Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

This man's answer to deal w/ bullying is to bully a bunch of HS kids himself. Kids who don't see things exactly as he sees them, and who haven't done anything wrong, to anyone themselves ? Sorry, but if anyone thinks that's the path to peace, harmony and understanding, you chose poorly.

---

Quote:

---

Posted by Rappy:

Fact is, you just made an unsubstantiated charge, that this was 'staged' by them. Where's your proof ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

How are you different from Dan Savage, exactly?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Could you cite exactly where, taking out the hateful vitriol, bullying and falsely portraying the entire belief system of all Christians he was 'absolutely right'?

Thanks bunches.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Leading ? Slanted ? Hardly, if you saw the video. If you didn't, then by all means, go watch and then answer the question.

If you can.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

What, were you so eager to attack that you missed his point about how people selectively ignore parts of the Bible? How the part that condemns homosexuals also says people who eat shell fish should be killed, or women who have sex before marriage should be stoned to death?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

How are you different from Dan Savage, exactly?

---

I'm straight.

I'm not endorsed by the White House.

I don't shout vulgarities at HS kids, and tell them their belief system is bullshit.

---

Quote:

---

And I've not bullied him in the least. He doesn't even know I exist, so how could I possibly bully him ?

---

Quote:

---

Hell, I've not even said that I wish he'd effing die, as he's said about me.

---

Quote:

---

( And I've clearly shown the connections and support he has from the Obama admin, so I've " put up". Done and done )

---

Quote:

---

Posted by Rappy:


So, when I voice proper anger towards the terrorists, who kill in Allah's name, I'M the " Islamo-phobe", but when Savage paints with his broad brush.... why, it's just brilliant!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

Gay Romney Spokesman Resigns =>
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/gay-romney-spokesman-resigns.html
?mid=rss&google_editors_picks=true

When Mitt Romney hired Richard Grenell as a foreign-policy spokesman, it was
hailed as a new era for gays, who could now openly serve a Republican candidate
(as long as they did not use their position to advocate for gay rights). But a
handful of social conservatives waxed hysteric over an openly gay man serving
even in a post unrelated to social issues, and Grenell has resigned.

As gay Republicans go, Grenell was a Republicans’ gay Republican. He liked to
tweet out vicious misogynistic comments about Democratic women. One reporter
called him “the most deceptive press person I’ve ever dealt with,” & Ari Fleischer
called him “a consummate professional,” which essentially confirms the charge.
All this is to say, if Richard Grenell couldn’t muster the tribal solidarity needed
to maintain the trust of Republican conservatives, then presumably no gay person
can, at least yet.

The imbroglio also shows that Romney remains beholden to his base — that he is,
or feels, unable to weather even modest levels of heat over what was a purely
policy-free concession to the center. Romney just isn’t going to be able to anger
any portion of the Republican coalition.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

Gay Romney Spokesman Resigns =>
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/gay-romney-spokesman-resigns.html
?mid=rss&google_editors_picks=true

When Mitt Romney hired Richard Grenell as a foreign-policy spokesman, it was
hailed as a new era for gays, who could now openly serve a Republican candidate
(as long as they did not use their position to advocate for gay rights). But a
handful of social conservatives waxed hysteric over an openly gay man serving
even in a post unrelated to social issues, and Grenell has resigned.

As gay Republicans go, Grenell was a Republicans’ gay Republican. He liked to
tweet out vicious misogynistic comments about Democratic women. One reporter
called him “the most deceptive press person I’ve ever dealt with,” & Ari Fleischer
called him “a consummate professional,” which essentially confirms the charge.
All this is to say, if Richard Grenell couldn’t muster the tribal solidarity needed
to maintain the trust of Republican conservatives, then presumably no gay person
can, at least yet.

The imbroglio also shows that Romney remains beholden to his base — that he is,
or feels, unable to weather even modest levels of heat over what was a purely
policy-free concession to the center. Romney just isn’t going to be able to anger
any portion of the Republican coalition.

---

Wait, you're both criticizing this guy for tweeting vicious misogynistic comments about Dem women, while lauding him for being so deceptive, he's the consummate professional ?

Please, clarify to me which aspect of this individual you're praising and which you are condemning. It almost sounds as if you're saying gay men hate women, are vicious, yet are such good liars, they're great Republicans. But because he's gay, OTHER Republicans can't stand him, so he's resigned, which is both bad for Romney, because it shows he can't keep the Republicans' gay Republican on his campaign team,...which is good. Yet it's bad, because Romney hates gays? This is so convoluted, I have no clue what you're even trying to say here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Kwickie - I am justified in my views, because A ) I'm right , and B ) I'm not hiding behind some false pretense, as D.Savage was, in holding a phony conference for HS journalism students, on the issue of anti-bullying, only to talk about the b.s. of believing the bible.

---

Quote:

---

Did those students fly any planes into any sky scrapers ? Cut off heads of little girls ? Hell, did any of those students ever bully anyone ? Gay or not ? Did they do so, happily , in the name of Jesus ?

---

Quote:

---

Hell, I've not even said that I wish he'd effing die, as he's said about me.

---

Quote:

---

"So your little son starts to act a little girlish when he is four years old and instead of squashing that like a cockroach and saying, 'Man up, son, get that dress off you and get outside and dig a ditch, because that is what boys do,' you get out the camera and you start taking pictures of Johnny acting like a female and then you upload it to YouTube and everybody laughs about it and the next thing you know, this dude, this kid is acting out childhood fantasies that should have been squashed.
Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male. And when your daughter starts acting too butch, you reign her in. And you say, 'Oh, no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play them to the glory of God. But sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up.'"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Yeah, we get it. Being mean to gays is bad when Christians do it, but it's perfectly fine when Muslims or anyone else does it.

Message received.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Yeah, we get it. Being mean to gays is bad when Christians do it, but it's perfectly fine when Muslims or anyone else does it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

How are you different from Dan Savage, exactly?

---

I'm straight.

---

Are you sure?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
"So your little son starts to act a little girlish when he is four years old and instead of squashing that like a cockroach and saying, 'Man up, son, get that dress off you and get outside and dig a ditch, because that is what boys do,'

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
No it is not to say those things (gah!), it is to say he failed to reach the kids he needed to. I do remember high school and I remember my high school brain did not like being lectured to. I got it at home and then in class - all day practically. I remember that the adults I listened to were ones I thought were cool. Dan is not being cool imho, not with these kids, not by attacking and lecturing. I think you're over intellectualizing something that is pretty simple imo. Pissing people off is not a great way to win them over.
Maybe a better voice would have been a repentant bully?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Hey Pizmo,

The simple, ineluctable fact of the matter is, before any of us even heard of Dan Savage, millennia before the word "homophobia" was even coined, the Bible was explicitly advocating violence against men who lie with other men. Regardless of the personal moral code of any given Christian soul, the hatred is in the Book. And today, the Bible is the principal tool used by bigots in this country to justify their violence and hatred toward gays. You and others here suggesting that Mr. Savage should have been "more polite" invariably drop this fundamental context and, in effect, blame Mr. Savage for an ugliness inherent to Christian culture as it exists in this country.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:Blaming Dan Savage is like blaming the black man who says lynching is crazy. "He called all white people crazy!" the cry goes out and Mr. Savage is accused of "being the bully!"

Pizmo, you're blaming Dan Savage for the ugliness that he's only trying to name, accurately and without euphemism. And of course, he's angry. When you imagine it might have been "better" if we didn't hear from the gay man on the subject of gay bashing, imagining other, "better" spokesmen, you only serve to silence the victim.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:And once again, I'd like to point something out: think about the times you may have walked out on a speaker or other presentation that offended you; did you walk out at the first mention of potentially objectionable material as these children did? Of course not. You listened for a while into the offensive section, hoping it would come to an end soon, or be explained or that you misunderstood. You bargained with your outrage, because you didn't want to make a fuss. But these kids did nothing of the sort. They got up to leave IMMEDIATELY when Dan Savage started naming books of the Bible. They left the auditorium not as offended people, shocked by what they were hearing. They left as bigots--by definition--having prejudged Mr. Savage's character and intentions long before he took the podium.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Here's a thought experiment for you: imagine we invade Afghanistan and we want to root out and defeat the Taliban, and to do so we need the help and cooperation of the peaceful population. Should we literally piss on their sacred book? Do we think that will help? Not a perfect analogy, but the results are similar.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The core of my disagreement with you seems to lie in how much power we believe Dan Savage to have in this situation. You see him as a Spider-man type having great power and therefore great responsibility. And I see him as a activist still trying to get his basic humanity acknowledged by the culture at large.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:I acknowledge that you've said it's an imperfect analogy, but to my way of thinking it's a wildly inappropriate analogy. Dan Savage does not represent, to my mind, anything remotely like an occupying power in the lives of these fundamentalist children. With that level of power disparity the issue of pissing on the conquered people's religion is indeed diplomatically catastrophic and morally deplorable. Even if the speaker in such a context did not piss on the religion (as I do not believe Savage does here--only pissing on a hermetically sealed fundamentalist interpretation of that religion, the one specifically advocating murderous violence against homosexuals), the perception by the humiliated, conquered people that he was pissing on their religion would indeed matter tremendously. And it would absolutely be the kind of epic fail you've been alluding to. But the power in the situation, the power of history and of policy in that auditorium is squarely on the fundy kids' side of the equation. Just the slightest shift in the political climate and Dan Savage would be utterly marginalized. While the power of the childrens' presumptive fundamentalist Christianity will undoubtedly be a force to recon with regardless of how many democrats hold seats in government. Yes, Dan Savage is an adult and the children have ostensibly been coerced by the school (damn libruls!) to listen to him, and Mr. Savage has been granted the aegis of authority by the President. But that's it. Power is often a matter of perception, anyway. "Power resides where men believe it to reside." And the kids walked out, further diminishing whatever power Mr. Savage had in that scenario.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:Anyway, I don't mean to be thick headed. I've found that what I consider redundancy in an internet conversation sometimes reveals itself as the critical rephrasing of my point that finally gets it across. Sorry, if I'm failing to do so, yet again. It is, really, a pleasure to disagree with someone as articulate and morally grounded as you are. I do wonder, as you didn't comment at all upon it, what, if anything, you made of my thought experiment and if it shifted your feelings on the matter at hand even a little.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
No it is not to say those things (gah!), it is to say he failed to reach the kids he needed to. I do remember high school and I remember my high school brain did not like being lectured to. I got it at home and then in class - all day practically. I remember that the adults I listened to were ones I thought were cool. Dan is not being cool imho, not with these kids, not by attacking and lecturing. I think you're over intellectualizing something that is pretty simple imo. Pissing people off is not a great way to win them over.
Maybe a better voice would have been a repentant bully?

---

Hey Pizmo,

The simple, ineluctable fact of the matter is, before any of us even heard of Dan Savage, millennia before the word "homophobia" was even coined, the Bible was explicitly advocating violence against men who lie with other men. Regardless of the personal moral code of any given Christian soul, the hatred is in the Book. And today, the Bible is the principal tool used by bigots in this country to justify their violence and hatred toward gays. You and others here suggesting that Mr. Savage should have been "more polite" invariably drop this fundamental context and, in effect, blame Mr. Savage for an ugliness inherent to Christian culture as it exists in this country.

Here's a thought experiment: imagine that the Bible depicted righteous men lynching black people and that the practice was still prevalent today. And then, in that context, a black man addressed a group of HS journalism students on the subject of bullying, with an emphasis on lynchings and other types of violence perpetrated against black men. Further imagine that a group of these students, when this hypothetical black Dan Savage began discussing those sections of my imagined Bible that advocated lynching black men, imagine, then, that these innocent children walked out on the man's speech. Now, would it be clearer to you in that context, that it's not really about the angry words the man may have spoken, but about these children protecting the institution that specifically calls for the murder of men like the man addressing them?

Blaming Dan Savage is like blaming the black man who says lynching is crazy. "He called all white people crazy!" the cry goes out and Mr. Savage is accused of "being the bully!"

Pizmo, you're blaming Dan Savage for the ugliness that he's only trying to name, accurately and without euphemism. And of course, he's angry. When you imagine it might have been "better" if we didn't hear from the gay man on the subject of gay bashing, imagining other, "better" spokesmen, you only serve to silence the victim.

And once again, I'd like to point something out: think about the times you may have walked out on a speaker or other presentation that offended you; did you walk out at the first mention of potentially objectionable material as these children did? Of course not. You listened for a while into the offensive section, hoping it would come to an end soon, or be explained or that you misunderstood. You bargained with your outrage, because you didn't want to make a fuss. But these kids did nothing of the sort. They got up to leave IMMEDIATELY when Dan Savage started naming books of the Bible. They left the auditorium not as offended people, shocked by what they were hearing. They left as bigots--by definition--having prejudged Mr. Savage's character and intentions long before he took the podium.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

---