I threw a lot of possibilities out there, on some points I was mistaken, but my basic argument remains:

1. Yes the manifesto looks suspiciously similar to something an anti-gay would write

2. The similarity to anti-gay writings in no way eliminates other suspects. i.e there are other explanations as to authorship which are at least plausible.

3. No expert analysis of the manifesto was cited in the article

4. So to entitle your article ‘likely’ instead of ‘may’ based on the analysis of the online-manifesto by well-informed amateurs is misleading at best and at worst is borderline yellow journalism.

Part of the reason I’m being so stubborn in my argument is because I have a tremendous amount of respect for you. Your well articulated and thoughtful articles are generally devoid of more sensationalist leanings common to other websites whose focus is the culture war. I thoroughly agree with your moral viewpoint as expressed in the response to Mr. LaBarbara above and I admire this site for its policies on commenting and discussion.

But there is a fine line between an informed opinion and an arrogant opinion & in this one instance I believe you have crossed the line by using the word ‘likely’ in your headline.

Allow me to explain further, one of my great pet-peeves of the contemporary conservative movement is the anti-intellectualism expressed by commentators. Because of the ‘liberal’ leaning of centers of higher learning all science is discredited and non-expert analysis is trumpeted. Of course the experts give better opinions because they are better informed, but the conservative rejects this better opinion because it does not conform to his worldview and instead grasps onto an amateur opinion which more closely fits in his worldview.

In this case I believe you are making a similar mistake by taking your amateur analysis supported by another amateur analysis from a similar world-view and then reporting the vandalism as ‘likely a hoax’ rather than as ‘may have been a hoax.’If you had included an analysis performed by a linguist you could’ve justified the declaration of likeliness.

And I would like to apologize for implying that you were involved in a wacko-conspiracy theory. I conflated your well-informed analysis with other-commentator’s assertions that the entire event was a hoax. I am sorry. Outside of the headline your article is, as usual, well thought threw, makes no claims as to know who did anything, and even admits that you may be mistaken in your analysis. It is the level-headed product I expect from a Timothy Kincaid article. It is the headline I object to.

Likely=Probably=Almost Certainly. ‘Almost Certainly’ is not what you conveyed in your article. Your article does not match your headline.

If we don’t expect our side to live up to the basic rules of justice how can we possibly complain if the other side doesn’t either? As Timothy said, saying “They’re worse” doesn’t justify a wrongdoing by our side. If we want to continue winning the battle of public opinion we can’t start saying there’s nothing wrong with doing something wrong, even if its trivial in comparison to the sort of things Lively has done.

First, he stated that Schwartz is a hater because he refuses to condemn whoever it was threw a brick through the window of the Christian Liberty Academy. Second, Mr. Kincaid says that because Schwartz’s loathing of homophobes like Lively and LaBarbera is based on his “dislike” of the “target” (i.e. Lively and LaBarbera) Schwartz loses the moral high ground and has “no ethical basis at all.” Last, though he’s oblique about it, Mr. Kincaid is dismissive of Schwartz’s GLN because it’s concerned with a “host of causes that have nothing to do with [sexual] orientation,” leaving unsaid and for the rest of us to draw the implicit conclusion that his own organization BTB sticks to strictly LGBT issues and therefore has more legitimacy to address the latter.

Let me comment on each point in turn.

First, Schwartz clearly means to make the unexceptional point that the issue of petty vandalism at the Academy is a red herring taken up by LaBarbera to mask Lively’s partial responsibility for atrocities in Uganda. It seems to me obscene for anyone to suggest that Bob Scwhwartz, who marched with MLK in Chicago in ’66 and was in Selma for the famous march on Montgomery, is the moral quivalent of Peter LaBarbera.

The fact that BTB bloggers would allow LaBarbera to initiate, and themselves participate in, this lengthy discussion of the moral merits of condemning or refusing to condemn “violence” at the Christian Liberty Academy is, I submit, an example of the inexcusable insularity and narcissism of many American gays who can’t seem to get a handle on the radical disconnect between “violence” at the Academy in Arlington Heights and truly horrific and genuine violence in Uganda. One wonders, where is their moral compass and why do they allow LaBarbera to define the focus?

Second, does Schwartz “base” his loathing of LaBarbera and Lively and their message on his “dislike” of them and thus have “no ethical basis” for his loathing, as Mr. Kincaid literally says? Schwartz loathes them for what they say and do; any right-thinking person should do the same, including Mr. Kincaid, who seems to enjoy chatting with bigots on his blog as long as they are civil and cordial.

But Mr. Kincaid may be trying to make another, broader point about hate and violence. He may be trying to say something like the following: hatred and violence are never justified, under any conditions; when your opposition to something or someone is prompted by the emotion of hate and you attempt to justify violence on its basis, it’s ipso fact to take an unethical position, one that never can be justified on the basis of moral standards.

This is a popular position, and many people, not just Christians, accept it. But is it right? For instance, is to hate evil a moral contradiction? Is it unethical to hate the murderer of your parents? Indeed, is it unethical not to? Is the Jew who sets off a bomb in Gestapo headquarters and kills dozens the moral equivalent of the guard who shoots his mother? Is it morally inappropriate to hate Nazis and wish violence against them, or even commit violence against them, especially when they exercise real power and influence in a society? These are important ethical questions and, though Kincaid and others may think the answers are obvious, I don’t think they are and I bet Schwartz doesn’t either.

Finally, for my last point: GLN is a group that believes in solidarity politics. Single-issue activists like Mr. Kincaid may think a “host of causes” dilutes the effectiveness of gay-rights activists, but it is our contention, first, that struggles by powerless and oppressed peoples of all descriptions are inextricably linked. There are working people who are gay, there are African-Americans who are gay, as well as immigrants and Muslims, and so on. Many people suffer multiple oppressions.

Second, how can we expect others to join the struggle for gay rights if we in turn do not support them in theirs? The struggle, for example, against Proposition 8 in California three years ago might have been won had single-issue gay activists, both currently and in the past, had reached out to Latinos and Latinas across the state and stood by them in their struggles to avoid being scapegoated.

I’m sure if this was a gay person the act was motivated by anger rather than a lack of self-respect.

I am quite capable of seeing the distinction between horror and minor misbehavior. Any equivalence that you see exists only in your imagination.

There is no question that the Ugandan Homosexuality Bill of 2009, as proposed, is a violation of human dignity on a scale that makes the broken doors inconsequential.

However, that has no bearing on whether the action which we are discussing is condemnable or worthy of implicit endorsement.

The vandalism is either acceptable or not. And the determinant cannot be your opinion about the character of the victim. That way of thinking can always find an excuse for whatever it wants.

So I’m sorry. But “yeah, but he’s worse” is no better excuse than it was in third grade.

And, just so you know, petty vandalism is not ‘meted out’. Justice is meted out.

Petty vandalism has no resemblance to justice. It is simply a coward’s foolish effort to feel better about his own lack of self-respect by hurting someone else, but lacking the balls to take credit. Most of us outgrow it while still young.

“It appears to me, Bob, that you would have to be put in the category of “real hater and violence cheerleader.”

When we base the acceptability of hatred and violence on whether we like or dislike the target, then we have no ethical basis at all. The ethics you display here are indistinguishable from any fag-basher who justifies his hatred and violence on the idea that the targets deserve it.”

Problems I have with your ethics, Timothy, are that you appear not to distinguish between violence against property and persons. And that you find equilivance between the enormity of the violence experienced by gay Ugandans–violence stirred up by Scott Lively and honored by Peter LaBarbera– and the petty vandalism meted out to the property of the Christian Liberty Academy. There is no equilivance here.

LaBarbera calls the response of groups like GLN to his antigay crusade, “hatred.” Please don’t join him by calling our refusal to condemn petty vandalism “hatred and violance cheerleading.” Your thinking discredits our efforts and your own.

I’ve told Peter that he is always welcome to comment here providing he follows the same Comments Policy rules that we all follow.

Thanks for understanding.