Free Markets, Free People


Hot gay sex

Michael Sam is a college football player. He’s was a good player in college. Good enough, in any event, to barely make it into the NFL draft at number 249 of 256. Which means he probably isn’t a great player, and probably won’t make it in the NFL. After he finished his college football career at Mizzou, he announced he was openly gay.

So, when he was waiting to hear whether or not he’d be drafted, with his boyfriend at his side, TV cameras were there to broadcast live on ESPN, when he heard he’d squeeked into the NFL and exchanged several kisses with his boyfriend.

Now, TV cameras don’t usually show up to see the reaction of guys who get picked #249, mainly because no one usually gives a crap that they got picked. But Michael Sam is different. They decided they were going to cover him, well before the day of coverage.

“We are very aware that in those last two rounds potentially — maybe even before that — Michael will get drafted and we will definitely spend time on that draft pick,’’ said Eric Weinberger, who is running NFL Network’s draft coverage. “We will spend as much time as we think we have to.”

They were there solely because he is openly gay, hoping to get something good out of it. What they got was several good closeups of gay man-kissing. I’m sure they were very happy with that.

Others were less so. The Dolphins’ Defensive Back Don Jones tweeted his displeasure at the scene, which was broadcast live on ESPN. This got him fined and suspended. Apparently, we are no longer allowed to express our opinions in polite society any more, unless that opinion is anything other than fully politically correct. Personally, I feel pretty much the way Bill Burr does in this comedy bit. I don’t have a problem with gays doing whatever they do. Just don’t care. Looking to get upset at whatever gay people are up to doesn’t interest me.

But, I also don’t want to see gay guys kissing or having sex, because I think sex with guys is icky. That’s not something you’re supposed to express publicly. I’m not sure why, but it’s now hateful to state that you might be a little uncomfortable with gay things. I think heterosexual sex that includes golden showers is icky, too. Not being German, I don’t wanna watch that, either. Nobody will yammer for me to lose my job if say say something negative about golden showers, but saying something less that fully accepting about homosexuality can get you a quick trip to “sensitivity training”, or even the unemployment line. Our limits of acceptable opinion are being circumscribed by political correctness. The government doesn’t have to attack free speech. Our culture is doing that job just fine.

It also irks me how the media handles this. They go out of their way to highlight things that stir up controversy, then gleefully report on the controversy they intentionally ginned up, being sure to point out people who say the “wrong” things about it. Those people then have to make elaborate public apologies for saying something politically incorrect. Then they get suspended or fired. It’s getting pretty constant now. The Opie and Anthony radio show are doing a bit where they are trying to go ten days without one of these cycles of apology. So far, they haven’t made it for three days without resetting the clock.

The Framers of the Constitution were terrified the government would stifle free speech. Turns out, they should’ve been worried about the rest of us. Apparently, it’s not something we really want.


Dale’s social media profiles:
Twitter | Facebook | Google+

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

67 Responses to Hot gay sex

  • Sam’s homosexuality must be front and center but Tebow’s faith needs to stay in the closet because reasons.

  • I don’t think anyone or thing is going to force you to watch anyone having sex.  Many people don’t like PDA’s of any kind, whatsoever.  Whatever we think of the Dems & their agenda, they have been successful in one regard (other than temporarily forcing a health insurance mandate).  Gays, as a grouping & reality, are out & about now.  So…  It’s an era of changes, like 9/11, lurid Clinton scandals, etc.  Don’t worry yourself about things.  :-)

    • I’ve had it with the entire ThoughtPolice ambit.  I’m done.  Over it.  Finished.  And I’m militant about it, too.

      I have just one response to any attempt to compel me to toe some bullshit line…

      SCREW that…!!!

    • Whatever we think of the Dems & their agenda, they have been successful in one regard

      Successful in the way the state education system has been successful in reaching ITS goal – obliterating the minds of several generations of youth.
      When gays no longer can be useful idiots, the Dem’s will drop them, too.

  • I would like to see religious people who have a fixation on homosexuality, unjustified by any proportional delineating of types of sins in their holy texts, get the hell over it and spend their time in pursuit of the positive aspects of their faiths: helping the needy, teaching the virtues of honesty, loyalty, and hard work, etc..  Still, I know that, because of upbringing, that sort of change will take generations.
    And yet, I hesitate to side with liberals because their ridiculous political correctness defies reason.  The ideal should be that people stop making such a big deal out of our differences, including impugning others and flaunting excessive expressions. Unfortunately, those in the media seem to have an agenda not just to push towards such an ideal, but to grab the un-PC and smear their faces in their “bad behavior”.
    Piss on them all.  Just don’t film it.

    • Most of us…religious or irreligious…can do more than one thing at a time.  Some of us sort of specialize in it.

      • Gonna be lovely to see what happens when gay comes up against Islam in this country. That’s gonna be some time for munching popcorn!

        • That’s precisely the sort of anti-reason in political correctness which they allow, without confronting the cognitive dissonance.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali was disinvited from speaking at Brandeis, even though she has been a tireless campaigner for women’s rights. Apparently, you can do that unless you “offend” the crybaby Muslims.
          Attack Hobby Lobby: OK.
          Fully criticize Female Genital Mutilation (FGM): taboo.

      • When it comes to doing “more than one thing”, if those multiple things are in conflict, it isn’t really a positive aspect.
        A priest who molests boys is, indeed, multi-tasking.  He’s engaging in egregious harm of the most vulnerable while spreading a message of love, sacrifice, etc..
        In my experience, the majority of people who cite the Christian bible to wail and moan about the horrific “sin” of homosexuality tend to be the sort who don’t do likewise concerning adultery, stealing office supplies, gossiping about others, and other behavior which a competent reader would regard as more significant than same-sex “sins”.  Many of them don’t go to church regularly, don’t tithe their earnings, don’t spend time or money or charity to help the needy.
        Hell, even the book they cite is filled with perfect comebacks to their behavior, like not criticizing the speck in another’s eye while you have a plank in your own, don’t cast the first stone, love the sinner.
        It’s all about priorities.  For some, the priority of their “faith” is to use it as a cudgel to bash the unfaithful, or infidel.  Seems to be common among Muslims, too.

        • In my experience of religious people, none of them “wail and moan about the horrific “‘sin’” of homosexuality” at all.  Of course, I’ve never known anyone from the extreme loopy fringe, like Westboro Baptists.  Mostly because they are a vanishingly small group of nutballs.

          Most religious people just won’t say it’s OK, since, in almost every religion, it isn’t OK.  It isn’t an issue of “tolerance” but of withholding “approval”.  You seem to have a problem with Christians, in particular.  Odd.

          • I used to be a devout Christian.  The vast majority of the people I love, like, care about, live near, or do business with are Christians.  If I had “a problem with Christians” as a whole, I would have stayed in New York or California, putting up with the insane politics and the different types of kookery.
            As an apostate, I have a number of problems with specific expressions of religion which I find to be hateful, hypocritical, self-serving nonsense, etc..  The religion with which I have the biggest problem is Islam.  Even there, I’ve known a number of Muslims who were decent, who tried to assimilate into American culture.  I knew a couple who were hung up on Jews and who made remarks which made me think they were supportive of Islamic terrorism, at least in Israel.  But I have problems with Buddhism, Hinduism, Wiccan, and other religions, too.
            You should go to the Bible Belt and meet a few fundamentalist Christians.  The Westboro flakes just ratchet things up a few more notches.  I have relatives who openly speak about hating homosexuals because they are an abomination to god.
            My cousin and her longtime girlfriend attended my father’s funeral, to pay their respects.  Months later, when that girlfriend died of cancer, there were actually family members who wouldn’t go to her funeral, because the deceased was a lesbian.  How fscked up is that?
            Go online to some conservative (non-libertarian) groups or publications. Find an article about gay marriage, gays in the NFL, or the like. Wade through the comment section. You’ll see real-life Americans ranting about the Hollywood liberals bringing god’s wrath down upon this country, about end times, and other such rot.  They are all over the place, and they are just the ones brave enough to speak their minds openly.

          • So, just like I said.
            I live in Texas.  Near Houston.  I THINK I have a pretty broad understanding of religions and religious people.
            Sorry your family sucks.  That does not validate your generalizations.  Nor do blog commenters, which I read a lot of and have not seen what you relate.
            And, again, holding a (even strong) religiously based view of homosexuality is not being intolerant of people’s practices, or threatening them.  You can think a practice will lead to being damned and gone to hell, and that might hurt someone’s feelings.  But that’s about all.  But, as I said, it isn’t about tolerance but approbation now.

          • I have relatives who openly speak about hating homosexuals because they are an abomination to god.
            >>> So? I’m pretty non-religious overall but if they choose to ignore “hate the sin love the sinner” that’s their intepretation of it, and they’ll find out who was right when the time comes. People hold dumb views everywhere.
            But back to that – so what?  It feels like you’re trying to go out of your way to disparage christianity for some reason.

          • I THINK I have a pretty broad understanding of religions and religious people.

            By your own admission, you deny encountering what is rather ubiquitous in our neck of the woods–or, you’re just ignoring it.  Your stance is a bit reminiscent of the Phil Robertsons and Cliven Bundys speaking about conditions for blacks in the past compared to today.  There’s a resounding deafness apparent there, and I really have to question your hearing on matters of religious people with regards to homosexuality.
            Perhaps your personal acquaintances are with people in denominations, like Presbyterians or Methodists, who tend to be more genteel than the fundamentalist Baptists or Church of Christ, or less doctrinaire than the Catholics.  I attended church in all of the aforementioned, except Catholic.
            I’m sure the only face-to-face experience people in our area have with Muslims is a friendly one.  Most aren’t close neighbors with or visit the home of any Muslims, so their experience may not include hearing the sort of anti-Jewish, terrorist apologist remarks which are quite common (according to polls) in the countries from which these people originate.  But when someone, like me, who has more experience, reports encountering such repulsive attitudes, do you accuse me of “Islamaphobia”?  Well, if you’re someone like Erb you do.
            Being accused of bigotry by you or Erb, not because I express disdain for that which is unfamiliar to me, but for accurately representing my experience, is pretty pathetic.  But I guess that’s the hill on which you choose to make your stand.

            Sorry your family sucks.

            Most of them don’t.  We probably have a typical asshole quotient. Except, with religion, the assholes get to justify their behavior by the “word of gawd”, instead of just being regarded as jerks. And, even worse, they feel compelled to try to convince the next generation to continue the asshole behavior.

            You can think a practice will lead to being damned and gone to hell, and that might hurt someone’s feelings.  But that’s about all.

            You’re correct.  People don’t actually go to hell.  So, convincing a child that something he thinks or does without malice will result in him going to hell is pretty crazy, since he won’t.
            If you strip away the context of religion as the shield to excuse spreading such ideas, many would regard such an approach to using such frightening imagery to create an aversion in children to be psychologically dangerous, if not downright abusive.
            Contrast that against another case: a couple tells their grandchildren that Chuckie, the murderous doll from the stupid movies, lives in their bedroom.  Their motive is to keep the children from going near their guns.  This creates a terror in the children for that fictional “monster”.  I’m sure most would regard such an approach, on the part of the grandparents, as stupid and even mean.  But what are the substantive differences between that and an older mythology, intended to direct behavior?

          • It feels like you’re trying to go out of your way to disparage christianity for some reason.

            I can’t explain your feelings.  At what point is making a justified, fact-based criticism “go[ing] out of your way to disparage”?  When it hurts the feelings of the religious?

            I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at these reactions.  When I was religious, I over-reacted to any criticism of Christianity.  I could speculate on the psychology of defense mechanisms.  When you have a whole belief system built on something for which there is no evidence, I’d guess that the fragility such an arrangement can lead one to be sensitive to doubts.

          • Sometimes, Elliot, you are a real douch-bag.  Not often.  But sometimes.

            I represented a Hindu Ashram last year, and have several Muslim clients.  In my neck of the woods, we have every brand of Christian you could name, including Cowboy Church types and some I doubt you’re familiar with.

            I dunno where you manage your irrational comparison between me and Erp, but I note you reverted to it before when I butted heads with you.  It smacks of desperation, and an undercurrent of meanness and pathology.

          • I dunno where you manage your irrational comparison between me and Erp, but I note you reverted to it before when I butted heads with you.  It smacks of desperation, and an undercurrent of meanness and pathology.

            If the shoe fits.
            Go back and read his reaction to me discussing Islam.
            Read your reaction to me making specific criticisms against specific subsets of people who, as I indicate, are doing a terrible job following the very book they cite as authority.
            If you don’t want to be compared to the likes of Erb, don’t act like him.  What ought to “smack” you is the realization the similarities between your responses.  If it feels “mean” and “pathological”, then take a lesson to avoid such icky feelings by working not to be as dishonest as the perfesser.

          • More just plain douch-baggery.

            My anecdotes are every bit as valid…maybe a LOT more so…than your anecdotes.  But all I did is present them.  I simply have not had the experience you report as commonplace.  And, at any rate, your rant was tangential to the thread.  It came out of nowhere.  Kind of like you have some demons you just have to let out.
            You display a very warm, aggressive, even HATEFUL, disdain for religion, but ESPECIALLY your former one.  We notice things like that here.  And yours glows a very alarming red.
            I don’t share it.  I admire a lot of the religious people I know who are devout in their faith.  Every one of them I know is a happy person.  Not one of them goes around “wailing” or waiving their arms in the air, and many of them belong to religions with very strong moral positions.  They love people, and they practice charity and rectitude.  Not a bad thing.
            You present as a very unhappy person, willing to do almost anything to try to sustain your position on a blog.  That’s crazy.  And it’s despicable.

          • Rags’ comment the level above this has been my experience.  The issue about Westboro types is a case of Cherry picking.  The resistence to homosexuality isn’t trivial for Christians, its in Acts.  Catholics aren’t as literalist as some but they draw heavily on the Gospels and Acts for direction.  Although its denounced almost uniformly, the idea there’s a universal call to actively punish homosexuals or even ostricize them, is a huge distortion.  You’re confusing personal reactions or minority ones to ones called for universally. 

    • Just some clarification, since unpacking the last barrage of retorts relies on this root comment:

      I would like to see religious people who have a fixation on homosexuality, unjustified by any proportional delineating of types of sins in their holy texts, get the hell over it and spend their time in pursuit of the positive aspects of their faiths: helping the needy, teaching the virtues of honesty, loyalty, and hard work, etc..”

      Note that I’m not speaking of all religious people, nor singling out Christians in this comment.  I clearly limit my criticisms to the subset of religious people who do just what I describe: go overboard in attacking one particular type of “sin”.  Not only that, but I also recommend that people in that subset would be better suited pursuing positive goals, clearly implying that there are religious people outside of that subset of jerks who do exactly that: pursue positive aspects of their faiths.
      How did this turn into the various interpretations that I:
      1. “…have a[n odd] problem with Christians, in particular…”, (I mentioned the subset of Christians who cite their bible to make ridiculous comparisons between homosexuals and bestiality or who suggest tolerance of homosexuality signals end times, as an example because I happened to have been, at the time, reading comments in other places on the web containing just that sort of rhetoric–something which thankfully hasn’t infected this blog. I have much more familiarity with Christianity. I could have spoken of the murderous hatred that Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries inflict on homosexuals, but I didn’t think such actions needed detailing or criticism.)
      2. was making unfounded “generalizations” that a few anecdotes didn’t establish, (I didn’t make generalizations, but targeted specific subsets who engaged in specific behavior. That people who don’t engage in such behavior aren’t part of that subset should be obvious to anyone familiar with the concepts of set theory without needing to state that explicitly.)
      3. was “trying to go out of [my] way to disparage christianity for some reason”, (Again, I referred to a specific subset of religious people–of no particular faith–and used some examples of Christians as anecdotes, again, due to my familiarity.)
      4. indicated that the ugly behavior I “report[ed  was] commonplace…”, (Nowhere did I indicate that this subset was a majority, or even quantify their representation. I simply disputed that they were just a handful of Westboro-type nuts.),
      5. that I “have some demons [I] just have to let out. [I] display a very warm, aggressive, even HATEFUL, disdain for religion, but ESPECIALLY [Christianity].” That such alleged hateful disdain “glows a very alarming red.” (Even though I mention that most people I love are Christians, most are not the assholes in the subset I mention–a couple assholes exist in my family, but I see far more by reading on-line comments. I also mention my recommendation to pursue the positive aspects of the given faith–hardly the sort of thing one suggests if one has total disdain for religion. My disdain is for specific types of acts, whether they be over-the-top fixation to the point of persecuting a minority or tormenting children with imagery of hell.)
      6, that I “present as a very unhappy person, willing to do almost anything to try to sustain [my] position on a blog[, which is] crazy [and] despicable.” (Since my “position” on Q&O is merely that of an occasional commenter and I do my utmost to provide facts, citations, and sincere arguments when I have the time and energy, I’m not clear on the author’s basis for such accusations. This may have nothing to do with it, but I know that many stereotype atheists as smug, unhappy, rebels without a cause, nihilists, supporters of immorality, etc..  I, likewise, held many of those same views of atheists back in the day, because I didn’t understand them. Once I studied the matter a bit more, read Hitchens and Dawkins–gagging on their politics, mind you–I realized that my notions were quite unfounded, for the bulk of atheists.  It shouldn’t surprise me that others regard me in the same fashion I used to regard people like me, but it is always disappointing and frustrating.)
      7. and finally, that I ever pushed the Westboro types as common (I explicitly stated they were several degrees worse than the subset to which I referred), or “the idea there’s a universal call to actively punish homosexuals or even ostricize them… [That I confuse] personal reactions or minority ones to ones called for universally.” (None of that exists in what I wrote.  Again, I qualified the subset to whom I was referring.)
      Despite these particular flames concerning my treatment of religious people–which are a litany of strawmen, things I didn’t actually say–I agree with many of the arguments of those who decry the politically correct media.  During the “Ducky Dynasty” kerfuffle, I took the side of the Robertsons, even though I disagreed with Phil’s particular remarks and though they were unnecessarily crude.  He was set up and the A&E execs stupidly caved to the PC police, even though they had contracted the show knowing ahead of time what they were getting.  The positive aspects of the Robertson family, as expressed in how they relate to one another, outweigh the parts I don’t like.
      Likewise, I sided with Chick-fil-a on the principle of private property and the free market, as liberals threatened to block them from building new stores, even if I didn’t care for some of their politics.
      The culture of religion, in which irrationally wasteful acts and worse intolerance and hate find fertile ground, will not be diminished by treating religious people intolerantly.  Rather, bringing the facts of reality and the ability to apply the reason of one’s mind to individually judging propositions via critical thinking, will erode the church rosters.  If it were that simple, I’d hold out hope for future generations becoming more secular and more rational.  But the education industry has been co-opted by the collectivists, so that’s a dual-edged sword.
      Hopefully, this clears up a bit of the misinformation.  There’s no need to waste time on flame wars involving mostly strawmen.  They cause an awful mess.

  • Off to the camps with you!
    In the NFL, tweeting that you find 2 men kissing “horrible” is evidentally much MUCH worse an offense than beating your wife. But it’s a rough league you know, and in those scrums sometimes cheap shots are given. Or maybe a guy “accidentally” chop blocks you at the knees in the heat of battle.  The NFL is doing Sam no real favors here.
    At any rate, it’s still a bit of a one-sided game. Making fun of Sam’s sexual orientation = barbaric.  Making fun of Tim Tebow’s religiousness = enlightened.  Won’t stay that way for long.
    If you’re not allowed to express your opinion openly, your only recourse is to crack someone in the mouth (to paraphrase Steyn recently)

    • You, and others, make valid points.  On the other hand, the degree to which some react is, well, out of whack relative to the actions of other National Thugball League players.

  • “Our limits of acceptable opinion are being circumscribed by political correctness. The government doesn’t have to attack free speech. Our culture is doing that job just fine.”

    Society/culture has always controlled what was and was not acceptable.   We’re just in a phase where the people doing the politically correct controlling don’t necessarily share views we currently agree with.  Certainly not views we grew up with, and in many cases views we hold dear and believe are, frankly, worth dying for.

    Our version of ‘culture’ is no longer in charge of the levers of the American social machine.

    Let’s run the machine over some common cultural issues that have come round in the news lately.

    The group of people that was outraged when Muslim kids said the pledge of allegiance with Allah replacing God in the “one nation under (x)” portion.    Well….it’s been acceptable that we just used ‘god’ in there because it was a pretty much a Judeo-Christian country and the root god both the Christians and the Jews were talking about was the same god.   Now we have muslims, and hindus and atheists and people from all over, and if/when they say God, they ain’t talking about the long haired white guy and/or his son.   If we’re going to have phrases like “god” in our pledge, we’d better get used to the idea that One nation under “The flying Spaghetti monster” is what someone is talking about when they say the pledge (hail Satan).
    The culture still got upset at that one – that’s the old culture we grew up with trying to exercise control.

    Speaking of the pledge – Standing for the pledge or sitting for the pledge…..If the founding fathers had intended us to get up like a bunch of robots and ‘pledge’ in a mindless drone without thinking about what we’re saying, they’d have included it in the operating instructions when they founded the country.   Yet there the culture is/was, ostracizing people who won’t stand for the pledge, and making it enough of an issue where we hear about it in the news.   I personally love this place, but I think the pledge of allegiance, done as it is, is an affront to oaths that have ANY meaning at all and done in such a way that it’s result are exactly counter to the intent of a meaningful oath.
    However the culture I grew up in would have beaten you senseless for failing to stand for the pledge if you made a production of it (ya damned commie bastard why don’t you move to Russia!).

    Prayer as an invocation before the opening of damn near anything?   Same issue.   Used to be you were some kind of godless heathen atheist doomed to perdition, and probably an anarchist, if you protested prayer at the start of a football game.   Now in many places it’s forbidden.    Though frequently culture dares the long arm of the law to arrest it by having impromptu prayers anyway.

    Culture managed to squash the ‘Black Mass’ at Harvard the other day.  Not that I think creepy old Uncle Lucifer has good intentions towards us and all, but, freedom of religion.

    I agree with pretty much every thing stated here, from not caring what gays do in private, to admittedly not wanting to see it on main street.
    But at the same time it’s not new for culture to control things.
    At the moment we’re on the end of the culture that isn’t as acceptable, by virtue of control by, well, the same group that created the Obama presidency.
    The ‘progressive’ media and small loud obnoxious special interest groups that have hold of the controls of the news making machine and parts of the government.

    And it’s going to be this way until they tire of punishing old culture for our ‘sins’.

    • I should like to take this opportunity however to commend the President of the US for feeling the need to make a public comment in an area that has nothing to do with his job……AGAIN.
       

    • Sorta.  Social pressure has always been an important part of culture.  Generally, in modern Western cultures that has taken the form of pretty benign disapproval expressed as stigma.  People could get all edgy and transgressive if they wanted, and they paid some price for that in some circles, but were supported by like-minded people if they were concentrated in one place, like San Francisco or Nuevo Ork.

      Everybody used to give at least some support to the idea that people had a right to run counter to the culture within relatively reasonable limits.  You could be a Leftist; being a Communist was not alright because Communists…like Nazis…were an open malignant threat to our country.  And that was very popularly understood and supported.

      Now, however, you have relatively small groups of people going after any transgressor against that group’s position in a very personal, and very threatening way.  They make concerted attacks on individuals and their interests, very often involving their ability to earn a living or do business.  That is…as I see it…a new and very dark wrinkle.  It is a sort of ad hoc fascism, and it needs to be stopped.  We’ve seen effective means to do that in things as simple as the Chick-fil-A imbroglio, and there are others and will be more.

      Here is an example:

      Dear Professor Henderson,
      I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.
      I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
      Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.
      With my best regards
      Lennart Bengtsson

      I think we run the risk of losing the Enlightenment world if we are not careful.

      • Another good example – the woman who made a stupid twitter comment while flying to the African continent, and got off the plane to find out she had no job because she’d been hunted down and annihilated while in the air.

        We have an internet/media mob at work dragging countless Hester Prynnes into the public square for their turn at the scaffold for various offenses.   I can’t decide which level of intellect the mob functions at, Scarlet Letter or Inquisition (or perhaps Monty Python and the Holy Grail).
        Can they snatch the Enlightenment out from under us?  There was a time I’d have said no.
        Yet we have their mindless clinging to Consensus Climate Science proven by time and nature to be wrong, again, and again, and again or the creation of the Common Core curriculum, handing over the education of our children to…whatever the hell that is.

        Yes, I suppose it’s possible you’re right after all.
         

        • A feature…not a bug…of several “White Privilege” presenters is a direct, explicit attack on the Enlightenment as a racist, capitalist conspiracy thingy.

          I wish I could dismiss them as a small pack of cranks.  I can’t.

        • The Endarkenment.
          Billy Beck and others of his ilk have been identifying just these sorts of changes with that term for many years now.
          Most trace the roots back to Postmodernism and the philosophers who laid the groundwork for that assault on reason.

  • This wouldn’t be a problem if our media wasn’t collectivist, I don’t mean pro-collectivist, I mean collectivist.  They almost all walk lock step with the same message.  So you’ll be sure to be hounded with their select version of events.

    But you haven’t seen anything yet.  There’s a reason the left is doing the same thing to Social Media and the Internet.  Take a look at the Firefox CEO that stepped down ( I say forced out with behind the scenes pressure we are not aware of).  There’s a reason he was forced out.  Not just the pro-defensive marriage thing.  The pro-defensive marriage thing is a good bell weather he had the wrong politics. 

    In addition to tricks on manipulating what is ‘trending’ to do what the traditional media does in cherry picking stories and which view of stories, Social Media is going to be hijacked into a tool to enable public shaming of the average person.  We’re being forced to give our preferences, likes, location, and contacts as the price of admission to these services now.  These are things can be used to invade your personal life.  Someone can be tagged to be a homophobe and have the good fortune of having someone come over to their dinner table and spit on them in front of their family or friends on a regular basis.   Or have their friends harrassed about you.  Old fogies like us can just disconnect, but if you’re young and trying to be socially active in the underlying quest to find a mate on either  short term and long term basis, you’re going to stay connected and adjust your behavior and/or risk it.  Teanagers even worse. 

    One day when an article like this is written, you will have immediate hammering of your site or your advertisers  or even in person feedback by people who never knew you the second before you made that article.  Except this will now apply to average person comments

    I use to play, completely nerded out, video games in online competition.  I stopped 8-10 years ago but have kept hanging out in their general forum discussing politics.  There is one guy who has racist sentiments.  He usually doesn’t directly say anything trying to be cute but sometimes he’s overt too.  He gets banned constantly for it for up to 6 mo. or more at a time.  But they won’t perma-ban him from commenting.  His comments are aimed at the Leftist on the forum where race and racism became the number one issues of our day once we got a Black Democrat president.  Someone ratted the website out to Googld Ads. for inappropriate content because the Leftist couldn’t get the guy perma ban.  And they stopped being able to run google ads and their ad revenue went in the toilet.  They tried other intrusive ads to compensate but people objected too much.  The place’s days are numbered now.  If the guy didn’t relentlessly attack democrats I don’t think they would have ever complained about him to the site owners let alone google.   But the situation became an opportunity to punish a website that didn’t jump when told to enforce political correctness. 

  • It is a sort of ad hoc fascism, and it needs to be stopped.

    — Actually, it needs to be expanded so both sides suffer. Why would they stop if they didn’t have to? Because it’s the right thing to do? Like they care.
    People only stop because it is in their interest to do so.

    • They keep winning though, hence as you observe, it’s not in their interests to do so.



       

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9yIUsJPqpY&feature=youtu.be

    The most disturbing part of that is not that some twisted adult coached a child to sing a song he didn’t understand, but rather the loud cheers from the congregation.

    • Yep.  Exactly as “disturbing” as children being told that they and their parents are haters if they believe in religion.

      But you don’t see that, do you?

      • If you can find people explicitly telling children that their parents, merely by being religious, are haters, please share.
        Until then, you don’t seem to have something which is “[e]xactly as ‘disturbing’….”
        And, no, I don’t see that because I don’t see that to which you refer in action.

          • Your link is a non sequitur.  It doesn’t provide an example of telling children their parents are haters for being religious.
            Tedious and dishonest?  Yes, indeed you are.
            Why don’t you stop picking fights with me?  It’s fun for me to ridicule Erb, but I get no pleasure showing you up.  It’s just sad and pointless.
            I’ve been trying to ignore you. Feel free to do likewise with me.

          • Stop saying stupid stuff, and I won’t push back.
            Continue, and you can count on it.

          • You’re just too stubborn for your own good.  You make a knee-jerk judgment and when I call you on it, you throw a fit that I don’t put up with your crap.  Apparently, I’m supposed to allow you to make false statements about me without complaining, or I’m the douche.
            What are you, 12?

          • No, Elliot.  You’re a douch-bag when you employ the kind of despicable tactics you have here, and before, when someone calls you on your stupid, off-topic digressions.

            See?  And, as before, you can count on me doing it every time I see them.  ‘K…?  Every.  Time.

          • “You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.” –Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
            Near as I can tell, “despicable tactics” means not rolling over for. you when you get huffy.
            I detailed many rebuttal. You can deal with facts or you can continue to act like a child, calling me names and declaring victory without cause. Your choice.

          • You are the only one here who “declared victory”.  You are the one who employs despicable tactics.  People have seen you do it.  They’ve also seen your apologia when you were called on your apparent “issues”.  I don’t see us as being combatants.  I see you as having some problems.

          • You are the only one here who ‘declared victory’.

            Just above, you said, “Stop saying stupid stuff, and I won’t push back. Continue, and you can count on it.

            You are the one who employs despicable tactics.

            You’re a broken record. “Absolutist!” “Despicable tactics!”
            It’s very tedious, because you don’t actually detail what exactly it is that is “despicable”, in your judgment.
            How about you put up some cites and make your case?

            People have seen you do it.

            Is this your blank page of names?  Will you next be claiming “spectral evidence”?

            They’ve also seen your apologia when you were called on your apparent ‘issues’.

            There is a big fat comment above dated May 15, 2014 at 23:26.  It contains an enumerated list of me addressing the various false accusations against me, such as the claim from you and others that I have “issues” with Christianity.  I take apart each and every one, debunking them.  There are cites, direct quotes, facts.
            Not a one of you ever saw fit to address anything in it.  You still pretend it doesn’t exist.  You pretend that all of the false accusations that you and others directed at me stand uncontested.
            THAT, Mr. Rags-fcking-pierre is despicable and dishonest.
            So, pardon me, while I tell you too kindly piss the hell off and quit accusing people of being dishonest or “despicable” when you have refused for three days to acknowledge, much less address my rebuttal of your flagrantly false charges.

            I don’t see us as being combatants.  I see you as having some problems.

            Our disagreements are of no major consequence.  You call me a name (“absolutist”). I explain why you’re wrong. You call me the same name at least half a dozen more times, like a petulant child.  I give you a link to an Ayn Rand article containing a comprehensive rebuttal of your “absolutist” anti-concept (which is, effectively, no different than the “extremist” tag).  You never acknowledged her article, but I did notice you shut the fsk up about the “absolutist” nonsense.
            Now, you’re on the “despicable tactics” one-note song.  And, even when I rebut it, you ignore my rebuttal for three days and continue to pretend it doesn’t exist.
            How badly do you need me to smear your pathetic, lying nose in your crap this time before you give up the “despicable tactics” mantra?
            The “problem” I have in this thread is that you are sticking to me like gum on a shoe.  You’re not doing anything productive.  You’re just trying to out-stubborn me.
            Just piss off.  This does nobody any good.

          • See what I mean?

            Problems.

          • See what I mean?

            No.  Not one bit.  You don’t explain yourself.  You call names and make vague allusions to people seeing things.

            Again, I see my comment posted May 15, 2014 at 23:26, to which you never responded and which you’ve never acknowledged.
            When you ask Erb questions, when you give him cites, and he doesn’t answer the questions, pretends he doesn’t see the site, how do you respond?  Do you allow him to pretend his original statement still stands uncontested, that no evidence was offered?  Or, do you remind him of his failure to respond?
            This looks like the very same situation, to me.

            Problems.

            What sort of “problems”?  You mean me displaying anger because I’m frustrated with your childish repetition and non-specific claims?
            Feel free to elaborate on these “problems”, Mr. Ragpiper. Erb plays a game in which he pushes buttons and if anyone responds with anger, he declares that he won by virtue of making the other person upset.
            If that’s your game, please spend a few moments of self reflection.  Ask yourself if this is the sort of person you want to be.
            NOW: You can respond to the comment above (twice cited in this branch of the response tree), or you can pretend it doesn’t exist.  You can cite my words, make references to specific comments, and explain what, precisely, you deem to be “despicable” or indicative of “problems”, or you can just play that one-note bugle, again and again, as though no one will notice you not being forthright and thorough.
            Again, this is not a constructive disagreement.  You’re just being an ass.  I think you should act like a man and stand behind your words with citations and specific details, or admit to your mistakes and call it a day.  Given your past, I am willing to give you a bit of leeway and write it off to possible misunderstandings, a bit of ego, and the sort.  But I’ll not be so generous for long if this incessant, petulant attack continues.

          • But I’ll not be so generous for long if this incessant, petulant attack continues.

            You poor, sick phuc.  Who in the world do you think you are…?

            I DID address your amazing glob of apologia.  With all the detail it deserved.  Nobody responded to it because it is embarrassing.

            People can read the thread.  I don’t need to elaborate what you’ve demonstrated so well.  At great and disturbing length.

          • I DID address your amazing glob of apologia.  With all the detail it deserved.

            Could you please provide a cite to your counter-arguments?

            Nobody responded to it because it is embarrassing.

            Why are you playing rhetorical games?  Don’t claim that you addressed something and then immediately admit that you didn’t respond to it.
            Asserting that “it is embarrassing” does not constitute a counter-argument.  It is an arrogant decree, sans effort.

            People can read the thread.  I don’t need to elaborate what you’ve demonstrated so well.  At great and disturbing length.

            Erb declared that he doesn’t need to address the responses to his CAGW drive-by propaganda.  Please explain how your actions here are in any way, shape, or form better than his.
            You are presently dismissing your responsibility to offer any decent, honest standard of evidence, proper citations, direct quotes, explication, etc..
            Fine.  My comment at May 15, 2014 at 23:26 stands uncontested.  I refuted the false accusations and no one responded.
            If you declare that it needs no response, then I accept your surrender.

          • You will wallow in any delusions you can conjure.

          • You will wallow in any delusions you can conjure.

            May 15, 2014 at 23:26
            That comment exists.  It contains quotes, facts, counter-arguments.
            Presently, not one person has responded to it directly.  Nor, have I seen anyone, yourself included, make any counter-argument against any particular point.
            All you have done is wave your hand in patrician style and mutter about “delusions”.
            So be it.

          • Scott Erb on May 19, 2014 at 06:41
            I don’t need to defend my claims to you. … You’re not worth me doing anything but throwing off a comment or two and watching you all unravel in silliness. I don’t respect you enough to spend real time on you – you’re not worth it…. But you can be funny in your reactions!

             

            Ragspierre on May 15, 2014 at 07:43
            You present as a very unhappy person, willing to do almost anything to try to sustain your position on a blog. That’s crazy. And it’s despicable.

             

            Ragspierre on May 18, 2014 at 18:55
            You are the one who employs despicable tactics. People have seen you do it. They’ve also seen your apologia when you were called on your apparent ‘issues’. I don’t see us as being combatants. I see you as having some problems.

             

            Ragspierre on May 19, 2014 at 10:42
            I DID address your amazing glob of apologia. With all the detail it deserved. Nobody responded to it because it is embarrassing.

            People can read the thread. I don’t need to elaborate what you’ve demonstrated so well.


            Ragspierre
            on May 19, 2014 at 12:18
            You will wallow in any delusions you can conjure.

             

            Ragspierre on May 15, 2014 at 05:54
            I dunno where you manage your irrational comparison between me and Erp….

            Q.E.D.

          • People can read the thread. I don’t need to elaborate what you’ve demonstrated so well.

            And tragic/comic exposition of a truly manic need for self-vindication has been more demonstrated here than at any time I can remember.

            But, let me simply remind you…say stupid stuff, and you can count on me pushing back.  I won’t waste the kind of time I have here on you.  I’ll just let you have the delusions you seem to burn for…like the one where you “beat me”.

            I don’t have your time, demons, or bad wiring, Elliot.  You are really a sick phuc.

            QED

          • …you can count on me pushing back.

            Except when you don’t, of course.
            May 15, 2014 at 23:26
            No replies, yet.

            …tragic/comic exposition of a truly manic need for self-vindication….

            More Erbian tactics.
            Why don’t you find a few articles in which Erb posts a comment about, for example, Benghazi, and you repeatedly pester him about not answering your questions.  Is your Dr. Lector persona going to self-diagnose yourself as “garden variety manic depressive”?
            Those “tedious sticky fumblings” are merely me attempting to get the gum off the bottom of my shoe, but you’re damned and determined to cling on, even though you’re not doing anything productive.  You’re just an irritant.

            I won’t waste the kind of time I have here on you.

            Now you’re playing Humpty Dumpty?  You’re not going to waste the time you’ve already wasted?
            Man, you sure are a sore loser.

          • “….you repeatedly pester him about not answering your questions.”

            Here’s the difference, you lying sack of shit…

            I ask Erp to cite to a model of something he’s recited as a didactic truth, like free markets lead to gangster economies.

            Here, we have an entire thread, showing how you simply cannot tolerate anyone criticizing anything you’ve posted…ad nauseam.

            I don’t “explicate” what I DEMONSTRATE.  And, again, anyone can read the thread.  Even you.

          • Elliot:
            …you repeatedly pester him about not answering your questions….

            Here’s the difference…I ask Erp to cite to a model of something he’s recited as a didactic truth…. Here, we have an entire thread, showing how you simply cannot tolerate anyone criticizing anything you’ve posted….”

            That’s an abject lie.  I tolerate when people honestly provide citations, referenced facts, and reasoned arguments to make their case.  On many occasions, I’ve changed my mind, admitted to being wrong, and even apologized to others.
            But your synopsis contains a huge lie of omission.  You’re leaving out the very details of what has happened here which are perfectly analogous to your dealing with Erb.
            I stated an opinion about the priorities people give to the topic of homosexuality.
            It wasn’t that other people disagreed and argued a contrary position. No one claimed that ranting about bestiality, end times, and demonic forces was valid or smart. No one insisted that we should all cling to our bibles and fear the wrath of god.  At best, there were some remarks about freedom of conscience, to which I expressed full agreement that religious people had the right to their opinions.
            Instead, nearly all of the replies from you and a couple others were merely one straw man after another, one ad hominem after another. For my trouble, I was accused of “[having] a[n odd] problem with Christians, in particular”, of making unfounded “generalizations”, “trying to go out of [my] way to disparage christianity for some reason”, of indicating that the ugly behavior I “report[ed was] commonplace”, that I “have some demons [I] just have to let out. [I] display a very warm, aggressive, even HATEFUL, disdain for religion, but ESPECIALLY” Christianity, that such alleged hateful disdain “glows a very alarming red…”, that I “present as a very unhappy person, willing to do almost anything to try to sustain [my] position on a blog[, which is] crazy [and] despicable”, that I portrayed the Westboro types as common, and that my “goal is to force people to accept gays and gay activity….”
            Since all of those accusations and personal attacks are false, my demonstrating they are false is in no way “despicable” or any of the other preposterous adjectives or metaphors to which you attached a simple act of establishing truth.
            I could care less if you like the way in which I establish what is true and what is false.  You can poke fun at how many comments I post (while you match me, one for one), imply some strange problem evident in my tone, or just say I’m a bark-at-the-moon lunatic.  Except that is nothing but ad hominem.  It does nothing whatsoever to change the facts.  What I state as true is true and what I state as false is false, whether I’m sober as a judge or nutty as a gutter bum.
            THAT is what you cannot seem to grasp, Mr. Peter-on-the-rag.
            Instead of looking at the list, checking the direct quotes against my cited direct quotes, you chose to ignore it, the way that Erb ignores you when you challenge him on something he stated which was false. And, just like Erb, you keep lying and claiming to have addressed it. Exactly how–osmosis, telepathy, chicken bones–I couldn’t say.  Just like Erb, you sling ad hominems to dismiss my arguments, poisoning the well.

            …I don’t ‘explicate’ what I DEMONSTRATE.

            Point to your “demonstration”. Give a cite. Provide direct quotes. Otherwise, you’re no better than Scott Erb.

    • We elected a man president who’s church said bad things, too.
      So, while I agree with you more than Rags that there are some unfriendly Christian types around, so what?
      We have feminists who hate men, too.
      Personally, I don’t attend those churches or any church and stay away from feminists, too.
      If your goal is to force people to accept gays and gay activity, I think its a losing plan.
      How about just let time handle this?
      I think your side is getting hurt by the hoopla as much as being helped.
      I guess I am on your side, so its our side is being hurt by the hoopla.
      Being gay should be like being a model airplane enthusiast. No one should care.



       

      • Just for a clear record, of course there are rotten people who are also religious.  The KKK always found a patina of religion made their hate a little shinier.  There are mean, hateful people who call themselves Christian, just like there are mean, hateful people who identify as every other thing, including atheists.  I thought that was clear WAY up-thread.

        My point is, and was, that those are very rare in my experience.  Like TEA party people who are racists are unknown to me, though some people claim they are common and the norm.

      • If your goal is to force people to accept gays and gay activity….

        Who said anything about that?
        I essentially suggested that people who go overboard to focus on one “sin” to the point of persecution ought to do themselves a favor and redirect their energies to something positive.
        I oppose forcing anyone to be limited to politically correct opinions and speech. I despise the very mechanism by which the “activists” push political correctness these days.
        Again, if the NFL deems a particular player’s anti-gay tweets to be worthy of penalty, it’s not a free speech issue, but one of their own personal property.  I may regard it as absurd, but they do have the right to be absurd.  I don’t have any obligation to watch their games or buy their merchandise.

        How about just let time handle this?

        That’s the major part of my plan to deal with people who have bigotries regarding race, sex, or sexual orientation.  Older generations will die.  Whether younger generations will be better at not promulgating or associating with bigots, or if they will be brainwashed in government schools to replace old irrationality with new, losing any strong sense of freedom of speech and conscience, remains to be seen.  So far, things don’t look good from where I sit.
        I am not on any side which would fit the characterization that you and others would seem to be projecting onto me.  I agree that sexuality should be like being a strange hobbyist, that people shouldn’t care so much.

  • What somebody over at “Ace of Spades HQ” described as a “‘Doris Day’ version of homosexuality” has been foisted upon America on television.  If they showed the “icky” version acceptance would slow a bit.

  • I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at these reactions.  When I was religious, I over-reacted to any criticism of Christianity.  I could speculate on the psychology of defense mechanisms.  When you have a whole belief system built on something for which there is no evidence, I’d guess that the fragility such an arrangement can lead one to be sensitive to doubts.

    —-good job on reading the part where noted I’m not religious. I’m not even Christian. Kind of proves you’re a wee-bit too agenda driven on this subject

  • Dale — you are not applying the same standards to Michael Sam as you would to any other straight player.  If any other player was surprised that they were drafted by an NFL team, they would be so excited they would probably kiss their girlfriend/wife.  That’s all that happened here with Michael Sam.  It’s not a big deal.
    You mention you didn’t like seeing Michael Sam kiss his boyfriend because you think sex with men is “icky”.  The kiss has nothing to do with their bedroom stuff and that’s where you the double standard lies.  I don’t think you would say the same thing about a straight couple.  You wouldn’t write an article about how you don’t want to see a straight man kiss his wife after getting drafted to the NFL because you think straight sex is icky.  Because kissing your partner out of joy and excitement at being hired for a job has nothing to do with their sex life.
    Kissing your partner in public (whether gay or straight) is no big deal.  And of course, no one would argue that all sex (gay or straight) in public is definitely icky and wrong.
    You can express whatever opinion you want, but when your opinion is based on an immutable characteristic like race, gender and sexual orientation….of course you are going to get in trouble.  That shouldn’t be a part of “polite society”.  Don Jones got what he deserved.  I’m sure Don Jones would expect similar consequences if someone said something racist about him being black.  Same thing here.
     

    • Well, there ARE some differences, Ricky.  Like that the whole kiss thing now appears to have been very staged…for a “reality show”.

      If you think Sam is the “first out gay NFL player”, you are a child.  In the 60s, there were gay NFL players in New Orleans who were behaving “gay” very openly when I lived there.  Nobody had any doubts.

    • “You mention you didn’t like seeing Michael Sam kiss his boyfriend because you think sex with men is “icky”.  The kiss has nothing to do with their bedroom stuff and that’s where you the double standard lies.”
      So, you want us to enjoy it? That’s a tough sale.
      The most I can muster is an “awwww, that’s cute.”
      Same as with two fat straight people.
      But if they start stuffing cake for the camera, that would be icky, too.

      • OK…so I just watched the video.
        Where was the cake?
        How did I get the impression there was cake involved?
        Anyways, my impression was overly dramatic and sappy, but not as icky as cake eating.

        • Ok, I understand there was cake. So they kissed like forever and then went and got cake.

    • Surprised?

  • If a lifelong man (Oppressor, Male Privilege and all that) VOLUNTEERS to become a woman, how would he be any more entitled to privilege than if I went around in blackface in order to get Affirmative Action?

  • If any other player was surprised that they were drafted by an NFL team, they would be so excited they would probably kiss their girlfriend/wife.

    Incorrect. I’ve been watching the draft for over 30 years and I don’t remember-it’s possible I missed it- any draftee kissing his SO multiple times on TV and then going all cake sharing. In fact, I’m almost certain that it has NEVER happened to a would be Mr. Irrelevant; Sam was almost the last player drafted. Add in that a marginal NFL player had signed a contract for a reality show before the draft and you’d almost start to think that this was simply a publicity stunt rather than a spontaneous display of surprise and happiness.

    • Yes. I already googled Ryan Tannenhill kisses wife, and nothing came up.
      I was a bit disappointed.
      OK, there was a peck on the cheek kiss photo.

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet