report this user
Jun 27, 2009 auslander11 commented on Michael Jackson, Mon Amour.
HA! The article was good, but someone taking it seriously was even funnier
May 31, 2009 auslander11 commented on Wind It Up Already.
I suppose this hits the crux of a problem reviewing music. As the music changes, it'll grab new fans who don't care how they sounded 10 years ago. When they lose that 'groundbreaking' edge, it's easy to say that they've gotten worse, but you're gonna get slammed by those young 'uns who are into them NOW.

I mean, kudos to them for going out and doing what they do, but my first experience with 'em was Music for The Jilted Generation (then going back to Experience), and after that, Fat of the Land (and all following) was a letdown. Just let me put "Their Law" on repeat, and I'll happily ignore everything since.
May 31, 2009 auslander11 commented on Fuck You, Amazon.
#2: One or the other?! Are you insane? Clearly it's both! Obviously video games lead to real-life behavior, which is why there are LITERALLY millions of carjackings and murders every year by those who've played any of the Grand Theft Auto games. Why, you can hardly walk down a street without seeing a young hoodlum jump out in front of a car, drag the driver out and drive off, only to have the same thing happen to him about 20 yards further down the road. It's the apocalypse - THE APOCALYPSE, I SAY! Goodness, it's great that there are still some of us around who can tell the difference between reality and fantasy while rightly pointing out that NO ONE ELSE CAN. Keep up the good work, I say - but don't understate it! Clearly any simulation of any activity performed by anyone EVER is going to cause them to run out and do the real thing!
May 31, 2009 auslander11 commented on "You are a piece of shit media WHORE who will do ANYTHING to get on TV and you brutally exploit the child you adopted to cash in.".
"about how Jon and Kate choose to live their lives 'according to [their] own rules and standards, rather than adhere to someone else's tired old ethic.'"

If anyone thinks that raising kids "according to your own rules" is somehow sacred, I hope that they're sterilized, lobotomized, and never left alone with a child. Peoples' "own rules" lead to kids being prayed for while they die, rather than receiving medicine. Kids being beaten or raped. Kids being left to do whatever they want because their parents didn't count on actually having to BE parents. Or kids being recorded all day because mommy and daddy want that paycheck while their marriage implodes. There are a lot of stupid people out there, and if someone starts pretending that it's OK to victimize someone else just because they're offspring, then that parent needs to be taken out of that situation.

My first real-life experience with an "open relationship" was my in-laws (ex-in-laws? Whatever, the reason for the sarcasm quotes will be obvious in a moment to anyone who knows anything about an open relationship.). Mother, it seems, had taken a lover who had moved in with them and sired a kid with her. Dad couldn't leave her, so was forced to deal with it. And being unable to take a stand against the new man, since that might well mean she'd be leaving with him, created a situation where it was Mommy, Daddy and the other guy vs. the original 2 kids. The new guy didn't give a shit about the kids that weren't his, and since none of the 'adults' in this scenario would stand up to him that meant that to any one adult, any other adult was more important than either of the original children of the relationship. That is not hyperbole - I believe the exact words were "I chose to marry her - you just happened." I'm sure you can imagine that this didn't create a positive impression of that lifestyle for anyone involved.

That's what happens when one halfway intelligent person with no self-respect and two people without functioning brains decide they're going to live according to their own rules.

However, none of the criticism of Dan (with whom I disagree about a number of things, this article not being one of them) is well-founded. Point-by-point?

"You write about having an open relationship, so your child will hate you for it."

Hundreds of authors do that. Not everyone is a sexually-repressed prude who will forget decades of love and support 'cause their parent or parents didn't have a traditional lifestyle sexually.

"You write about sex - period - and some day your kid will find that out and hate you."

OK, now THOUSANDS of authors do that, and many more graphically than Dan (at least in the first-person). Would the kid be a little grossed-out? Quite possibly. Hate Dan for it? Only if he's got some pretty severe mental issues to start with. But those sorts of problems usually start with a ridiculously repressed upbringing, so no worries there. Might wanna watch out for yours, though.

"Kids don't wanna think about their parents having sex, but you write about it, including your own experiences, and he'll hate you for that!"

See above.

And finally, the dumbest of them all - the 'exploitation' argument:

"You've mentioned your child in the context of works that have garnered you money and/or fame - thus you're exploiting him to some degree!"

I would like you, now, to spend the rest of your lives repeating that to every writer, actor, politician, public speaker, teacher or blogger who has ever used the fact that issues that happen in their family might relate to other people - or that issues that other people are discussing might have an effect on their families personally. I doubt that would happen, though. More fun to troll blogs and then apply a standard that doesn't have anything in common with the definition of the word to annoy other people.

To exploit is: "use or manipulate to one's advantage". Getting your lesbian daughter to agree to a photo op while campaigning against gay marriage is exploitation. To mention an anecdote regarding one's family in order to segue into a topic to show that it has a personal effect on you is just a common conversational technique.

If you happen to have an IQ under 90, here's a quick way you can tell them apart. If you actually have to get someone to do something, whether or not they would personally want to, it's exploitation. If the person isn't even involved other than as a subject of conversation, it's not.

So, "mentioning you have a son, and that you think you're a good dad": not exploitation (note that the kid didn't have to do anything, it's sort of key, there, since it's impossible to use or manipulate someone who's not even freaking present)*.

Putting your kid on TV so you can make $50,000/episode: exploitation.

Getting your kids to go out and publicly apologize for you: exploitation.

Bringing your kids up on stage when you're publicly disgraced in an attempt to get sympathy: exploitation.

Are ya spotting the differences yet? Now, if Dan IS guilty of exploitation (which isn't impossible, I'm open to that) then unlike what anyone's said here, it's quite possibly part of the most cunning, long-ranged and diabolical plan EVER - to exploit not the child (which is pretty much impossible, as pointed out above), but to exploit the entire system that allows for homosexual couples to adopt. The plot involving adopting a child, refusing to either put him out in public just to show off or force him to perform like a trained seal, and then BY BEING GOOD FATHERS, point out how much better they were than some heterosexuals.

And no doubt when the kid is older, we'll all applaud the foresight of those who called it when the kid rebels, saying, "Curse you for being kind, loving and supportive of me, for not using me for your own gain when you had the chance and for letting me grow up in a nurturing environment where I could become the person I was truly meant to be! It was all part of your elaborate gay charade; you kept me from becoming a repressed, small-minded, bigoted, superficial, celebrity-worshiping moron by giving me real adults, real parents to aspire to, to admire and emulate, rather than famous faces on TV and in the movies! And all so that you could point out that you were such great fathers - not by actually trotting me out like a show dog so you could let everyone see, but by doing the exact opposite. I'll show you, dad(s)!"

SO DEVIOUS! To have exploited the entire system of adoption by being great parents! What right have they?!

Yes, when that day comes, you all can say, "Ha, ha! I knew it!" but until then, all you've got are incredibly stupid premises for incredibly stupid arguments.

. . .

Oh, wait! No, I get it. How obtuse of me! It's a code, right? He's 'exploiting' the child, because he's gay . . . but when Nancy Grace can't shut the fuck up about her kids while trying to incite her followers into a frenzy about killing someone who hasn't even been on trial yet (that's about 90% of her episodes, isn't it?) - that's just so we know where she's coming from, right? OK, OK, I got it now. Duh! Gosh, sorry. I missed the memo on "that's how we're going to mask our homophobia TODAY." Sorry, my bad.

* Lest someone pull the stupidest argument of all out "To exploit is to use or manipulate? Well, there you are, then! He IS using the child - as an example of the adopted children of homosexuals! That's using him!" the definition of 'use' in that context is: "exerting shrewd or devious influence especially for one's own advantage". Again, impossible to 'exploit' someone who isn't even a party to the exploitation.