Intolerance In Denial

The following exchange was found on a CNN blog following a news story.  The topic of the story was transgender issues, but that isn't the real story here.  With apologies to the good people of Brooklyn, NY (I can’t help what the commenter called herself), what is significant is how ‘Brooklynny‘ (or as I think of her, ‘the hater’) puts words in the mouth of another writer, ‘ImJusSayinn,’ and then blasts him for what he never said.  This is an obvious example of jumping to conclusions, a transparent case of venomous hatred exploding without provocation.

I reprint this here on the Gryphem blog in hopes of reminding you, readers, to be on your guard against those who are lying in wait to bait and belittle people of good conscience, eager to act on their fury, anxious to hurt those who have the temerity to hold different beliefs… and to do it in the name of tolerance.  Here is the excerpt:

ImJusSayinn:

"...for 2000 plus years there has only been two types of human beings.."male" and "female" and now all of a sudden people wanna change their genders and wanna say that gender status is a personal issue!"

Brooklynny:

"I love Jesus, his people.... not so much. You should be looking in your hearts, not a 2000 year old book written 60 years after the fact. Who cares what you believe, how dare you force your believes on others. But I guess that the Christian way, believe what I believe or I'll hurt you."

ImJusSayinn:

"Who said I was looking in a 2000 year old book? I dont believe I said that at all, What I AM saying is that for the past 2000 plus years on this planet all there has ever been is 2 types of human beings, male and female...  I think its funny how u get mad at people judging "transgenders" but then u turn around and judge christians… If you dont want people judging other people then dont do it urself."

I guess this is the proudest I have ever been of anyone who uses the letter 'u' as a word.

Consider… Someone wrote these three phrases in the same argument, in the same paragraph:  (1) "Who cares what you believe,"  (2) "You should be..."  (3) "How dare you force your beliefs..."  The double standard is so obvious it’s giving me a headache.

Brooklynny just condemned her respondent for sharing his thoughts, then told him what he must believe.  Wow, for some reason I had this fleeting image of the Inquisition declaring someone a heretic and burning him at the stake… and the image was not spurred by the religious respondent in this exchange.  What is more manipulative, for one to share his thoughts, or for another to tell him what he must think?

Next question.  Brooklynny, where did the accusation, “believe what I believe or I'll hurt you” come from?  In the first place, your respondent never claimed to be a Christian.  You assumed that.  Secondly, he most certainly never threatened to hurt you or anyone else.  The commenter ‘ImJusSayinn’ is not the threatening presence in this conversation.

Those are only a couple of the irrational, emotion-laden contradictions here.  In fact, there are so many logical inconsistencies in this short paragraph that to continue would be like shooting fish in a barrel. 

Here’s an interesting sidebar that might give us a clue about the perspective of this hater.  I notice that Brooklynny felt the need to proclaim her love for Jesus in the same sentence in which she expressed hatred for Christians.  I think this is evidence of that most illogical but pervasive practice of double-speakers everywhere, ‘political correctness.’  Even in the process of a tirade Brooklynny, out of habit probably, denied any ill will.  She denied it right before spewing her negativity all over her unsuspecting victim.  In this way she will be able to deflect any criticism of her mean-spirited rant by pointing out how she said she loves Jesus.  Insidious.  She says something appeasing, then proceeds to assail the character and beliefs of the target.  Reminds me of Pilate washing his hands before releasing Jesus to those who would execute him.

So what was the real message of this hateful commenter?  She would have you believe that her reason for commenting is to spread a message of tolerance.  That is not so.  The hypocrisy is obvious. 

The reasonable person who doesn’t think about it too hard would probably conclude that she is attempting to silence dissenting opinions by character assassination.  Closer, but that still is not the prime motivation for ‘Brooklynny.’  The hatred is non-specific, thrown at a target of opportunity even though the target hasn’t really said or done anything offensive.  She didn’t know him before, and his words were not enough to inspire this level of response.  So silencing him was not her initial objective.

The fact is, Brooklynny came to this meeting with a loaded gun.  She was primed and ready, and needed only a target to present itself.  The real reason for her explosion is simple.  To hate.  To despise.  To hurt.  In her cynical angst, Brooklynny is lashing out sadistically for the primary purpose of hurting another.  It was not logical.  It was not even personal, really.  Her respondent just happened to appear in her line of sight. 

Shocking?  Yes, and also true.  Evil exists, and we deny it at our peril.  I do not say the person Brooklynny is pure evil.  She is a human being like we all are, with both good and evil battling within her.  But for the time it took her to write her comments this day, she gave in to the wrong influence.  I hope she one day rejects the anger and learns a better way to live.  I hope that by thinking about it in advance, we honest believers might be better prepared the next time we are ambushed by someone with an axe to grind.

Be on your guard.  Call it like you see it.  Don’t take it personally.  Don’t give in to the temptation to hate.  Instead, against all odds, love.  Say a little prayer today for someone you know who is overcome with negativity and needs to understand the love of God.

Gryphem

- - - - -

This piece was originally created in response to a CNN blog in April 2010.  The issues presented are not diminished by the passage of time.