REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Obama's anti-bullying Czar bullies HS kids in profanity laced speech.

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Monday, May 7, 2012 05:12
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5504
PAGE 2 of 2

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 12:59 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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.




And YOUR answer to him is to do the exact same thing you call him deplorable for doing: You've bulled him, called him names like "pansy ass", and insulted him and everything he believes in.

How are you different from Dan Savage, exactly?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:05 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Posted by Rappy:

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




Fact is, YOU made an unsubstantiated charge in posting this thread, and you've yet to show any proof at all, despite my asking repeatedly.

Put up, or shut up.





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:14 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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.

I've never licked any inanimate objects, in an attempt to infect someone else.

I've never illegally participated in an Iowa caucus...

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

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

So, claims that I'm the bully ? Ridiculous.

Lots of differences.


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




" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:55 PM

STORYMARK


Direct = obviouily leading, deliberatly slanted in Rappyland.

You calling someone out for not answering a question is fuckin hilarious, though. Thanks for the laugh.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 2:05 PM

STORYMARK


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.



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?

Oh, you were?

Yeah, well - That's the part he is 100% correct about. Christians do pick and choose which sins they decide are okay - and as long as they do so to condemn homosexuals while pardoning others - they're hypocrites.

It's okay, knowing how you are - you probably didn't even watch the video, or know what he was actually talking about, and just found something you could bitch about, and latched on without thinking it through. It's your thang, we get it.

You're welcome.

Bunches.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 2:05 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Let's try this again...

"The group of HS journalists were gathered there to hear what ? An angry, militant gay man's rant against Christianity ? Or to hear the positive message of ' It gets better ', for a program to combat bullying ? "

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.



" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 2:07 PM

STORYMARK


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.




Just did, Princess.

Now, feel free to admit you pulled the Czar part out of your ass. If you can.



"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 2:14 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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?



All Christians do that ? Really?

ETA - Screw it. It's clear you're not ever going to answer. But this is a real brain teaser. Since I've been posting here, and making comments about JIHADIST muslims, ( the sorts who fly planes into buildings and saw the heads off of innocents ), some folks here have tried to paint me as anti- ALL Muslims. Which is patently not true.

Then, when Obama's fussy faggot, Dan Savage goes on a tirade about ALL Christians...,not just the handful of folks who bully homosexuals, why shocker! He's absolutely 100% right !

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!

Hypocrisy much ?

And one last time, Storybook. You keep missing the point. This wasn't about Christianity being on trial ( well, it was for D.Savage, obviously ) It was an anti-bullying conference. Only Obama's buddy was the bully here. Y'all keep missing the irony of that, huh ?

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 2:43 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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.



Are you sure? Do you know for a fact that there are no high-school kids here that you've been yelling vulgarities at? You are, after all, in the top two for slinging the vulgarities around here...

Quote:


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



Oh, so if he doesn't know who these kids are, then it's not possible for him to bully them, right?

Quote:


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



I thought he didn't know you exist. And when, exactly, did he say he wished you'd die? He couldn't have been talking about you anyway, because you've maintained several times that you're not a Republican. Were you lying then, or are you lying now?

Quote:


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



Except your thread title doesn't claim that he has connections or support; it says he's Obama's anti-bullying czar, clearly a lie, and I'm calling you on it.

And you still can't address that issue; you've been dodging it since you put the thread up. No new tale to tell there...





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:47 PM

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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 5:11 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Rappy will no doubt be happy to see such a "fussy faggot" and "pansy ass" (his words, mind you) be disappeared from Romney's campaign. Rappy seems to have as big a problem with gays and Dan Savage has with Christians.




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 5:17 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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!



Actually, I see you as remarkably the same. You go on and on and on about the "religion of peace", you insult Muslims on a regular basis, you attack the entire religion... and you have a problem with someone else doing the same thing when it's your favorite religion that's attacked. He's treating Christians exactly the way you talk about Muslims. And it's hilarious that you have a problem with him and think you're completely justified in your own bullshit views.






"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 5:24 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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, the writer is 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, could anyone clarify for me which aspect of this individual is to be praised, and which is to be condemned? It almost sounds as if the writer is 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, because he's mean and a liar. Yet it's bad, because Romney hates gays? This is so convoluted, I have no clue what the writer is even trying to say here.







" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 5:35 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



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.

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 ?


Of course not. Ergo, I'm right,and Savage is wrong. We're nothing a like.

Kwickie FAIL.

Again.



" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 5:35 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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.





Those were the direct quotes from the article, genius.

The author is pointing out that this guy loves bashing women Democrats, which should really put him right at home in the GOP, and he's amazingly deceptive AND Air Fleischer called him a "consummate professional", which pretty much confirms that he's a really good liar. In other words, he has every virtue the GOP holds dear, except that he chose to be gay. He probably should have chosen to be straight before he chose to support a Republican candidate.

I mean, if it is indeed a choice, as conservatives claim...



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 5:45 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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.



A) I'm sure Mr. Savage also believes fervently that he is right. Saying so doesn't make it so, for him or for you.

B) Of course you are. Your false pretense is your belief that all Muslims are evil.

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 ?



Did anyone connected to the "Ground Zero mosque" do any of those things?

Rappy FAIL. Same as it ever was.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 5:45 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Yeah, figured out the quote now.

So, no GOP women are ever bashed by Democrats ? REALLY ??

Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Mrs Romney will be THRILLED to hear about that. ( As will Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, S.E.Cup, M.K. Ham, the Bush twins,... )


"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" - RUSH



( And your follow up comments are inane, ridiculous and mindlessly lame. As well as 100% wrong. Not worthy of a reply )



" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 6:14 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

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


So, Rappy... Still waiting for an answer on this one.

How do you figure Dan Savage wished you'd die?

I though he said "Republicans", and you're pretty adamant about not being one of those.

So how does this apply to you, exactly?

I sense a non-truth at the bottom of all this. Either you're lying about Dan Savage wishing you dead (he has no idea who you even are, according to you), or you're lying about not being a Republican.

Which is it?

I'll wait. I won't hold my breath, though.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 2, 2012 1:09 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Since there is no registration to vote along party lines here in GA, I'm not a Republican. I vote for the Republican candidate often, as well as the Libertarian candidate, when I can. Even have voted, a time or two, for a Democrat.


So, technically speaking, I'm not a Republican. And thus, I'm not lying. I certainly do side w/ the GOP on many issues... ( Lower taxes, smaller federal govt, more individual freedom, etc. ) I guess the difference is, I actually AM for those things, where as the GOP seems to only pay lip service to such issues.

I guess you'd have to ask Mr Savage if that qualifies as me being Republican enough for him to want to effing kill me. It's my estimation that, yes, he'd feel just fine in using such a broad brush to add me to his list of 'undesirables', not fit to live in his world.

This is an inane little hill for you to pick your battle on and lose yet again. But hey, it's your choice.


" Here's your sign. "


ROFLMAO!



" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 2, 2012 1:52 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


And then there's this lovely bit of anti-bullying from the conservative side of the aisle...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/north-carolina-pastor-sea_n_1
468618.html


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.'"



Yeah, that lovely religion of tolerance, Christianity...



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 2, 2012 2:17 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



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.

And apparently only gay kids are bullied.



" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 2, 2012 8:21 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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.





Really? That's what you took away from this discussion?

I was right - you ARE severely brain-damaged.

Of course, in RappyWorld™, being mean to "pansy ass faggots" (in his words) is only bad when Muslims do it, and perfectly fine when Christians or Republicans do it.

Of course that level of hypocrisy from Rappy shouldn't be any kind of surprise; this is, after all, the so-called "libertarian" who openly advocated forced sterilization of undesirables and government deciding who could and couldn't reproduce...



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 2, 2012 2:18 PM

STORYMARK


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.




Another skeevy strawman from Captain Fuckwad. You're a dishonest bastard, yeah - we get it.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 2, 2012 2:22 PM

STORYMARK


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?



Good point. Those who are virulently anti-gay tend to be over-compensating. Wouldn't shock me. And it would explain all the anger and self-delusion we see from him.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 3, 2012 11:45 AM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I agree with Raptor that Savage went overboard and in the process ended up bullying, which he was supposed to be speaking against.

I assume you're my pal until you let me know otherwise.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 5, 2012 3:32 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


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,'






If it wasn't for what I know to be the end result of that sort of thinking, I'd almost find that funny.

Get off your computers you limp wristed fags and go and dig a ditch or sumthing useful. Too funny.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 5, 2012 10:02 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 6, 2012 4:20 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I've avoided this thread because I KNEW where it was going, and of course it went there. Igoring all that:
Quote:

And today, the Bible is the principal tool used by bigots in this country to justify their violence and hatred toward gays.
That is the bottom line on all of this. Whether he spoke to them rightly or not, that is the essence.

As to the kids walking out, I didn't know they did it right away. Given that, I, too, think there's a good chance that, however many of the little "Christians" may have walked out because they were offended, there's a good chance the vast majority of them took the opportunity to just skip the lecture. When some kids are walking out, there's bound to be far more who think "hey, they're walking out, so can I!"

Beyond that, do return to squabbling.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 6, 2012 4:20 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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.



No I didn't, that's you projecting those motives onto what I said. I have no problem with what Mr. Savage or you believe about the bible, about it's harshness and hypocrisy towards gays. I do have a problem with his technique. If you want to persuade someone - especially if you want to shake someone's deepest beliefs - you don't start by antagonizing and insulting them first. When you do that you are apt to entrench them even further, or inspire an equally negative reaction - it's like increasing the polarity.

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: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.



Once again you are projecting or inferring something that isn't so. I only blame Dan Savage for Failing. I think if he'd stayed with the bullying - something I can't imagine any kid not understanding or not agreeing with - he would have won them over better. You have to ask yourself: what is your ultimate goal and what's the best way to get there? This was clearly proven to not be it.

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.


Exactly! And he failed to convince them otherwise. He didn't even have a chance to talk to them about bullying - double fail. If you are suggesting that they planned the walkout then why even show up? If he knew that bringing up the bible would make them walk then why did he? It only leaves those who already get his message.
Again, just so we're sure: I have no problem with what Mr. Savage or you believe about the bible, about it's harshness and hypocrisy towards gays. I have a problem with his technique.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 6, 2012 7:15 AM

HKCAVALIER


Okay Pizmo,

I'm sorry we don't seem to be making any headway. As I said in my first reply to you, I do understand why you would see things as you do. I just thought you and I came from very different contexts on this and I've been trying, and failing, to give you an appreciation of my context.

And to be clear: I'm in no way talking about your motives, I'm talking about the consequences of your argument (a big difference) and trying to show you a context where Dan Savage's actions make sense.

Your premise, if I understand you, is that Dan Savage's job in that auditorium was to win over fundamentalist youth to his cause. I tend to think that's more a job for a cult deprogrammer. It surely isn't a responsibility I would lay at the feet of a gay man brought in to give his perspective on bullying and gay bashing. And you've said several times that when the innocent, bigoted children left, all that was left were the kids who agreed with Mr. Savage. How do you figure? Is there no middle ground, even among high school kids? No kid's who may not have given the issue a lot of thought, who hear Mr. Savage's logic and get a clue? I just don't know how you can be so sure that Mr. Savage failed based on a stagey walkout by fundamentalists (and good golly, why did they come if they only meant to walk out? Um, I think the right-wing blogosphere has answered that question far more devastatingly than I could). And I dare say, even the friendly, coddling I-would-never-say-a-bad-word-about-your-holy-book-even-though-it-casually-condemns-people-like-me-to-violent-death approach would likely fail to garner any converts from children so programmed that they'd walk out at the first mention of the Bible by a gay man.

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 6, 2012 11:41 AM

HKCAVALIER


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.


This thought experiment of yours goes to the heart of the different contexts you and I bring to this issue. 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.

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.

And just to be thoroughly redundant here, the "result" of which you speak, I would say, is somewhat trumped in your analogy by our troops destroying the Afghani's country, just as Savage's agency to harm his relationship with some fundamentalist high school students is kinda trumped by the children's religious leaders' avowed hatred for people like Dan Savage. What I mean is: we can trash the Koran all we like and it doesn't seem to interfere with our cozy relationship with the House of Saud, but to speak ill of their holy book to the people of Afghanistan is just kicking a man when he's down.

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.

Thanks.

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 7, 2012 3:58 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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.



I see him as having a great opportunity, not responsibility. He has the attention of an entire room full of potentially moldable minds, young enough not to be fully jaded, young enough to have fewer experiences which should put him at an intellectual advantage. But I just don't think he was up to the challenge, I don't think his choices
were the right ones. Just because he's gay does not make him an effective speaker - it makes him a passionate one, no question. Think of the lectures or speakers you've sat in on, not the ones where you listened hoping the subject would get better, but the ones where you felt involved, moved, enlightened, even changed. (and preferably ones you experienced in HS). How did they capture your attention?

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.


Here is an example why I don't like or trust analogies. Mine: I was just trying to say, "mess with someone's sacred text - whatever it might be - and you are apt to make your job harder," pretty simple, doesn't really need an analogy. I certainly wasn't trying to say that Dan S. was just like the US Army. Again, I think you over analyze. I do appreciate that wonderful Game of Thrones quote though! Ain't it so??

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.


It really didn't. Analogies again - there's nothing like the Thing Itself except the Thing Itself. Context, Race, lynching instead of bullying (yes 'to death' in some cases), some similarities (basic human dignity) but also different. I'd rather argue the case in front of us than some other one.

fwiw I think we really only disagree on how to get to the same destination :)

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 7, 2012 5:12 AM

STORYMARK


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.



That was a great post. Spot-on!

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Fri, March 29, 2024 09:13 - 3 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:56 - 2076 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:20 - 6156 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:18 - 57 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL