Topic: Culture Wars (Read 78202 times)

Mongrel · « **Reply #440 on:** October 25, 2010, 05:24:07 PM »

Soooo, the KKK are actually mounting public cross-burnings again, for the first time in 50 years.

Only they're trying to claim they're not promoting hatred.

They're 'not promoting hatred.'

The KKK.

With a straight face.

I...

*girlish giggle*

Royal☭ · « **Reply #441 on:** October 25, 2010, 08:35:04 PM »

Rand Paul supporters hold down woman, stomp on her head and neck before debate between Paul and Jack Conway.

Thad · « **Reply #442 on:** October 25, 2010, 08:40:43 PM »

Obviously they were all liberal plants to trick people into thinking that Tea Partiers are violent.

Joking aside: looks like there was some violence on both sides. Stepping on somebody's foot when it's in a surgical boot? Even in a crowd that doesn't sound like an accident.

TA · « **Reply #443 on:** October 27, 2010, 10:12:42 AM »

This chucklefuck is on the School Board for Midland School District in Arkansas.

Thad · « **Reply #444 on:** October 27, 2010, 03:07:20 PM »

That's, verbatim, the phrase that got Michael "Savage" Weiner booted from MSNBC. Could be a coincidence, but I wouldn't be surprised if we had a talk radio fan here.

Thad · « **Reply #445 on:** October 27, 2010, 03:09:00 PM »

...also, standard dressing-down for providing no fucking context on that link; article headline is Arkansas School Board Member Says Gay Students Should "Get AIDS and Die".

(Would put this in an edit but the company firewall is inexplicably blocking the edit page while still allowing me to read the thread and post in it.)

Thad · « **Reply #446 on:** October 27, 2010, 03:20:23 PM »

(Also: the reason Websense gives for filtering out the "Modify" link is that it is a streaming media site.)

TA · « **Reply #447 on:** October 27, 2010, 03:44:10 PM »

I ... would have thought the image would be the context? Since it's an image of the words?

Niku · « **Reply #448 on:** October 27, 2010, 03:47:30 PM »

Your image is broken on my end.

Beat Bandit · « **Reply #449 on:** October 27, 2010, 03:49:36 PM »

On every end.

TA · « **Reply #450 on:** October 27, 2010, 04:05:54 PM »

Oh. Lemme fix that, then. Worked for me but it must just be cached.

Thad · « **Reply #451 on:** October 27, 2010, 04:23:39 PM »

Ah, can see it now.

(Maybe we should put in a feature request for alt text.)

Mongrel · « **Reply #452 on:** October 29, 2010, 05:48:48 PM »

Christine O'Donnell had drunken random near-one-night-stand.

Now, why is this important? It's a pretty crass piece, one that some are arguing is sexist, or at least irrelevant and mean-spirited.

Because the dude she almost slept with documented it. And he is someone who knows how to take photos ~~4chan~~ the internets will LOVE.

Friday · « **Reply #453 on:** October 29, 2010, 06:00:53 PM »

She should shave her pubes into a US Flag

Büge · « **Reply #454 on:** October 29, 2010, 06:36:19 PM »

Wow. I feel sympathy for her. I bet a lot of voters feel the same too. Although, I'm sure that was not the intent (Hanlon's Razor).

Beat Bandit · « **Reply #455 on:** October 29, 2010, 06:42:41 PM »

You feel sympathy for someone who has a record of saying that people who get naked and in bed with strangers are wretched beasts and building a political campaign off the belief being called out on having done just that?

Büge · « **Reply #456 on:** October 29, 2010, 07:12:55 PM »

I feel sympathy for someone whose sex life is dredged up by an "anonymous source" as scandal fodder. I'm not talking like getting caught in a public bathroom or a glory hole or something. If it was that, then yeah, I'd be right there with you.

Beat Bandit · « **Reply #457 on:** October 29, 2010, 07:23:55 PM »

It's wholly possible that I'm blinded by my love of Gawker's articles, but I thought their follow-up did a good job of expressing the exact reasons it's a good thing for people to be able to hear about. They're not calling her a deranged slut, they're just providing a means of exposing hypocrisy.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #458 on:** October 29, 2010, 07:25:30 PM »

It would be more scandal fodder if it weren't for the fact that Christine O'Donnell wants to public chastise others who do what she did. The story isn't about her having a naked sleepover, it's that she wants to tell others it's wrong for them to have naked sleepovers.

Gawker has a pretty good rebuttal to the criticisms leveled at them

Quote

"Slut-shaming" is telling women that if they indulge their sexual desires they are impure. It's telling them that if they view pornography, there is something wrong with them. Christine O'Donnell seeks to "shame" "sluts" on an hourly basis. Worse, she believes people who hop into bed with people they barely know who happen to be of the same sex suffer from an "identity disorder" and are "deviants." She has repeatedly chosen, of her own volition, to make it her business to condemn the private sexual behaviors of millions of men and women who believe, or behave, differently than she does. She's of course free to do so. But when it turns out that her own private sexual behavior doesn't measure up to her public rhetoric—that she "push[es] the limits" without crossing the line as opposed to "living through the power of Christ's blood"—it deserves to be noted. And the argument that someone's private life shouldn't be the object of public attention isn't really available to someone who has manufactured a political and pseudo-celebrity career out of publicly casting judgment on the private behavior of others.
...
A good deal of the reaction to the piece was governed by revulsion at the voice of Anonymous, who certainly comes off as a dick. So yes, we will grant you that the 25-year-old guy Christine O'Donnell drunkenly pursued, and bedded, on Halloween night three years ago is not a gentleman. We wish she had better taste in guys. But our publication of his account wasn't intended as a celebration of his character. It was intended to expose the lies and hypocrisy of a U.S. Senate candidate and prominent Tea Party conservative who uses her own purported chastity and righteousness to market herself and gain political power.

This is no different from when anti-gay activists hire male prostitutes or when a governor famed for being tough on prostitution is caught in a prostitution scandal. From my perspective, these are things people should be able to do without anyone interfering in their private lives. But because these people have already taken the position of condemning others for these actions, they deserve to be exposed for their own hypocrisy.

Büge · « **Reply #459 on:** October 29, 2010, 07:40:42 PM »

Well, now I don't know what to think.

News:

Author Topic: Culture Wars (Read 78202 times)