Matthew Shepard

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Meth user, involved in the meth business. Killed by a bisexual meth dealer and part time prostitute who had known him for some time, for drug related reasons. Homophobia completely irrelevant, was claimed as a reason for the murder to avoid talking about drugs/getting killed in prison. (stephen jimenez--the book of matt).

Do we really need myths? If the real problem was meth, shouldn't that have been focused on? Hasn't this lead to people having an exaggerated notion of the desire of ordinary wyomingites to murder people for being gay, and isn't that bigotry? It seems likely that the other guy involved (Russell Henderson) was given an excessive punishment as a result of the whole furor.

I can't see any way to support this kind of mythmaking.

[Montmorency]

isn't that bigotry?

Bigotry isn't something that varies from person to person from item to item. It is the very essence of life.

The fact that you consistently identify this Backroom of this discussion board as 'a place on the Internet where people log on to discuss controversial topics' marks you as a bigot.

Now, the level of accuracy of some or other bigotry, that's another ballgame.

It seems likely that the other guy involved (Russell Henderson) was given an excessive punishment as a result of the whole furor.

There's no such thing as an excessive punishment.

[PanzerJaeger]

Meth user, involved in the meth business. Killed by a bisexual meth dealer and part time prostitute who had known him for some time, for drug related reasons. Homophobia completely irrelevant, was claimed as a reason for the murder to avoid talking about drugs/getting killed in prison. (stephen jimenez--the book of matt).

I don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion, but I do know that The Book of Matt puts forth some dubiously sourced claims. I would not put a lot of faith in an author that creates dialogue out of whole cloth, though.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion, but I do know that The Book of Matt puts forth some dubiously sourced claims.

He is always very clear about what's speculative. Recreating exactly what happened, and the histories of the people involved, is necessarily speculative. The author of the review is playing bait and switch with you. She is acting like he needs his own attempt at describing what really happened to be perfect in order to disprove the "story that’s become deeply embedded in accepted history", but he doesn't. The accepted history is based off of absurd sources that contradict each other, and takes very little work to disprove.

It's as if someone wrote a book about a ufo's and area 51, and tried to figure out exactly what the object people saw actually was (weather balloon? etc), and tell the story about how the various myths developed, and then a reviewer tried to pretend like the speculative nature of some of the research means that it was probably aliens after all. A deliberate smear job, she's counting on you not having read the book.

One of bad things about myths like this is the "you must passionately believe my version or else" attitude. As if what we believe about gay people should depend on a what we say about a murder that by chance became a huge story.

[Montmorency]

It's as if someone wrote a book about a ufo's and area 51, and tried to figure out exactly what the object people saw actually was (weather balloon? etc), and tell the story about how the various myths developed, and then a reviewer tried to pretend like the speculative nature of some of the research means that it was probably aliens after all.

Maybe shoddy research on everyone's part merely means that the issue is entirely open, rather than that the one side you identify with most closely is correct by default?

[PanzerJaeger]

she's counting on you not having read the book.

That much is certainly true on my part. You're usually pretty good at weeding through BS to reveal the reality of a given situation, so I will trust your judgment on this.

While I think a lot of good has come from the extensive attention given to the Matthew Shepard case in the form of awareness of how difficult and often dangerous it can be to be homosexual in the US, the truth is always paramount. If his death was the result of a drug related dispute and not homophobia, the record should be set straight and he should not be held up as a martyr to the gay rights movement - there are plenty of others that could take his place.

[HoreTore]

I have no idea what this case is about and I've never heard about it before.

So, I'm going to say the jews are probably responsible.

[Lemur]

You're usually pretty good at weeding through BS to reveal the reality of a given situation, so I will trust your judgment on this.

On balance, I'd agree, but then SK says stuff like this:

One of bad things about myths like this is the "you must passionately believe my version or else" attitude.

Which is an unfortunate tic of his rhetoric. Note that SK frequently argues with an entirely imaginary antagonist, one who is not posting or responding on this forum. It's a hypothetical other, a person who is perfectly unreasonable, who may or may not exist in reality, but against whom SK rails with gusto.

I don't doubt that the Matthew S. situation is a lot more murky than it was initially made out to be, and I don't doubt that the author of the book did good work. You can look at the media frenzy and note that it's predicated on false terms, while simultaneously observing that some good came of the misrepresentation.

Unless you're SK's hypothetical antagonist. That guy, man, he's totally unreasonable.

[Montmorency]

Hypothetical? Here's looking at you.

[Strike For The South]

Meth? I was always under the impression that the other guy swung both ways, lied to his girlfriend, who lied to the cops, who then testified in court about his hatred of gays.

As far as the whole myth argument goes, it actually reminds me a lot of Mandela. The idea of both these men is most definitely not real and wholly derived from the icons that they were built up to be. The meth angle, the HIV angle, are both more compelling to me. I suppose they will try to discredit the guy and if he turns out to be unshakabley right they will then proclaim it's more about the message than the person.

This why the extent of my charity is toys to children under 10 and dating fat women.

[Lemur]

Well, at the very least there's two kinda separate things being discussed here, and it does no good to mash them up:

1. What actually happened with Matthew Shephard. This is the most important bit, because the truth matters.
2. What various actors turned the MS situation into, and how they played it out.

Hypothetical? Here's looking at you.

Hah, if only! I can't easily remember the last time SK directly responded to anything I had to say.

Nah, SK argues with this ... I wouldn't call him a strawman, exactly ... but this sort of idealized Unreasonable Person. It's kinda similar to Fragony's gutmensch trope. The gutmensch is everything bad, but he's not really here, so it's safe to rail against him at length, and explain how stupid the gutmensch is.

[Papewaio]

This why the extent of my charity is toys to children under 10 and dating fat women.

Hi Santa