In which I pick a nit

Nit-picking has gotten a bad rap. Sure, it's tedious and requires a certain degree of OCD for success. But it's actually really, really effective at removing troublesome pests when done well.

And I have a nit to pick with Andrew Sullivan. (As a side note, I always find it amusing when I grouse about something Sully has done. It implies that he knows I exist and cares what I think. Sadly, I'm quite sure he doesn't.) In one of his many, many posts on the Pope's current woes he writes this:

The only way this can be the case is, again, if control-queen Ratzinger knew nothing of the final decisions of his number two in a meeting in Rome on a case where hundreds of defenseless deaf children had been raped and molested by an unrepentant priest for decades. [italics in original; bold added]

Sully clearly wants to have it both ways when it comes to homophobic terms of abuse, even if they are relatively mild.

As anyone who has read The Daily Dish for more than a day (or, on the right day, an hour) knows, Andrew clearly has no patience for homophobia. It (along with vague theories about how beards will save mankind) is probably his primary issue of focus. Now, I obviously have no trouble with this particular focus, as it is one I share.

But then look at how he decides he's going to slap at the Pontiff by using a (tiiiiiiiiiiiired) little homophobic term, just to make his adjunct point about how closeted Catholic clergy are purported to be. Which puts him on the same rhetorical level as your average third-grader.

I know that Our People are allowed to turn terms of abuse around and use them ourselves. But if we choose to use them to make perjorative points about those we oppose, we continue to give them weight and meaning. No matter how much Sully may dislike this Pope (and I don't blame him), he can't have it both ways.