so, featured on joe.my.god the other day under the headline O'Reilly: Glee Will Make Kids Gay was the following clip:
i watched, and, as expected, nowhere did o'reilly even come close to saying he thought glee would make kids gay; his point, ham-handed as it was, was that kids tend to be influenced by the messages with which the popular culture chooses to bombard them, which could result in their experimenting with things they might otherwise not.
well, no shit, i thought.
there was a bigger point he coulda made, but he didn't. so i decided to.
is this a good thing or a bad thing? that's open to debate, but the fact that this phenomenon has held true for most every society that has ever tolerated homosexuality is undeniable to any student of history, so why should ours be different? the more thoughtful among us know this well, but most are generally cowed into silence by fear of the overwhelming shit-storm of denial, ridicule and accusations of hate-speech that'd be rained down upon them by the GLAAD and PC mafia (most of whom damn well know it, too) if they dared even bring it up for discussion.
and then there are the unreflective and/or stupid among us, who tend to react to any suggestion that there might be another side to their cherished little coin more like this:
from now on, when asked why i generally choose to isolate from the gay "community", instead of a long-winded explanation, maybe i'll just hand 'em a copy of this post. because, aside from sexual preference, i might as well be from another planet for all i have in common with these people.
5 comments:
Joe's headlines very often do make a great leap in degree from the actual content to a hyperbolic conclusion. And I'm a fan, because of the range of information he provides; I just read the actual story and bleep out the headline.
will: that wasn't actually my point here, but since you bring it up, what you would call "hyperbolic", i would characterize as deliberately inflammatory and misleading--red-meat headlines intended to fuel the biased rage of his readers. in this respect, i would say joe jervis no different than the "freepers" he so despises. he's a master at it, though, as even a cursory glance at his comments will tell you.
having said that, however, i gotta admit i'm in awe of the guy's superpowers. how he manages to singlehandedly turn out so much quality, wide-ranging content, day after day, year after year, i'll never begin to understand.
I suspect Joe has people who assist him gather some of his indeed "wide-ranging content." Much of it would include trolling a vast number of political blogs and partisan websites. I've even put him on to some stories every now and then myself.
He revealed once that he works intensively and then schedules his posts for automatic timed release so the impression is given that he's working on the blog all day. Another part of it is that he does most if not all of his professional work at home.
Well guttermorality is a quality product enjoyed by the most enlightened and rare of consumers.
That's one way to spin it.
The basic problem with many blogs is that people read them not to learn or be challenged, but to confirm their already oh so present biases.
I see that in lots of the broader news consumption. It is why people watch Fox News or MSNBC or go to worldnetdaily or redstate or huffingtonpost or dailykos.
So, guttermorality's marketing problem is that NO ONE could possible agree with the posts you have. Well, the political ones anyway are so enigmatic in their views.
If I had to pidgeon hole you, I would call you a gay libertarian with moralist tendencies and there just aren't that many people who can identify with that.
So, you piss off a lot of reflexive liberals. You are at your most effective when you are able to challenge liberals to look at their own biases. Having said that, being a contrarian is still a lonely rode. Fortunately for you, what you lack in readers, you make up for in available tricks.
noblesavage: couple things:
first, there is nothing in the least "enigmatic" about my views.
second, i'm not talking about the blog here--i'm talking about the tendency of most people to see only the upside of their positions and passions, and react badly to any suggestion that there are always two sides to any issue. as one who tends to immediately zero in on the unintended (or, often, intended but unacknowledged) consequences of everything, this unfortunate characteristic of human nature makes me weary.
Post a Comment