Sorry man, I think you are being a little simplistic on the motives, all for the sake of dismissing the truth.
Sorry man, I think you are being a little simplistic on the motives, all for the sake of dismissing the truth.
"The truth?" What, the truth that is hidden away in this guy's book you can buy? Have you even read it, seen the evidence to support this idea? What agenda is being pushed here? That's it's not ok to torture and murder people for being gay? Is there a problem with this "agenda?"
So, it would seem that a liberal journalist, Stephen Jimenez is coming out with this, and the liberal machine is not happy with him....It brings up a serious look into how progressive liberals construct 'narratives' though, and how to understand how they are rarely based in truth.
Thoughts?
Have you yourself seen this "information" that is the so called "truth" or are you just taking the word of an article?
I've looked into as much as I can, as a lay person, not connected with the case from day one, have you? Or are you just accepting what the narrative, and your ideological predilections tell you to believe?
If you want to be led like a sheep, that is up to you, I try not to be.
"None of this is idle speculation; it’s the fruit of years of dogged investigation by journalist Stephen Jimenez, himself gay. In the course of his reporting, Jimenez interviewed over 100 subjects, including friends of Shepard and of his convicted killers, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, as well as the killers themselves (though by the book’s end you may have more questions than answers about the extent of Henderson’s complicity). In the process, he amassed enough anecdotal evidence to build a persuasive case that Shepard’s sexuality was, if not incidental, certainly less central than popular consensus has lead us to believe."That's all you got? Really? The narrative was absolutely set up by pro gay community to give legs to the lie.
Rachel Maddow is going to crap her pantsuit.
Have you yourself seen this "information" that is the so called "truth" or are you just taking the word of an article?
I'm not accepting anything as fact, I haven't seen the book or looked at the evidence. My support for the gay rights movement is not based on Matthew Shepard. I was just curious if you had actually seen the evidence since you claim this version as "truth".
"None of this is idle speculation; it’s the fruit of years of dogged investigation by journalist Stephen Jimenez, himself gay. In the course of his reporting, Jimenez interviewed over 100 subjects, including friends of Shepard and of his convicted killers, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, as well as the killers themselves (though by the book’s end you may have more questions than answers about the extent of Henderson’s complicity). In the process, he amassed enough anecdotal evidence to build a persuasive case that Shepard’s sexuality was, if not incidental, certainly less central than popular consensus has lead us to believe."
Again...this is from "The Advocate" and their review of the book and circumstances. I actually respect the fact that they arent ****ting themselves trying to discredit the book and are actually giving both the author and the subject an actual review, unlike those that feel the need to by damn protect and defend the mythology based on nothing more than the mythology.
In the inverse, have you seen the information, or evidence that disqualifies this theory of the crime? Or, are you just taking the word of those who constructed the narrative early in the aftermath of the crime to further a political agenda?
No, I don't think you are. I think you are simply trying to poke holes, because you don't like that a narrative furthering a political agenda from a side you support is shown to be a false construct.
I've answered your questions and I haven't taken anything as "truth" as you have. So have you seen the evidence that this is "truth" as you claim, or are you just taking the narrative that it is.
The gay rights movement is not dependent on something that happened to Matt Shepard.
Did you even bother to read the Advocate article? Me thinks not with this statement.
Amazing? Not at all. Typical. Pro-gay people can be some of the most ugly intolerant people I have ever seen.Absolutely Vance. But isn't it amazing the attack one comes under when simply pointing this out?
It's not just this one case that is the only issue.
The bigger issue is the acknowledgement by a gay special rights group that they willingly and knowingly lie to advance their cause. And the idiots that believe anything they have to say.
And what pray tell do YOU base your 'truth' on? Have you read that rather unbiased (or rather...a source that has every reason to be biased and yet manages to NOT) source and review? I know you havent read the book and are blessed with all manner of mythology. But have you read ANY opposing viewpoints?So you're basing as "truth", the Advocate article? That's your rock solid proof that what you say is "truth"?
Amazing? Not at all. Typical. Pro-gay people can be some of the most ugly intolerant people I have ever seen.
Amazing? Not at all. Typical. Pro-gay people can be some of the most ugly intolerant people I have ever seen.
And what pray tell do YOU base your 'truth' on? Have you read that rather unbiased (or rather...a source that has every reason to be biased and yet manages to NOT) source and review? I know you havent read the book and are blessed with all manner of mythology. But have you read ANY opposing viewpoints?
Not ALL...just the ones that have already come out and said...so what if it was all a lie...it doesnt change the fact that gay people suffer from 'hate crimes'. because...you know what/ it DOES change that 'fact'. What that would mean is that hate crime legislation was built on a lie. Its as corrupt as Al Sharpton defending the Tawana Brawley incident because, you know, somewhere out there SOME black girl was being abducted and raped by cops....Let's say we take what you say as the truth and they did lie.
So you're saying that ALL gay people knowingly lie and therefore people shouldn't believe ANYTHING a gay person says. Are you really going that route?
You are still not telling the truth
I did not say the letter is BS
Well, if an anonymous letter says so, then it must be true!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?