryncess Shaniqua, Becca D'Bus, Madam V, Queer Jay and everyone from Mass Left blogs who don't use their whole names start the trend. Otherwise, Team Equality is being awfully hypocritical - and that's coming from one of its charter members.