Do we need a new thread every time a Republican swallows a load?

November 11, 2004 5:35 PM

So-and-so likes teh cock.

So what? Do we need a new thread every time a Republican swallows a load?

Just wondering.
posted by mr_crash_davis to etiquette/policy at 5:35 PM (107 comments total)

YES
posted by Keyser Soze at 5:38 PM on November 11, 2004

Well maybe if they're getting raped.
posted by Stan Chin at 5:40 PM on November 11, 2004

Maybe it could be put in it's own blog: uptheelephantsass.com or something.
posted by jonmc at 5:40 PM on November 11, 2004

Yeah, this is borderline deletion material. It's petty politics and it's past its own prime of meaning anything. I almost axed it as soon as I saw it, but held off. I'll let it stay for a bit and see if anything new comes around.
posted by mathowie at 5:41 PM on November 11, 2004

Just male Republicans, crash. Oh, and Republican females who eat down at the Y.

We all have a right to know, you know!
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:41 PM on November 11, 2004

You guys are right--it's not like it's a post about a movie being shown on tv or anything. Or a post about a phone number from another tv show.
posted by amberglow at 5:47 PM on November 11, 2004

Zing!
posted by interrobang at 5:47 PM on November 11, 2004

Guys, take up a collection and buy me some psych meds IF YOU WANT TO KEEP BEATING THIS DAGGONE DEAD POLITICAL HORSE.

(I prefer Zoloft. Thank you.)
posted by konolia at 5:58 PM on November 11, 2004

Petty, obnoxious muckraking is only bad when Republicans do it. Anyone else, and they're just "spreading consciousness", dudebro.
posted by dhoyt at 6:02 PM on November 11, 2004

You guys are right--it's not like it's a post about a movie being shown on tv or anything. Or a post about a phone number from another tv show.

If you're feeling attacked, is it necessary to lash out at other posts in order to defend yourself? And I would've thought you'd appreciate the free speech issues that the Private Ryan post is actually about.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:04 PM on November 11, 2004

Crash, why aren't you typing in capitals? I think you're whining for effect. Whereas Konolia - she really is outraged.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:04 PM on November 11, 2004

Republican muckraking usually involves "uncovering" things that did not happen, dhoyt. Amberglow's post is not that, and I hope it stays.
posted by interrobang at 6:05 PM on November 11, 2004

k: what do you think about the possibility of a leading Republican promoting a discriminatory agenda, when he himself is gay? That's two comments in both threads, and neither of them refer to the topic.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:07 PM on November 11, 2004

dash, wondering != whining. But thanks for your input.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:08 PM on November 11, 2004

Would you all be ok with a post outing a non-Republican? It just seems lame. Fall back on "it's hypocritical" all you like, but it's still lame. I think everyone has planks of their party's platform they disagree with; the "hypocrisy" explanation suggests all possibly homosexual Republicans are frothing-at-the-mouth homophobes during the day. Even then it's a sad, awful thing I would hope there was empathy for. But no empathy for those we disagree with! Let's divest ourselves of our humanity because other people are evil.
posted by yerfatma at 6:11 PM on November 11, 2004

crash - you were just in there for contrast really. IT'S THE OUTRAGE! I CAN'T TAKE!!
posted by dash_slot- at 6:15 PM on November 11, 2004

Metafilter makes me very glad to be straight.
posted by rocketman at 6:16 PM on November 11, 2004

yerfatma: we start with the conservative hypocrites, and when we've finished with them, the liberal hypocrites will be so shit scared they'll be outing themselves on billboards on Broadway.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:17 PM on November 11, 2004

I agree. Gloating is the online equivalent of child molesting.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:18 PM on November 11, 2004

Would you all be ok with a post outing a non-Republican?

Yes, if said non-Republican were in a position to remove human rights from other gays. It is much like a black man joining a politcal party that wanted to re-ban interracial marriages, just because the political party also agreed with him about disliking the color yellow, the taste of cilantro, and the writings of C.P. Snow.

the "hypocrisy" explanation suggests all possibly homosexual Republicans are frothing-at-the-mouth homophobes during the day.

It was made abundantly clear what the Bush administration's social agenda was a long time ago. If these "homophobes during the day" are aligning themselves with a group of politicians whose intent is to deprive them of rights--and is aligned with religious groups who want to make their existence effectively illegal--then they have joined the wrong party, and people should know about them.

This guy is a bum steer--the cow that leads all the others into the slaughterhouse.
posted by interrobang at 6:20 PM on November 11, 2004

Vicodin is even more fun, konolia, but I digress.

Amber, buddy, pal, chum, you know I'm with you on this, even though I wavered on indiscriminate outing. And I think most of the rest of us are with you when it comes to exposing hypocrisy.

But y'know when I was a kid, my mom would nag me to do something and then I'd agree to do it. And sometimes she'd KEEP nagging even after, and almost nothing would piss me off as much. It sends you into "ENOUGH, ALREADY!" mode.

And when I was a salesman, the first thing I learned is: once the customer says "I'll take it!" you stop pitching. See where I'm going?

You want to bring this to a larger audience? Great. Make a quickie blogspot blog on it and I hope you do great. But here at the 'Filter, we get the idea, dude.
posted by jonmc at 6:24 PM on November 11, 2004

Listen, my last comment should not be taken for hate speech, or even as a serious comment in any way. Some of us are as fed up of being discriminated as you are of hearing us raise it.

Can anyone see a way out?
posted by dash_slot- at 6:26 PM on November 11, 2004

what interrobang said. gay-bashing politicians who are in-the-closet homosexuals cannot expect much leniency from those whom they want to deprive of civil rights.

Republicans have stirred some ugly shit in order to get a few votes of fundy, anti-gay people who used to stay home and didn't vote. closeted gay Republicans have reason to worry now.

liked the 11 referenda? the future anti-gay constitutional amendment? cool. enjoy the blowback now. private lives won't be private anymore. Pandora's box, and everything.
posted by matteo at 6:26 PM on November 11, 2004

Would you all be ok with a post outing a non-Republican?

of course. maybe Zell Miller's gay. who knows. let's ask amberglow
posted by matteo at 6:28 PM on November 11, 2004

Well, we're less than four years from The Most Important Election In The History Of The Universe™ so I guess we have to expect dreck like this.
posted by timeistight at 6:31 PM on November 11, 2004

Republicans have stirred some ugly shit in order to get a few votes of fundy, anti-gay people who used to stay home and didn't vote. closeted gay Republicans have reason to worry now.

Oh, come now. If you attack and you're right, the opposition will just say, "He called our friend gay and we're offended. How dare you call him gay!" And they'll win, because they're all about power and not so much principle (which is as true of many progressives, only they don't have power right now - why else would you put up with George Soros?). Look at the whole Mary Cheney thing. You can't win here, even if you are right - and in this case, you have no idea. It's just rumors on the internets. In the cases where you are right, I totally understand the frustration. Not here.
posted by raysmj at 6:34 PM on November 11, 2004

It is much like a black man joining a politcal party that wanted to re-ban interracial marriages

Whu? Can't black men be against blacks marrying whites? I'm certain there must be miscegenist blacks out there, let alone segregationalist blacks.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:34 PM on November 11, 2004

What is the deal with cilantro anyway?
posted by undecided at 6:35 PM on November 11, 2004

It is much like a black man joining a politcal party that wanted to re-ban interracial marriages...


Dude, you can tell a man is black by looking at his skin. The point is: no one here knows whether Mehlman is gay or not. No one. Speculating on it as if you do is dangerously presumptuous & shallow. If we knew for sure, it would be a different story. In sum, take it to indymedia or get your own blog if you really delight in shit like this.

On preview:
matteo (surprise) has already jumped to the conclusion that not only is the evil Mehlman definitely in the closet, he's a fundy gay-basher. Glad you're comfortable being judge, jury & exceutioner about a man's private life you know nothing about. You and Ken Starr should grab a beer.
posted by dhoyt at 6:38 PM on November 11, 2004

I'll get back to you on Zell (altho i'm hoping not)

I think it's remarkably progressive of the GOP to place gay people in powerful positions, given their continued demonization of us for votes, and the go-ahead for the Constitutional Amendment demanded by their voters, among other things. I thought you'd especially like to know, konolia.

dhoyt, 2 newspapers here (i'm assuming the Times and one other) had enough info on Mehlman to run a story, even tho they were pressured into not running it. It isn't jumping to conclusions.
posted by amberglow at 6:40 PM on November 11, 2004

Whu? Can't black men be against blacks marrying whites? I'm certain there must be miscegenist blacks out there, let alone segregationalist blacks.

Like I said, it's like the guy joining the party *just because* they agree with him that cilantro tastes like soap, and that's the most important issue in the world to him. I'm didn't imply that there aren't anti-interracial marriage blacks.
posted by interrobang at 6:42 PM on November 11, 2004

You and Ken Starr should grab a beer.

definitely. but in a gay bar.
posted by matteo at 6:58 PM on November 11, 2004

Would you all be ok with a post outing a non-Republican?

If you find a pro-life Democrat, out them.

If you find a racist Democrat, out them.

If you find a wife-beating Democrat, out them.

If you find a gay Democrat, what's the big deal? Democrats aren't making a big deal of being anti-gay. Without a good reason to out them, it just seems kind of petty.

That said, I think most Democrats would suffer less fallout from being outed than most Republicans.
posted by bashos_frog at 7:00 PM on November 11, 2004

It's possible that Mehlman is gay. It's also possible that Mehlman is opposed to gay marriage.

Is it wrong for a gay man to oppose gay marriage? I don't think it is. I don't think it's even hypocritical.

Democrats aren't making a big deal of being anti-gay.

Republicans aren't anti-gay either. They're just anti-gay-marriage, which is different.
posted by rocketman at 7:02 PM on November 11, 2004

maybe a Swift Boat Gays ad will come to the rescue and sink the Mehlman rumors, too

it's so funny to see our Conservative friends get all nervous about this thing. after all, the Right immediately spoke out against the Juanita Broadrick baseless rumors and the black-Clinton-kid Drudge smear.
heh.
oh, and dhoyt, those of us who read the unnatural, hated-by-God gay press, know all the rumors already.

they've been around for ages, sweetie: Mehlman is among those rumored to be in the closet (in the list there's also an important, very right wing GOP consultant whose name now escapes me and another GOP guy who had problems getting appointed to some Pentagon office). as I said already in the thread, google up Michelangelo Signorile, he's one of the writers fond of the outing tactics. I'm not fond of those. but at this point, gloves are off, apparently.
posted by matteo at 7:05 PM on November 11, 2004

"it's so funny to see our Conservative friends get all nervous about this thing"

Just for the record.

Not conservative.

Not nervous.

Just tired of AgendaFilter.

Thanks for your input, though.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:11 PM on November 11, 2004

Is it wrong for a gay man to oppose gay marriage? I don't think it is. I don't think it's even hypocritical.

We're not talking about personal opposition. We're talking about people *who might be gay* joining a political party that intends to add a provision to the U.S. Constitution--the first of its kind in history--that is designed to *deprive* people of rights.
posted by interrobang at 7:12 PM on November 11, 2004

the first of its kind in history

What about the eighteenth amendment?

So what you're saying, is people *who might be gay* aren't allowed to choose between the two major political parties? See, this is why Democrats lose elections. You people act like you're entitled to a constituency, and do little to earn it - except for outing closeted gays, which I'm sure is winning a ton of friends in the gay community.
posted by rocketman at 7:17 PM on November 11, 2004

Republicans aren't anti-gay either. They're just anti-gay-marriage, which is different.
posted by rocketman at 7:02 PM PST on November 11

Ri-i-i-ght.

::Shakes head in wonder::

Crash: I have to admit my first reaction to the thread was - uh-oh, here we go again. Then I see the denial, the indifference, the hostility, the get-over-its. I agree that AgendaFilter has jumped the shark and lost its skis, but jeebus! How about that - things ain't right, and some folks just don't give a shit.

This ain't 1955, and we ain't at the back of the bus, but that's where they want to put us. So we need to just shut up already? OK, got it.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:18 PM on November 11, 2004

i'm not gay or conservative!
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 7:19 PM on November 11, 2004

So what you're saying, is people *who might be gay* aren't allowed to choose between the two major political parties?

No, I'm saying that people need to be more aware of the agendas of the political parties they choose, and people high up in those parties need to choose them for ethical reasons, rather than for reasons relating to power.
posted by interrobang at 7:23 PM on November 11, 2004

things ain't right, and some folks just don't give a shit.

Excuse the bold lettering, but:

For the nth time, we do give a shit about hypocrisy and we do give a shit about equal marriage laws, but we also care about having all the facts before persecuting someone in a public forum.
posted by dhoyt at 7:27 PM on November 11, 2004

See, this is why Democrats lose elections

No, Democrats lose elections because they do not control the giant corporations that control the media, and Republicans have so thoroughly tricked people who are not as rich as they think they are into thinking that they're going to benefit by voting Republican.

Republicans have also claimed "morals" as their possession--and theirs alone--and cynically use those moral stances to trick people into thinking that voting Democrat is voting for godlessness.
posted by interrobang at 7:27 PM on November 11, 2004

First, interrobang:

This anti-gay-marriage thing is relatively new to the Republican party. It's possible that many of these folks were party members before this turn of events. Maybe they're just waiting out the storm, so to speak. Constituencies shift and change: the Democrats used to be the party of segregation, you know, and the Republicans were once the progressive party.

Second, dash_slot-:

It's not that I don't give a shit, I just think outing closeted gay Republicans is the cheapest of cheap shots. And you have to admit: "anti-gay" and "anti-gay-marriage" are two different things. I know gays who are opposed to gay marriage. Does this make them anti-gay? I don't think it does, though I'd be interested to hear if you thought it did and why.
posted by rocketman at 7:31 PM on November 11, 2004

Just tired of AgendaFilter.

That's so nice. I feel your pain. Many of us are also tired of HeadInTheSandFilter and MeaninglessFluffFilter.

Say. How 'bout we simply skip over the moronic borderline deletion material on Penis-Unicorns, and you skip the threads about Bigoted Republican Penises who Secretly Love Penises, And Who Have the Power to Discriminate Against Millions. Duh.

Thanks for your carefully and repeatedly self-described non-nervous, non-whining input, though.

The perennial MetaFilter Milque-Toasters, well-represented above, get positively jittery when MetaFilter rises beyond the level of Flash Pong.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:34 PM on November 11, 2004

If you find a pro-life Democrat, out them.

Err, drop by Boston some time; there are plenty of old-school Catholic Dems in town. And what up with the idea a pro-life Democrat is as awful as a racist Democrat?
posted by yerfatma at 7:37 PM on November 11, 2004

Crash raised an interesting question that hasn't received a real answer: Even if we assume every argument made in these threads to be true -- that Mehlman and similar GOPers are closeted, gay-bashing hypocrites who deserve everything they get -- does that mean MetaFilter needs a new thread each and every time? There are never any new issues; rather, the posts are designed simply to further propogate the allegations to score a political point. In the humble opinion of one user out of 17,000, that's not what MetaFilter either is (or should be) about.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:37 PM on November 11, 2004

This anti-gay-marriage thing is relatively new to the Republican party. It's possible that many of these folks were party members before this turn of events.

Duh. It's the mindset that's being argued against. If the Republican Party started arguing for socialized medicine, human rights, anti-torture laws, participation in laws against pollution, promoting birth-control and reproductive rights, and freedom of information, I'd vote for them.

The switchover from party to party a long time ago over progressivism aside, if you're high enough up in the government--or paying enough attention--it is absurdly obvious what they're up to.

Does this make them anti-gay? I don't think it does, though I'd be interested to hear if you thought it did and why.

I don't think they actually are: they just use these social issues to piss off bigots and get votes from them. And that's why there are people in the government who are gay but aligned with them. They want amoral power.
posted by interrobang at 7:40 PM on November 11, 2004

If you find a pro-life Democrat, out them.
If you find a racist Democrat, out them.
If you find a wife-beating Democrat, out them.

So republicans are racists and wife-beaters?
posted by bob sarabia at 7:41 PM on November 11, 2004

Hmm.... say, this thread and the MeFi thread combined have about 100 comments already of the same ol' same ol'.

You think... that maybe Crash has a point about this whole situation?
posted by Stan Chin at 7:41 PM on November 11, 2004

No. Crash is a poor man's quonsar.
posted by interrobang at 7:47 PM on November 11, 2004

That's so nice. I feel your pain. Many of us are also tired of HeadInTheSandFilter and MeaninglessFluffFilter.

The perennial MetaFilter Milque-Toasters, well-represented above, get positively jittery when MetaFilter rises beyond the level of Flash Pong.

from your snide comment, you seem to be saying that metafilter has an obligation to 'rise above flash pong' and post politically motivated fpps? If so, since when? I don't see that in the posting guidlines anywhere.
posted by bob sarabia at 7:49 PM on November 11, 2004

No. Crash is a poor man's quonsar.

That is a sincere compliment.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 7:49 PM on November 11, 2004

Not that it's a big deal, but in my experience gay people obsess a lot more than straight people over who's gay and who's not.

This probably has something to do with the fact that straight people (a lot of them, anyway) can walk around most of the time pretending that homosexuality doesn't exist. Hetero is the norm, it's most of what you see on the streets and on the tube. American policy on it seems to be "as long as I can pretend it don't exist, I'll tolerate it." Even people who are quite friendly toward gays can forget they're there (depending on where you live, of course) and when people bring up the subject, it seems suddenly quite lascivious to be talking about our sex lives.

Gay people, meanwhile, live each and every day in this suppressed underground shadow-culture, balancing an assimilation act with a struggle to assert themselves and gain acceptance, recognition, etc. They're quite interested in what's going on under the surface with sexual politics, because they have a stake in it. The whole movement toward gay rights is about embracing people the way they actually are. Finding out how they actually are is square #1.

So, in short, to a straight guy, this kind of revelation seems to come out of left field and delve into private sexy stuff that seems unnecessary to know about. But to a gay guy, it's quite germaine to everyday life, politics in general, the social climate, religion, rhetoric, everything.

That's not to say that outing 1 dude is worth the effort, but there are lots of posts here that won't interest most folks. I offer you every Applefilter post in the world as an example. What's the demographic that gives a shit about those? 8% of people?

Once again, Matt makes the right call.
posted by scarabic at 7:58 PM on November 11, 2004

what scarabic said. If it's not important to you, skip over it. If it grosses you out or is "icky", too damn bad. It's very important to some of us.

I know gays who are opposed to gay marriage. Does this make them anti-gay? I don't think it does, though I'd be interested to hear if you thought it did and why.
Unless they're actively working to deny me and millions of other Americans rights, i'd say they're not anti-gay. If they were running the political campaigns of anti-gay politicians, and defending those policies publicly, i'd say they definitely had issues.
posted by amberglow at 8:02 PM on November 11, 2004

Would that be a European or an African swallow? The African swallows can carry more of a load.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:06 PM on November 11, 2004

I have no real quibble with crash or his disdain of AgendaFilter. There, I've said it again. But that thread, and this one exist, and today I'm anti-euthanasia. So...

Rocketman:

The Log Cabin Repuiblican manifesto calls for a de-emphasis on major cities which have large gay communities, developing ties with moderate Republicans, working to develop lines of communication with religious groups, taking the offensive on civil rights initiatives, and placing less emphasis on the courts...."The voices of intolerance have successfully used the anxiety during the first days of the national debate about marriage equality as a tool to pass anti-civil union and anti-domestic partnership legislation. Instead of simply defending against anti-gay measures, we should be offering targeted ballot questions and legislative action on issues such as domestic partnerships, civil unions, hospital visitation, and tax fairness that already have overwhelming support from the majority of Americans."

Who are they aiming at there, then - Naderites? Libertarians? It's moderate republicans, the ones who voted for anti-gay measures, in large numbers.

rocketman: of course, some gay folks are anti-marriage, usually because they spent a long time liberating themselves from traditional and heterosexual concepts of monogamy and commitment. It's kinda dialectical: that idea is valid still, and an option, but now we see that the last bastion of bigotry is vulnerable, and a new synthesis arises - gay lib + ability to wed. We want the potential to have what straights assume from birth: legal, public recognition of our committed relationships.

You all are just worried about the cost of all those extra wedding gifts, ya skinflints.

Closeted guys working for the continuance of prejudice in a public political setting, whatever their party affiliation, do not deserve more privacy than any other hypocrite. They embody a lie, and I'm happy to see the lie exposed.

scarabic: this suppressed underground shadow-culture...Well, thank you. I take your point, but it's quite a while since I lurked in any dungeons!
posted by dash_slot- at 8:13 PM on November 11, 2004

Just tired of AgendaFilter.

I found the post tiresome, too, crash, just as I found troutfishing's Diebold wiki post tiresome, and for the same reason--the election is over. But, you know, as tiresome as I find it, it doesn't bother me being on the front page. Neither do the multiple editions of We're Sorry or Fuck the South. They're all just typographic roadkill. Swerve around them and keep driving. I find the complaining here far more tiresome.

However, I am sick of people going AgendaFilter. What it should be called is Point of View Filter. An agenda is a list of things to do or of matters to be taken up at a meeting. Having a point of view is not having a list of matters to be taken up at a meeting. Agenda is Sethspeak for Point of View I Don't Like. Complain about amber's P.O.V. by all means. Or adopt konolia's insipid Dead Horse. Dead Horse Filter. The war, Abu Ghraib, any number of serious and contentious issues are live horses still but the election is a dead horse.* Or maybe AnnoyingFilter. One man's PointOfViewFilter is another man's AnnoyingFilter. AnnoyingFilter uber AgendaFilter, sez I.

*To me at this point in time with no Diebold smoking gun in sight.

Upon review: They embody a lie, and I'm happy to see the lie exposed.

See, there's yet another point of view with which I can empathize and sympathize, something more than one person cares about. So pffft! Out away. I'm just burnt out on election stuff right now myself.
posted by y2karl at 8:29 PM on November 11, 2004

It's moderate republicans, the ones who voted for anti-gay measures, in large numbers.

First, it was more than just moderate republicans. It was moderate democrats too. Second, they did not vote for "anti-gay measures," they voted for anti-gay-marriage amendments. There is a difference.

Just to make it clear: I don't think the government should sanction any "marriage", gay or straight. I support government-sanctioned civil unions that recognize formal relationships regardless of sexual orientation, and think marriage should be stripped from law and left to churches.
posted by rocketman at 8:34 PM on November 11, 2004

(I'm afraid it's a rant. Please disregard.)

The perennial MetaFilter Milque-Toasters, well-represented above, get positively jittery when MetaFilter rises beyond the level of Flash Pong.

Isn't this the truth, though? I've been here (only) 3 years but it's scary the way people scramble towards consensus; trying to "fit in" and avoiding (what I consider to be, thinking myself average) surprise; confrontation and risk.

Agendas are good - they're very good. They're what used to be called spine. Making them obvious is a quality, like honesty. What's noxious is pretending, relativistically, that we're all right as we are and shouldn't really be arguing, as "deep down" we all agree and it'e all a matter of common sense.

No. There is great doubt. There's untold division amongst us. It's meant to be like that - and then we die, none the wiser. All we can gain is the odd glimpse of other ways of thinking which are equally acceptable and perhaps more honourable. Consensus is the most insidious form of censorship,

Actually, the world is not a question of opinion. 99% of the time facts are paramount and there's little leeway - though it's all the more important because of this.

I honestly fail to see, for instance, why the fact that I find women sexy and most men just lucky that so many women return the compliment, should give me even the slightest advantage over someone of my own sex who has precisely the same feelings about other men.

About certain, very few, other men.

And as far as rights are concerned, it's obscene even to discuss, except obscene is rather a nice word and I'd prefer an uglier word.

I know the "some of my best friends are *this or that* is a joke but I often wonder whether those unlucky enough to only have good friends with the same sexual orientation haven't, in fact, been cursed and are, in fact, missing out on the (difficult enough as it is) pleasure of being human and alive.

It's so strange to me that everyone I know is extraordinarily finicky about sexual attraction, being unable to appreciate fully 99% of the gender they're supposed to appreciate - and yet make judgements about gender preferences. I'm not even pretending to be a liberal here: men are different from women and thank God for that.

But gay men are men and lesbian women are women and they're separated, each sex from each other, by an ocean of incomprehension, mystery and fascination. Gay men know as much about "women" as we Don Juans - women, because they're smarter - don't fall for the hillbilly desire to generalize about "men".

It's hard enough getting to know someone you love and know. Thinking about whether someone's gay or straight is like attaching importance to who a good friend thinks of when he or she is jerking off and stupidly working that image into your relationship.

Gay men who strive to create differences between themselves and their fellow men are just indulging in sexiness and politics. In even 20 years' time we'll all be ashamed we even spoke of it, as it were an issue.

People forget that sex and sexiness is what matters (like politics but worse and better) and that everything else is, in a word, welcome.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:39 PM on November 11, 2004

Wait, am I in agreement with y2karl or not?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:39 PM on November 11, 2004

Second, they did not vote for "anti-gay measures," they voted for anti-gay-marriage amendments. There is a difference.

Wrong.

While the amendments in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon deal only with marriage, the measures in the other eight states also ban civil unions.

According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, there are roughly 2 million people in those states who live in households headed by same-sex couples and could be harmed by the amendments — including state university employees whose domestic partnership benefits could be in jeopardy in Michigan, Ohio and Utah.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:50 PM on November 11, 2004

Jesse Jackson, proponent of hate-crime laws, is a RACIST! I just read it on the world wide web. Proof? Didn't you hear me, I said it was published on the web. It's about time someone called that bigot a bigot. And a hypocrite. I mean, that's probably what he is. Maybe. I mean, that's what I want to believe, so, like, that's what I'll believe. So, yeah. Dude hates himself. Possibly.
posted by dhoyt at 8:58 PM on November 11, 2004

Not. I find your finger in the eye posts far more annoying, Mr. Rape Haiku.
posted by y2karl at 8:59 PM on November 11, 2004

Jesse Jackson

If Jesse Jackson's party was thrilled that 11 states had just passed measures to prevent black men marrying white women, you might almost have a good analogy there.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:05 PM on November 11, 2004

rocketman: you missed my point. That's from Log Cabiners to their own party. I'd moved on.
I don't think the government should sanction any "marriage", gay or straight that's nice for you. i guess you'll be boycotting a few weddings then, to advance your principles. No? What exactly will you do to remove gov't sanctions on marriage?

Can you name one country or state where the state does not have a hand in marriage? No? One, out of the 200 or so in the UN? Right. Till that becomes a reality, and your so-far slightly under the radar campaign to get the gov't out of marriage achieves at least a petition on the innernet, do you mind if we keep demanding equality? Or do we have to wait until however many thousand years of tradition are overturned so that your fantasy conscience saver becomes real?

How long is long enough?
posted by dash_slot- at 9:05 PM on November 11, 2004

Err, drop by Boston some time; there are plenty of old-school Catholic Dems in town. And what up with the idea a pro-life Democrat is as awful as a racist Democrat?

Nothing as long as the rest of their policies back up their pro-life stance: social justice, helping the poor, etc. As far as I'm concerned, as a pro-choice Catholic (not that I think that abortion is a good thing, just that I think that some woman bleeding out on her bathroom floor as the result of a botched back alley abortion is a really, really bad thing), most pro-life Catholics see the same problem I do, they just disagree as to how to fix it. If we can agree to work on the problem on the common ground we share, then I'm cool with it. However, when self-proclaimed pro-lifers try to limit access to birth control and sex ed, they better make damn sure that their closet is squeaky clean.

BTW, when I was in college, one of my Human Sexuality teachers told me that she was always enjoyed having catholic school kids in her class because, unlike most of the other students, they had already studied much of what she covered in class and had a solid understanding of the science of human reproduction ... there is something wrong in this country when catholic schools are doing a better job of providing medically accurate, science-based sex ed to their students than public schools.
posted by echolalia67 at 9:06 PM on November 11, 2004

He's just trying to get that mote out, y2karl.
posted by interrobang at 9:07 PM on November 11, 2004

i guess you'll be boycotting a few weddings then, to advance your principles.

To "advance my principles"? It would be absurd to reject how my friends and family have chosen to celebrate and validate their relationships because of my own personal feelings on the matter. To "boycott" these weddings because of my view would be akin to the parents who disown their gay children.

I'm more tolerant than that, dash_slot-. I can disagree with people and still get along with them.
posted by rocketman at 9:25 PM on November 11, 2004

No, he wasn't trying to get the mote out. It was just an excuse to post likes teh cock and swallows a load. 'Cause he so edgy.
posted by y2karl at 9:32 PM on November 11, 2004

Still, nice dodge, rocketman. What exactly are you doing to advance the cause of getting government out of marriage? Does anyone outside of Metafilter know how you feel about this?

Has your google search returned any hits yet for 'countries where the state doesn't issue marriage licences'?

It's a piss easy stance to take - remove this privilege, please? What, none of you adult heterosexuals want to get the state out of marriage? Haven't you ever thought of the advantages? What? Well, there aren't really any for you, but it makes us even with the gays...

How's that gonna fly in Wyoming?
posted by dash_slot- at 9:45 PM on November 11, 2004

*pukes on you all*
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:56 PM on November 11, 2004

Has your google search returned any hits yet for 'countries where the state doesn't issue marriage licences'?

I haven't started it. Why should I? I already know the answer.

And what's your point, exactly? I know people aren't going to bite on this hook, and I don't care. There are a lot of positions I have on the issues that aren't going to become policy in my lifetime, but that doesn't keep me from voting.

Besides, this doesn't really affect me or my life, does it? It is convenient, I will admit.
posted by rocketman at 10:05 PM on November 11, 2004

It's a piss easy stance to take - remove this privilege, please? What, none of you adult heterosexuals want to get the state out of marriage? Haven't you ever thought of the advantages? What? Well, there aren't really any for you, but it makes us even with the gays...


He's talking about civil unions. Calm down. I, too, would be happy if marriage wasn't a state issue but a church issue. People of all sexual shapes and sizes should get a civil union license and a marriage license from the church of their choice (if it's important to them). The only benefits should be for those with a civil union, and they should be open to everyone.
posted by The God Complex at 10:13 PM on November 11, 2004

No, Democrats lose elections because they do not control the giant corporations that control the media, and Republicans have so thoroughly tricked people who are not as rich as they think they are into thinking that they're going to benefit by voting Republican.

They should hire you dude. You just solved all their problems in one paragraph. A paragraph of conspiracy 101 drivel, but awe inspiring none the less ;)

I am sick of people going AgendaFilter. What it should be called is Point of View Filter. An agenda is a list of things to do or of matters to be taken up at a meeting. Having a point of view is not having a list of matters to be taken up at a meeting. Agenda is Sethspeak for Point of View I Don't Like.

Well then find a word in between the two, because point of view filter just doesn't cut it. When a member constantly, sometimes daily, posts links pushing the same point of view
over and over again, calliing it their 'point of view' isn't whats happening. Maybe pleaseconverttomyvaluesfilter? Imgoingknockyouoverwithmypointofviewtillyouconvertfilter? No, I've got it. Crusadefilter! There ya go ;)
posted by justgary at 10:14 PM on November 11, 2004

rocketman:
i think I'll let your words stand where they are, whilst you get back in the buggy and trot off back to the homestead.

TGC: He's talking about civil unions. OK, so we leave the religious with concept of marriage. Before there was christianity/judaism/Islam, there was marriage. It isn't solely a religious institution, it's a social one hijacked by the religious bloc. I wouldn't want to denty that to any one: but what reason is there for that to become the quintessence of the ceremony on one day, then (typically in England) the couple never set foot in the church till the baby needs it's head wettened?

I, too, would be happy if marriage wasn't a state issue but a church issue. That doesn't work for atheists, tho' does it?

People of all sexual shapes and sizes should get a civil union license and a marriage license from the church of their choice (if it's important to them). The only benefits should be for those with a civil union, and they should be open to everyone.

Why not just call it marriage, TGC? That includes everyone - of christian, muslim, jewish belief or not, gay and straight, whatever. Just open it up: religious ceremony optional, state ceremony required for rights and responsibilities, pick any two non-related adult humans and your good to go. Why not?

Calm down.
Yeah, that always works in real life.
posted by dash_slot- at 10:39 PM on November 11, 2004

justgary - It's a shame you're not a reader.
posted by troutfishing at 10:43 PM on November 11, 2004

Maybe some people are just annoyed that a few posters feel compelled by the need to educate the rest of us. It's inconceivable that we exist outside of this space to them. Look! Right here! Care about this!!! As if my enjoyment of the occasional "meaningless fluff" means I can't also read a book, watch a documentary, have a meaningful debate with someone, or use a damn search engine to research issues on my own. But then I wouldn't get to act like a condescending jackass to people who disagree with me either.

A second not spent virtually scourging myself and splattering the rest of you with the blood over the evils of mankind is a second spent with my head in the sand, apparently. Best of the Web be damned.
posted by Cyrano at 10:46 PM on November 11, 2004

dash_slot, I just don't care about whether it's called marriage. As far as I'm concerned, the jesus types can have marriage and can make it as holy and anti-gay as they'd like (although clearly most religious people could care less, or at least a large number of them). I'm an atheist and I'd be happier if all the religious nonsense wasn't attached to marriage.
posted by The God Complex at 11:43 PM on November 11, 2004

Marriage or "union" or whatever.
posted by The God Complex at 11:44 PM on November 11, 2004

Is THIS what it's come down to?

You Metalkers sound pathetic, there was a time when MeTa was vibrant, not it's just...emm...THIS.

About every 6 months I go on a MeFi holiday, guess this thread is the day I say "goodbye" again...this is lame shit.

My apologies to everyone, but, Matt (we share that name), I don't get the urge to censor an outraged queer. THAT was what metafilter was great for, way back when.

I like hearing from Amber and Wolf when I need to have my hackles raised, and they usually do it eloquently. I loved metafilter BECAUSE it provided safe haven to outraged queers and fags. And niggers. And kikes. And dykes. And whores. And ... heck...everyone. I miss THAT metafilter.

And I miss the metafilter from a lifetime ago, the sad little guy who was 3,000 strong who held your hand when Pyra went under, who watched Meg and Jason meet, who watched you grow older and get handsome.

Plus, I also have a screen capture of the day Pyra went under, and you said some (drunkenly, methinks) things which you deleted and prolly NEVER want seen on here.

CHEERS!
--a different MATT
posted by red cell at 12:45 AM on November 12, 2004

We're not talking about personal opposition. We're talking about people *who might be gay* joining a political party that intends to add a provision to the U.S. Constitution--the first of its kind in history--that is designed to *deprive* people of rights.

I get sick to death of this. If gay marriage was legal in all the states of America (and I couldn't care less either way to be honest), I guarantee that there would be some other "right" that the militant stripe of homosexuals (a small minority of homosexuals as a whole) would start protesting about. The Group Polarization Effect would then radicalise homosexuals as a whole to fight for this brand-new made-up "right". Why has the issue of gay-marriage been brought to the public's attention only recently? Marriage has been around forever, and gays have been around forever.

Some people are sooooo in love with their self-appointed victim status. It's how many people identify themselves politcally, and try to gain influence through the idea of 'equality'.

Oh, and before you knee-jerk and call me a homophobe (for whatever reason), I have gay friends who share this point of view (in fact, it's where I got my point of view from).
posted by SpaceCadet at 12:53 AM on November 12, 2004

I like hearing from Amber and Wolf when I need to have my hackles raised, and they usually do it eloquently. I loved metafilter BECAUSE it provided safe haven to outraged queers and fags. And niggers. And kikes. And dykes. And whores. And ... heck...everyone. I miss THAT metafilter.

I like hearing from Amber and Wolf because they're Amber and Wolf. I'm sorry, red cell: though it's easy to agree with what you say, there's not a little tokenism in your complaint.

SpaceCadet: how strange (and unlike you, I'd say) that you so forcefully categorize people like you and me. You really shouldn't invoke your gay friends to legitimate your opinions - they're not a uniform group, you know, and are just as opinionated and different as you or me.

Really: i wish it was all about brunettes and blondes or psychotics and neurotics, be they male or female - it's not less stupid. Perhaps even a tad more useful.

Some people are sooooo in love with their self-appointed victim status.

I refuse to believe that you think such a thing. In love? Self-appointed? Status?

Huh?

If gay marriage was legal in all the states of America (and I couldn't care less either way to be honest), I guarantee that there would be some other "right" that the militant stripe of homosexuals (a small minority of homosexuals as a whole) would start protesting about.

I apologize if I misinterpret you but, like a lot of simplists, you seem to see other people, different from you, as out to gain something which they really shouldn't have.

Victims exist. Not every gay man is American, lives in California and reads MetaFilter. A lot are - in the fullest sense of the word - victims. For what?

Bigotry; ridiculous sexual superiority; the despicable comfort of belonging to the vast majority and the unacceptable largesse of being generous to those, in the classic token words, "less fortunate".

Love, desire and friendship are what matter, every single time, always. You are not required to express an opinion about sexual preference, nor is your condescending tolerance helpful.


Think about what you yourself find erotic. Now imagine the whole world judging and opining about your subjective quirks. And some woman or man granting you an "OK with me; I couldn't care less". Oh that really would be liberating, woulds it not?

(Apologies for the polemic tone, which I thought essential and you invited and deserved in any case. )
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:26 AM on November 12, 2004

Think about what you yourself find erotic.

Yes, I'm thinking about that.....I think about it a lot actually....

Now imagine the whole world judging and opining about your subjective quirks

The whole world? Who's making "uniform groups" now?!

Everybody who has an opinion on anything categorises to some degree. You have done it several times in your last post (read over it). I don't see anything wrong with this. I invoked the opinion of my gay friends to actually balance out my categorisation.

(Apologies for the polemic tone, which I thought essential and you invited and deserved in any case. )

No problem.......you keep things civil, and I'd rather have criticism of my opinion from you Miguel than some of the knee-jerks around here (ahhh, there I go again....categorising! :-) )
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:16 AM on November 12, 2004

The God Complex knows what I am talking about: a form you and your chosen partner fill out at the local county courthouse, get stamped by the nice lady behind the desk, and once approved, gives you this basket of legal rights. Then the people that are into Jesus go to a church and get married. As an atheist, I'd prefer it this way.

get back in the buggy and trot off back to the homestead.

You may consider that an insult, but I do not. Do you have something against people who live simple, rural lives? Does this lifestyle choice bother you?

Why not just call it marriage, TGC?

Why not just call it a civil union? It would seem that our disagreement is little more than semantic.
posted by rocketman at 4:19 AM on November 12, 2004

rocketman:
Simplicity and rurality are fine - my comment was to your smug and exclusive answers like "I don't care. Besides, this doesn't really affect me or my life, does it? It is convenient, I will admit.."

It isn't semantic, rocketman, when certain options are denied to people on spurious grounds. Any state institution open to gays should be open to straights - and vice versa. I couldn't give two hoots what the religious bodies do, say or think on this matter, in their own province. I care when or if they intervene to exclude non-believers from a secular institution: that simply is not their business. They retain the right to have marriage ceremonies, but they are the icing on the cake.

In the UK, we have a 2nd class system for gays about to be introduced, called Civil Parnership. It is not equivalent to marriage (particularly on pension rights), is not open to straight couples, and will die the death before long, when the call for equality becomes irresistible.

What is so frightening about equality? Let's not confuse people with new arrangements, 'alternatives' or parallels that will never have the same currency. If gay people believe in the concept of marriage, why would conservatives deny them that?

It sure is a topsy-turvy world sometimes. Republicans and conservatives arguing for division, cant and hypocrisy, gays demanding truth, equality and justice. Or has that always been the case?
posted by dash_slot- at 5:50 AM on November 12, 2004

I will apologize immediately for the tone of that comment. It was late, I was tired, and headed straight to bed after posting it. It was smug and exclusive, but it was also the only one.

I couldn't give two hoots what the religious bodies do, say or think on this matter, in their own province.

We agree on this.

I care when or if they intervene to exclude non-believers from a secular institution: that simply is not their business.

We agree on this, as well.

It isn't semantic, rocketman, when certain options are denied to people on spurious grounds.

Again, we agree. I don't believe certain options should be denied people on spurious grounds. I believe a "civil union" should be the standard for all relationships formally sanctioned by the government - it should grant all the rights currently given to those, gay or straight, who get married. It should be the same thing as marriage, really, but called something else.

I arrive at this position pretty honestly: in much of the reading I've done on this issue, the hangup most people have with "gay marriage" is that it's called "marriage." They don't care if gay couples have all the rights and privileges that straight couples have - in fact, in many instances, they want gay couples to be allowed to have those rights and privileges. They are hung up, it seems, on a word that to them has religious connotations.

The obvious solution, to me, is for the government to cede the word "marriage" to religious institutions (which I support), and delete the word "marriage" from the Marriage License application and replace it with "Civil Union." It still grants the same rights and privileges, and if a couple, gay or straight, wants to find a church to marry them, or if they want to have a private, non-religious ceremony to celebrate the formalization of their relationship, that's up to them.

As far as I can tell, it's been a semantic argument all along, and if most people would be willing to support a civil union with full rights and privileges, it seems to me that it would be a wise idea to jump at that opportunity, rather than scoff at a difference in word choice.

There is nothing frightening about equality. I understand that you are frustrated at what you perceive is the glacial pace of change on this, but I think you need to look at it from the other side of the coin too. If my uncle, a right-wing nut-job who lives a life safely buffered from homosexuals, a man who lives his life as though the Great Depression still hung over us, supports giving a gay man and his partner all the rights and privileges of what is now called marriage, but is uncomfortable calling it marriage, that's huge. It blows my mind that we've come this far, and it seems to me that a semantic difference would be a small concession on the part of the gay community in exchange for the huge distance many people have already come.

You and I don't necessarily disagree on the objective - equality. We just disagree on what is the best way to get there. We really are on the same side. I fully support gay marriage, straight marriage, whichever people prefer, and equal rights for gay and straight couples. And if what the government approves continues to be called "marriage," I'll live. I'd concede that for good people like you and amberglow to be able to pursue your happiness.

Now excuse me, while I climb back into my buggy... :)
posted by rocketman at 6:28 AM on November 12, 2004

Wow. I'm not sure if we've progressed or simply discovered that we agreed all along. Either way, I'm happy. About most of it. I just don't know if your analysis about the word is wholly true.

I think people like your right-wing uncle Nutjob are sound, but rare. If true, sod it - the bigots, to my mind can have the word.

But the practicalities are, that in order to get where we both seem to want to go, we have to abolish 'state marriage', and replace it with 'state civil union'. Church marriage remains, but has no legal effect.

Who would put that in their manifesto? I just don't see it happening. If a movement sprang up advocating such change, it would take a lot of sting out of the debate (as it has here, for me at least). But it won't be gays leading that campaign: the headlines will read - "Falwell was right: gays do want to destroy marriage!"

So, in the meantime, as no one else is campaigning for that, the fight for equality continues: pragmatic politics means that we, the gay community, simply cannot lobby for what would work best...When the straights, the GOP - or, over here, the Tories - and the churches begin that campaign, I'll support it. You have made a convert - for when the time comes. Until then, I support gay marriage - with no scare quotes. It's a beautiful thing.

Oh, thanks for the apology - it was late, and I was tired too (think GMT). Sorry about my snark, it was juvenile. Now - lets get back to outing folks! Quentin, where's my torch and pitchfork?
posted by dash_slot- at 7:11 AM on November 12, 2004

red cell: perhaps your vacation will give you a little perspective. If you perceive the "WolfDaddy" persona as an "outraged queer," you've misinterpreted it. I've never had or felt the need to use the 'net as a 'safe haven' for expressing my sexuality, nor the ideas and criticisms and humors and vulgarities and beauties that go along with it. The fact that I do express myself here so comfortably (though apparently not as clearly as I'd thought) is because that's the kind of guy I am in real life.
posted by WolfDaddy at 7:38 AM on November 12, 2004

I'm an atheist and I'd be happier if all the religious nonsense wasn't attached to marriage.

it's not, except if you want it. Marriage is a civil contract. Churches which perform traditional marriages demand to see the state-issued marriage license before they perform the service. You can have a religious ceremony without this, but you will not be legally married.

Marriage is civil union. The term just happens to be "marriage".

The God Complex knows what I am talking about: a form you and your chosen partner fill out at the local county courthouse, get stamped by the nice lady behind the desk, and once approved, gives you this basket of legal rights. Then the people that are into Jesus go to a church and get married. As an atheist, I'd prefer it this way.

Did you mean "I'd" or "I"? Because this is how it is.

Why has the issue of gay-marriage been brought to the public's attention only recently? Marriage has been around forever, and gays have been around forever.

yes, why did women only get the vote in 1919? Women and voting have both been around forever (voting off & on, but still). Or why was worldwide slavery only abolished a couple hundred years ago... hasn't freedom been around forever, blah blah blah.

The point is, it's only in the last couple decades that homosexuality has become somewhat acceptable in the post-puritan world. Marriage seemed like too big a fight to enter into for most activists, and of course, it was, and apparently still is. But that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
posted by mdn at 7:47 AM on November 12, 2004

Some people are sooooo in love with their self-appointed victim status.

you have got to be kidding me... pot, kettle, black, etc. prior to your short mefi-vacation & subsequent return you made a career out of usurping nearly every thread you participated in by bludgeoning us with your father's rights agenda, even when it was 100% not relevant to the discussion at hand. so really, you ought to be more understanding when it comes to other issues that impact people's lives so profoundly. that you're not, and that you drag out the old "i have lots of friends who are __" really lays you bare as a homophobe and a massive hypocrite.
posted by t r a c y at 8:50 AM on November 12, 2004

So, is this a discussion about whether it's useful to make posts like this? Or is it a discussion about gay marriage? How is this a [brown/gray], and not a blue? Does it even matter anymore what color the page is? And will people ever stop getting panties bunched over the question?

Just asking, 'cuz, you know, y'all seem to like to get so tweaked about what ought and ought-not be in blue, gray and green. [insert standard 'don't like it don't read it' throwaway]
posted by lodurr at 9:15 AM on November 12, 2004

scarabic: this suppressed underground shadow-culture...Well, thank you. I take your point, but it's quite a while since I lurked in any dungeons!

I know, dash_slot-, sorry if that sounded dark and severe. It was a tough point to figure out how to phrase.
posted by scarabic at 9:41 AM on November 12, 2004

t r a c y, stay on topic please. This thread is moving too far away from it's original question and by your tone I don't think you are particularly bothered about keeping things civilised.
posted by SpaceCadet at 10:31 AM on November 12, 2004

Why don't we all agree that marriage is something that Christians get to do, and pass a law that forbids Jew Marriage? Don't get me wrong, Jews can have civil unions, which are exactly like marriage except in name. It's just that marriage is defined as a special union between a man and a woman, blessed by Jesus. Why try to change the definition?

And hey, if a major player in the anti-Jew-Marriage (please note, this is anti-Jew-Marriage, not anti-Jew) campaign turns out to be a Jew himself, then I don't see what the big deal is. Because you can be a Jew and against the idea that Jews should be allowed to marry. That's perfectly logically consistent.

And you can be assured that everybody who supports these anti-Jew-Marriage proposals are doing so because they agree that government shouldn't be in the marriage business and the fact that they've started their crusade against the Jews is only a convenience. You gotta start somewhere, right? Might as well start with the Jews.

And as for the Jews who are complaining? Geez, don't even get me started. They are sooooo in love with their self-appointed victim status. I can't understand why they would want to use a forum of highly intelligent people (stop snickering) as an opportunity to spread their message. They should just accept that the world isn't ready for Jews to marry and get over it.

So yeah, I don't think we need a FPP for every anti-Jew-Marriage guy who doesn't "eat teh pork". Especially because they always remind me that people are not only opposed to my way of thinking, but also thinks the fact that we're passing laws to support these views is one of the biggest injustices that our country is perpetrating on its citizens today.
posted by turaho at 10:32 AM on November 12, 2004

t r a c y, stay on topic please.

Hypocrisy was a big part of the original topic.
posted by anapestic at 10:55 AM on November 12, 2004

t r a c y, blah blah blah, I don't think you are particularly bothered about keeping things civilised

omg you're so right, i conduct myself in such a wild and untempered manner here on the filter, how everyone's been able to bear it i'll never know. i'm a menace ! that was sarcasm, for the tone-impaired amongst us.

if you want to criticize people for certain behaviours then you bloody well better not be guilty of them yourself. that's on topic whether you like it or not.
posted by t r a c y at 12:09 PM on November 12, 2004

Well, heterosexuals seem to have strong opinions about this, but marriage is a union between two people of the same sex. Whatever is it that heteros want to do or have in the privacy of their own homes, I'm not against it. As long as they're not recruiting my kids, a man and a woman can do whatever they want as concenting adults. But marriage, as a sacred institution, is a union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
posted by scarabic at 2:50 PM on November 12, 2004

t r a c y, not even a nice try. You're looking for a tit-for-tat and I'm not playin'. Tough luck. Take a clue from Miguel.
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:19 PM on November 12, 2004

prior to your short mefi-vacation & subsequent return you made a career out of usurping nearly every thread you participated in by bludgeoning us with your father's rights agenda, even when it was 100% not relevant to the discussion at hand. so really, you ought to be more understanding when it comes to other issues that impact people's lives so profoundly.

I thought about this, too, when Space Cadet--of all people!--made that crack about playing the victim. People who've a priori lost it so spectacularly in both cases really ought to eschew patronizing advice to anyone on matters of decorum or being on topic. The rational act here is all act and no fact. In the sense of La Rochefoucauld's Hypocrisy is a tribute that vice pays to virtue, it's palpably insincere baiting.
posted by y2karl at 3:40 PM on November 12, 2004

Hypocrisy is a tribute that vice pays to virtue.

Burn!
posted by dash_slot- at 4:24 PM on November 12, 2004

People who've a priori lost it so spectacularly in both cases really ought to eschew patronizing advice to anyone on matters of decorum or being on topic.

y2karl, you seem to play the victim-as-citizen-under-Bush-administration in every FPP you make.

I see why your advice is available - you're not using it yourself.

OK, just so you know, allow me to indulge in this one lengthy paragraph since and I will shut about this matter: when a severe injustice happens to you and you've pursued all legal channels to no avail, you want to tell people - even strangers as well as friends. It's human nature. You scream it out to the world. Maybe to you that's "losing it" - fine - I'll go with that. And if it's only me that does that, then that's my warped nature - guilty as charged. So what? This is anything BUT wallowing in a victim status. It's reporting after the fact. Do you see FPP after FPP from myself regarding Fathers' rights, just as amberglow posts anti-Bush, pro-gay-marriage posts one after another (either implicit or explicit) over months and months? No you don't. That is the distinction I made. He's settled into his victimhood. I don't have an agenda. I said it as I saw it. I have avoided the topic of Fathers' rights on MeFi in the last 6 months or so (well I've been away too), because it's utterly fucking pointless. Fathers' rights are making very good progress anyway in the UK at least: it's now a mainstream topic thanks to louder, more vociferous voices than myself. I am happy about this. Progress made - F4J in all the mainstream media, Geldof on Channel 4 talking about fathers rights, domestic violence rates truly reported (34% are male) - even the 2nd male shelter opened 2 days ago in the UK - all good stuff - balance is being restored (I'm sure all you liberals are happy about this - no irony - no really, you should be). I know I must be a nut-job wacko for standing up for men's rights on MeFi (I just don't fit any Common Assumptions here) , but hey, I don't mind at all - I really don't. Feel free to insert your tired one-liner after.

OK, enough already! Somebody get this thing back on topic. I'm truly out of this thread and not coming back to it.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:57 PM on November 12, 2004

when a severe injustice happens to you and you've pursued all legal channels to no avail, you want to tell people - even strangers as well as friends. It's human nature. You scream it out to the world.

After all, SpaceCadet gets it.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:05 PM on November 12, 2004

Miguel, I hope you'll permit me to say you've been magnificent in this thread.
*doffs hat*
posted by languagehat at 6:36 PM on November 12, 2004

And I miss the metafilter from a lifetime ago, the sad little guy who was 3,000 strong who held your hand when Pyra went under, who watched Meg and Jason meet, who watched you grow older and get handsome.

Plus, I also have a screen capture of the day Pyra went under, and you said some (drunkenly, methinks) things which you deleted and prolly NEVER want seen on here.

Goddamit YEEERSH the good old days of shmmabba-shmabba wuzh duh greatesht!! All this fuggin... shit ain't fuggin' NOTIHN... y'all! Fuggin'... fuggit! suggit.. grahhhh..! *gurgle-gurgle* hic!
posted by scarabic at 10:26 PM on November 12, 2004

Maybe pleaseconverttomyvaluesfilter? Imgoingknockyouoverwithmypointofviewtillyouconvertfilter?

If you must, try--when I post on the topic--theInvasionofIraqwasabigfuckingmistakewhichisonlygettingworseandworsefilter

Do I have an interest in converting anyone to my point of view about that or similarly moot points like there is a Law of Gravity or the earth is not flat ? No.
posted by y2karl at 9:33 AM on November 13, 2004

"'Cause he so edgy."

All the kewl kids are saying it. It's teh shizzle, yo.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:35 AM on November 13, 2004