|
CP, I think you also must consider venue. I get the strong impression from the places on the internet where I've seen every gay's gaydar go off for Mr. Shirvell that the freedom to express that cheeky opinion was given free reign because they are gay-centric sites where we can have a little fun.
Similarly, here on the LoT, I don't think there would be much actual debate about Shirvell's disgustingness. We found some disagreement as to whether the "he's gay" pronouncement is appropriate, and so we ran with that.
I'm pretty sure not many homos would be so loose with that allegation on a news site or a media interview, or even on uber-public sites like facebook or twitter. I can't speak for every queer in America, but I realize the limitations such an allegations would put on my argument if I were seriously debating the merits of Shirvell's behavior in an impartial forum.
We're just having a little more fun with it here on the LoT, as we've had at other gay-friendly places. Whether he's gay cannot be ascertained by a single theory of motive, or by his mannerisms or speech patterns. Yes, yes, all true. But c'mon. Depending on where we are when our collective gaydar goes off the charts, we're going to be comfortable saying that - and thus further calling Shirvell out as a self-loathing hypocrite. The LoT being one of those places.
Oh, and despite Alex's handy dictionary definition of hypocrisy, I contend any self-loathing gay is guilty of it. As for Shirvell in particular, it doesn't matter if he's a homo-hater not having gay sex - - he IS acting on his homosexuality via his obsession with Armstrong. Just not in a very healthy way. D'uh. Self-loathing gays don't act out in healthy ways in many areas of their lives. If you want to find the technical term for that psychosis, I'll be happy to consider ceding hypocrisy.
|