Jun 2, 2011
commented on SL Letter of the Day: COD
@7 You might be right, but for the "he pines for her and makes attempts to get her back, including shit-talking me even though I have never met the guy. He has a secret Facebook persona so he can keep tabs on her and communicate behind his wife's back." The LW should not have to put up with his GF being in any kind of a relationship with an ex who is doing those things.
Oct 25, 2010
commented on Re: "The Silence of the Lambs"
@ Richard Bott - you are an eloquent, measured and passionate advocate. Viewed within one frame of reference, your actions and words have unquestionably done good in the world. For those things I respect you.
That said, it seems clear that you believe a few things to be capital-T "True":
(1) That there is a god -- a supreme being who has consciousness, created the universe and takes an interest in human beings.
(2) That a human being who lived a couple of thousand years ago was in some way either the son of that god or an aspect of him/her/it.
(3) That the words and actions of that human being allow us today, if we look at them correctly, to get closer to more capital-T "Truths".
Am I correct that you believe those things to be true? If so, I believe that in the broader frame of reference, you are and will always be doing harm. Why should I, or anyone else, believe that YOUR intrepretation of the words and actions of this human being/son of god/prohet are right, while all those other folks out there, the ones who say that the derived "truth" means that homosexuals will burn in hell, among other wonderful things, are wrong?
Everyone has a right to believe whatever they want to believe. That does not mean that every fact that every person "believes" in is worthy of the same respect as every other. I can believe that god created the world in a week a few thousand years ago and for whatever reason chose to sprinkle his/her/its creation with millions of telltale signs that something else entirely happened. I can believe that a flying blob of spaghetti reached down its noodly appendage and did all the same. I can believe that George W. Bush had the best interests of humanity and the United States in mind when he chose to invade Iraq. I can believe that Paz de la Huerta has a really nice rack. People may believe all these things with equal fervor, but one of them is more likely to be true than the others.
Without some common frame of reference in which to discuss and test the likely truth of these matters, we cannot really even start a discussion. Once you restrict your frame of reference by saying "no matter what the evidence may say, I believe X," the discussion is really at an end.
Oct 22, 2010
commented on Savage Love
@183 - Thank you for amply demonstrating your selective reading and intense bias. Really? "crippling fear of further consequences makes you uninterested in pursuing legal action"). Where exactly was that part in the letter? Oh, that's right, nowhere -- it's just your little "fill in".
Your "victim-blaming" and "victim-hating" accusations ring incredibly hollow here folks. Nobody on this thread, and certainly not Dan, blames PTSD for being assaulted. We all think it's horrible and tragic. She needs help. The issue, though, is that AS BETWEEN HER AND HER HUSBAND, SHE'S NOT HIS VICTIM.
Oct 22, 2010
commented on Savage Love
@Polly, Beestings and Joreth
You came over from Shakesville, didn't you?
NOTHING in the PTSD's letter or Dan's response suggests that the husband does or should "own" her sexuality or her time. God what horseshit.
You all have serious reading comprehension issues - break out of your little bullshit echo chamber and look around at some other real human beings.
Dan's advice is exactly right. To paraphrase:
1. Sexual assault is awful.
2. Being the victim of a sexual assault does not entitle you to treat anyone who is not your attacker badly.
Oct 2, 2010
commented on A God of Love
@47 - You're absolutely right that it's impractical to imagine that we can cleanse the world of religion, however much we might like to. As you say, I was being intentionally over the top in order to make a point about notions of tolerance.
I do not advocate actual violence or physical destruction. Nor, though, do I advocate giving "moderate" religionists a pass on their irrationality and hypocrisy in the name of tolerance.
I am glad that there are people out there who, DESPITE the fact that they believe whacked out supernatural stuff, nevertheless arrive at a loving, accepting, kindhearted way of being. That doesn't mean I think it's OK that they believe and act on irrational ideas, or that I must tolerate their belief structure, in the face of the great harm it has done and is doing.
Oct 1, 2010
commented on SL Letter of the Day: Almost Sorry
Fuck tolerance. The reason we have the situation we are in is that we liberals suck the idea of "tolerance" with our mothers' organic breastmilk. Tolerance is bullshit.
You know what I have no tolerance for? Hatred of others based soley on who they choose to love. I don't tolerate assholes who tell kids they will burn in hell if they touch themselves. I don't tolerate dirty old men with hate themselves and everyone else so much that the only way they can get off is buttfucking helpless little boys. I have even less tolerance when those same motherfuckers oppose the distribution of condoms that will save tens of thousands of lives.
What else? I don't tolerate it when self-important, entitled little fucks, pumped up with self esteem by their hateful "christian" helicopter parents, drive confused, sad, sensitive kids to kill themselves by demeaning them, hitting them, spitting on them, spying on them, raping them and perpetrating thousands of other cruelties day in day out. The stupidest thing I have heard said is that "These situations are a tragedy for everyone involved." Fuck that shit. These situations are a tragedy for the victims. The perpetrators are a waste of air.
Oct 1, 2010
commented on A God of Love
@20, 24 & 30
I have no patience for people like John Shore who, because they are "believers," try to work within the perverse, irrational constructs of organized religion, even, really particularly, were I happen to agree with the social perspective they are championing. He is picking and choosing every bit as much as the bigoted assholes he is attempting to (but will not) convince.
Moderate apologists for religion are more dangerous than radical fundamentalists. They insist that their fucked up magical thinking bullshit beliefs must be "tolerated" and perpetuate irrationality and stupidity thus perparing the ground where the seeds of radicalism grow and flourish.
Moderate, socially liberal religion is a trojan horse. Burn it.
Sep 27, 2010
commented on Don't Be Such A Fucking Dick, Faggot
Anyone who could call Dan a misogynist after reading and listening to him even a little is NOT PAYING ATTENTION. It'd stupid, shallow, unenlightened pedantry.
And Rhymes, let's not get into a debate about the historical context of different kinds of bigotry. Bigotry is bigotry and making the world safe for even a little of it is not a smart thing.
Stupid, vile, hateful people deserve to be called stupid, vile, hateful names.
Sep 14, 2010
commented on Tax the Filthy Rich!
"The new income tax on the 38,400 wealthiest Washingtonians . . . "
I have no problem at all with making the tax structure more progressive in a manner that actually gets to the "wealthiest". The problem is that the above sentence is absolutely wrong. What this tax will do is hit the 38,400 (or howver many) HIGHEST INCOME Washingtonians. Those are not the wealthiest -- although there may be some overlap.