It's not every day that I see one of my valued commenters getting bigtime attention, but it has happened.

(Um, "Lo Ping Wong" is not my most valued commenter, of course, but all commenters at this blog are by definition valued! That's because the values meme in this blog's name operates like a tar baby -- inextricably smearing with value all who dare touch! Beware . . .)

Anyway, here's the Protein Wisdom comment that many people are now reading:

Your son is going to grow up to be a cockslapping faggot just like you Jeff.

Posted by Lo Ping Wong

You lemmings should go to Neiwert's site and read his "Rush, Newspeak and the Rise of Fascism." It's pretty unequivocal, what the right is doing, and David's exegesis is really quite good. We in the reality-based community think highly of it. Your mileage may vary.

Exe, exe, exewho?

In the very next comment, Justin, self-appointed spokesman for all lemmings, couldn't resist imitating my exclamatory, um, style! as well as exegesis itself:

Oooooh, he used exegesis in a sentence!

I'll bet he reads The Economist! I am so very impressed, let me tell you! He must be terribly, hugely intelligent! And Eric, didn't I warn you a year ago about exclamation mark abuse? When you said it was fun, and I should try it? I guess you were right! IT IS FUN!! Now I must march into the sea with my furry retarded brethren.

Interesting how our self-proclaimed champions of civil rights go right to the gay jokes when they’re looking to denigrate someone, is it not? Even if it is a two-year-old? Which, I seem to remember a certain outrage coming from the nuanced arbiters of truthiness over such behavior in the not too recent past. Dr Andrew? You there? WHERE’S THE OUTRAGE?

I've seen this so many times that it never surprises me. It's related to the way racial epithets are routinely hurled at Condi Rice, Colin Powell or Ward Connerly.

But the anti-gay epithet is a little different. I've noticed that in these political arguments, homoeroticism tends to imputed not to homosexuals (for that would not only be redundant, and might verge on actual bigotry), but to heterosexuals with whom the invective hurler disagrees. (I've discussed examples, such as James Wolcott's statement that "the fighting keyboarders drool with barely suppressed homoerotic envy" as well as "homoerotic ardor for Bush.")

I think the popularity of this sort of attack is grounded not only in the leftist exemption, but in the feeling that it's a magic sort of insult against which there's no defense. Only a right-wing bigot could possibly object to being called gay, because after all, why would anyone object unless he thought there was something wrong with being gay? And in the minds of the name-callers, because they are on the left (and because they've earned their Certificate of Non Bigotry by the simple act of saying they're for gay marriage), there is absolutely no possibility that they might harbor feelings of prejudice against homosexuals, is there? The burden all falls on the accused.

If they don't like being called "faggots," why, they're obviously bigots!

And anyone who doesn't agree with their logic is likewise a bigot. (And don't forget -- bigotry now includes not caring whether someone is gay.)

Lost in all of this is common sense. Common sense would suggest that calling someone a "faggot" is by definition bigotry.

I guess the lesson here is that if you're "reality-based," there's no need to worry about common sense. Members of that, um, "community" are free to insult those who disagree with them by calling them "faggots."

And, of course, it follows that those who don't like being called "faggots" are bigoted lemmings unable to suppress their homoerotic ardor -- an exegesis headed straight for the cliffs!