That same week, right after the Jihad massacre in Orlando, another colleague, long used to being published–and published frequently at gay websites–wrote about the male Muslim immigrant/refugee physical and sexual violence against girls and women (their own and infidel women); against homosexuals–and paradoxically, also against young boys. He counseled gays to understand that the issues of gun control and “hate,” while important, were also quite beside the point, that “homosexuality is a capital crime in Islam.”
His piece was rejected by every gay site he approached. One venue threatened him: If he published his piece “anywhere,” that his work would no longer be welcome in their pages.
I welcomed him to the American Gulag.
He told me that he finally “had” to publish the piece at a conservative site.
Gently, I told him that what he wrote was the kind of piece that was long familiar only at conservative sites and that he should expect considerable flack for where he’s published as well as for what he’s published.More.
Reality check: I’ve written here that Orlando is a watershed. It becomes clear to potential survivors that sharia enthusiasts and gays are not a coalition, any more than cats and birds are. And I still think that lesson will sink in. But something else happens first, that probably explains what Chesler is describing, even post-Orlando:
Past bad decisions are sunk costs. Even gays who want to live will resist admitting that the people they put faith in betrayed them and the people they despised were right about the threat. That’s because the fallout is perceived as already experienced.
Over time, offered an opportunity to repeat the disaster, people who want to live start separating themselves from people who have other priorities. Old coalitions fray and new ones start up. Well, we shall see, but that’s the usual pattern.
See also: Decision point at Orlando Moving the discussion forward: