“I Follow Hate”
Why Do Liberals Keep Shooting Themselves in the Foot?
Most people on twitter follow what they LIKE, not what they HATE.
Hate is quite discordant with the cute little twitter bird, which represents a social network with members “chirping” or “tweeting” information to each other for the purpose of networking.
Yes, I know, ifollowHATE is not indicating that he or she hates me. They are implying that I hate, and this is their attempt to label me as hateful.
You do have to wonder about people who define themselves not by what they believe, but by whom they judge, whom they oppose, and whom they hate.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, for example, has been one of those rare groups which define their beliefs by a negative and whose activities center on interfering with the beliefs of others.
ifollowHATE has by no means isolated me alone. ifollowHATE follows 2,247 people and groups on Twitter, and has made 7,544 tweets. Clearly not a casual tweeter, nor a casual activity. Quite a bit of effort has been invested in this hate-labeling campaign.
ifollowHATE was probably inspired to follow me on Twitter by my recent article on Gay Marriage and Homosexuality. ifollowHATE self-identifies on Twitter as:
“I follow people that follow the group that fans the flames of hostility against blacks and gays (their words, their admission)”
Ironically, my article, although disagreeing with the radical gay agenda, was anything but hateful. I challenge ifollowHATE or anyone else to find a hateful remark in my article.
Where’s the Logic?
Most would expect those who promote the gay lifestyle to direct their efforts toward explaining the benefits of their philosophy.
Or, perhaps, to defend criticisms others make against their philosophy.
But scanning the Internet for websites which disagree with you, and labeling them hateful without explanation is not a marketing philosophy that is likely to sell an idea.
So if ifollowHATE’s motivation is not promotion of the gay lifestyle, what is it?
ifollowHATE’s intention is probably intimidation. Conservative bloggers are frequently targeted by radicals, as Michelle Malkin describes.
Yesterday, Michelle Malkin posted Free Speech Zone, showing solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers, whose ranks I have apparently officially joined today. Michelle writes:
Over the past eight years that I’ve been blogging and operating Internet media companies, I’ve witnessed or experienced firsthand some of the most unhinged behavior against conservatives — from individual harassment and intimidation, to e-mail bombs and e-mail hackings, to troll infestations, distributed denial of service attacks, coordinated spam block attacks, and death threats.
Michelle’s reaction to threats:
Over the past twenty years that I’ve worked in daily opinion journalism, written books, and traveled across the country speaking in every type of venue, I’ve always believed that the most effective response to attempted censorship of conservatives is more speech, not less.
More. Louder. Bolder.
This internet targeting of conservative bloggers, or internet bullying, seems to be a common tactic utilized by the left.
All part of Alinsky tactics, or trying to justify the use of dirty tactics to achieve one’s goals.
And, like most bullies, ifollowHATE is cowardly and hides behind anonymity. Like most bullies, their chances of success are slim.
So ifollowHATE spends his or her time pursuing, judging and labeling others, behind an anonymous mask.
Ironically, this makes ifollowHATE more hateful than the people they are presuming to judge. ifollowHATE really does follow hate; but the hate is found in their own heart, not in the hearts of those whom they try to label.
Half of America Hates
Some of the individuals and groups labeled by ifollowHATE as being hateful include:
American Papist, Catholic Music, Catholic News Service, Catholic Radio Dramas, Catholic Writers Guild, National Organization for Marriage, and The Witty Catholic
Not bad company I have just joined!
This list also indicates that ifollowHATE’s hate seems to be directed primarily at Catholics.
And, according to ifollowHATE’s definition of hatefulness – disagreement with the radical gay agenda –half of America must hate, too.
When it comes to the marriage question, 1.7% of the population, gays, is trying to dictate the law to 98.3% of America, those who are straight.
It’s actually even less than 1.7% trying to dictate the law, since the vast majority of gays do not seek gay marriage.
What can radicals be thinking? That Americans will take well to intimidation by minority? The more they step up the aggression and the ridicule, the less likely they are to succeed. They are shooting themselves in the foot.
Am I planning to return ifollowHATE’s follow?
Not highly likely.
So ifollowHATE is not likely to network effectively on Twitter.
Will ifollowHATE succeed in spreading their philosophy by this method?
Actually, by focusing all his or her efforts solely on attacking all who disagree with them without explanation, ifollowHATE simply makes themselves look foolish, damaging their cause.
What a sad waste of time!