I'm not familiar with Chad Felix Greene, except that I blocked him for some reason. Based upon what he posted about my blog on Friday, blocking him was a good idea. However since he called me out, I think it's my duty to answer back.
From the looks of him, Mr. Greene seems to be one of those bougie individuals who isn't negatively touched by homophobia as much as us so-called "plain queers." His routine seems to be allowing himself to be used by conservative publications and groups in order to tell us LGBTQs that we are hysterical victims of "leftist leaders." exploiting us for personal benefit.
And on this occasion, he had the hypocrisy to make this argument for The Federalist, a right-wing publication who is obviously exploiting him. The particular piece I am talking about is a self-righteous piece of tripe called No, Lifting ‘Net Neutrality’ Doesn’t Hurt Gay People, in which makes the argument that lifting net neutrality (even though it has caused alarm in many circles) isn't harmful to gays.
To Green, it's the people sounding the alarm about lifting net neutrality who are the actual dangers. And in his post, the following the part which sent me into orbit, so to speak:
This is what I tweeted him back:
And he sent me back an ugly comment:
From the looks of him, Mr. Greene seems to be one of those bougie individuals who isn't negatively touched by homophobia as much as us so-called "plain queers." His routine seems to be allowing himself to be used by conservative publications and groups in order to tell us LGBTQs that we are hysterical victims of "leftist leaders." exploiting us for personal benefit.
And on this occasion, he had the hypocrisy to make this argument for The Federalist, a right-wing publication who is obviously exploiting him. The particular piece I am talking about is a self-righteous piece of tripe called No, Lifting ‘Net Neutrality’ Doesn’t Hurt Gay People, in which makes the argument that lifting net neutrality (even though it has caused alarm in many circles) isn't harmful to gays.
To Green, it's the people sounding the alarm about lifting net neutrality who are the actual dangers. And in his post, the following the part which sent me into orbit, so to speak:
The final layer of argument relies on the idea that those who pay more will get a faster lane than those who pay less. Alvin McEwen of the anti-Christian LGBT blog titled “Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters” described this as an intentional way to keep LGBT people ignorant and afraid. Again, given the current social climate, this is preposterous.
This is what I tweeted him back:
My friend, I read your post about net neutrality. While I disagree with all of it, I take GREAT offense with you calling my blog anti-Christian. My blog focuses on the lies told about the LGBTQ community by whose who hide behind a religious veneer. It seems that the only reason why you label me anti-Christian because you think that white conservative evangelicals have the patent on the word "Christianity." It always amazes me how people like you want to bogart the argument on faith but then portray yourselves a victims because someone else won't let you do it.
I am not anti-Christian because I don't think that true Christians bear false witness against a community, use junk science & out-and-out lies to denigrate a community, such as people on your side of the spectrum and your newspaper has done. The fact you consider me anti-Christian because I demand integrity from the anti-LGBTQ evangelical right is sad. The fact added on that you are a gay man doing this is abominable.
I am a black gay man from the South. That means unlike you, I do not have the luxury 2 hide behind pseudo-intelligence and a self-righteous ignorance to denigrate my own people.. You are only where you are because you've made yourself useful. When you are no longer useful, you will find out that all of your pretentious attitudes and lies mean nothing. Until then, in spite of what you think u have accomplished, you are nothing more than a shoe shiner, but eagerly stooping lower than most.
And he sent me back an ugly comment:
