Aug 21, 2014
commented on "Five cops go drinking and shoot at a middle class black couple—whatever."
You said that Michael Brown:
"- Was a brazen strong-armed robber"
No, he wasn't. He paid for the cigars, but put them down and took a different type by reaching over the counter. The proprietor objected and followed him, but he did NOT report that Brown either stole the cigars or "strong-armed" him. The store owner declined to press charges or file a report of any kind. A three-second video excerpt does not prove your point.
"- Who physically challenged and threatened a store owner"
See above. He did nothing of the kind.
"- High on pot (at least)"
Your contention therefore is that he deserved to die for smoking pot? Seriously? I suggest you re-evaluate how your regard human lives. Do try to ignore the skin color issue if you can.
"- Walking down the middle of the road."
A road less than two blocks from his home, where there was minimal traffic and no danger to adult humans. Do you also believe that jaywalking should be a capital offense? (For anyone but yourself, of course) He might not have wanted to cross at the light. Do you feel that it's perfectly acceptable for white folks to do that without fear of deadly reprisal and only black people should have to follow the letter of the law?
You also said:
"Let's assume (for the sake of argument, pending the investigation), that you're a cop being charged by an aggressive (store video tape) young man, who is 6'3" and 290 pounds (about the size of an NFL tackle). That you're clearly armed and a cop means the person knows there are consequences for charging you. And he keeps coming. "
No. Let us NOT assume that because: 1) It's prejudicial and untrue. Brown did not charge. He stopped after taking a slug from behind and then turned around and put his hands in the air. 2) You are again attempting to set up a straw-man argument: you made an untrue accusation and then invited us to believe it only because it supports your point. You have no point. It's not true. You are either lying to us and yourself or you listen to Fox and Limbaugh, believe every foul, filthy lie they tell you and repeat it without a single effort to determine if what they say is true. I'm inclined to think it's both.
Also, you said:
"And yet this racist, black-killing cop simply been lucky to go six full years without ONE single complaint?"
Actually, Officer Wilson has been in trouble numerous times while working for different police departments in the St. Louis area. (There are approximately 55 armed police departments in the area, including several city, county, security and enforcement departments) The Ferguson PD chief instituted a policy whereby former disciplinary records of new (but veteran) officers would be destroyed upon transfer to his department. Unfortunately, he can't do a thing about the other department's records. Wilson has had numerous (over a dozen) complaints and disciplinary notations in his records. Short answer: he's hurt people before. He's not clean at all. Defending his actions is a zero-sum game. He has nothing to defend. He shot an unarmed citizen six times and murdered him for the crime of jaywalking and his refusal to be punched around for it. You, a privileged white man with money in the bank, prestige from your peers and relative safety from such a fate, find it hard to accept those facts and in fact feel entitled to sneer at Michael Brown. Naughty. It would be best to keep that sneer entirely private or someone might feel the need to wipe it off your face in a violent manner. Not I! I would merely stand back and applaud.
"- And so what do YOU think his attitude was when stopped?"
I would think that: when an armed man drove up next to me in his car and began cursing uncontrollably at me, grabbed my arm and tried to pull me into the vehicle, threatened to kill me and then got out to chase me as I ran away, I would be in very deep trouble. So I would do what Michael Brown did. When the first bullet hit my shoulder FROM BEHIND (the Ferguson PD finally admitted that their officer fired at least two shots at Brown as he was running away), I would have turned around and, like Brown, received four more shots in the front of my body, two of them into my face, one of those directly into my eye. Like Brown, I would be dead before I hit the ground. All for the crime of jaywalking and "resisting arrest." The last I heard it, was not a capital crime to jaywalk. Perhaps the officer felt differently. Perhaps the officer felt it was his privilege to pass judgement on a citizen and execute him for a socially-harmless infraction that normally would merit a ticket at most. Perhaps.
But the officer knew nothing about the incident at the store, so your argument that Brown was a "strong-arm" robber who roughed up and threatened a store owner does not apply to the officer's actions AT ALL. It is a straw-man argument: make a false accusation and imply that the subject is one and the same with the falsehood.
To imply, strongly, that anyone deserves to die for any or all of these is ludicrous and says much about you as a human being, that is: you shouldn't be trusted with weapons and you badly need therapy. Also, you're a bit of an anti-social jerk who believes only what he wants to believe and has enough prejudices and bad-to-the-bone bigotry to delight a room-full of Klansmen. (Is that your white sheet in the corner? Pick up your laundry. Your mother doesn't live here)
I note that you continue to argue your empty point. Understandable. Many people will continue to defend their beliefs even when buried under a mountain of evidence and irrefutable data proving otherwise. It has much to do with our ancient monkey-mind needing acceptance and prestige from its pack. You apparently are in need of praise from your ultraconservative friends and relatives and this extended dance of denial that you're performing for us is a method whereby you may impress those like you. Bragging rights, in other words, and oh how atavistic and primitive that is! Braggarts are rather boring, you know. So are putative humans who lack compassion, empathy or respect for anyone unlike themselves. I would suggest you burn your caveman clothes, throw away your beloved club, get some therapy and make an effort to become a 21st Century human being.
Or risk being eliminated from the survival sweepstakes. That happened a lot to primitive men, not because they weren't strong enough or brutal enough, but because no good tribe would have them and the few bad tribes that would usually ate them for dinner. Have you noticed that cannibalism is all the rage now on the far Right? No? Hmm, perhaps you should consult Eric Cantor.
Aug 21, 2014
commented on Savage Love
Um, Dan? UGH is definitely objectifying his trans woman SO. (Not girl. If she's above the age of consent, she's not a girl anymore. She's a woman. Please?) It seems apparent to me that UGH is really objectifying "teh trans" as one vector sum and that's a wee bit disquieting, wouldn't you say? Note lines like: "I hate my masculine features and like girl clothes and want to be "cute"." Hmm, sounds like he identifies, sort of, but only if he can be "cute." Then he goes on to say that he's not comfortable with either himself having female genitalia or with his SO having female genitalia. He doesn't want to seem like he's objectifying, he just thinks trans "girls" are "real cuties." With or without a penis? He doesn't say, but hey, that's the pink elephant in the room, isn't it? Is he attracted to her because she has a penis and will she cease to be attractive to him if she has the surgeries?
Apart from my annoyance at his asking for validation of his objectification of trans women, the word "conflicted" does cross my mind. I was kinda conflicted too at that age. But I'm seven years past transition, a late-stage trans woman who dithered because I was "conflicted" and paid the price. So did at least two of my SO's. Not good and my karma took a beating on both counts. I know theirs did, too. I wonder how important karma is to a conflicted youth who wants to be "cute" and wants his SO to be a cute "girl" with a penis? Time warp forward twenty years and it would be interesting to see just how well that mindset served UGH or any of his future partners.
Conflicts with one's self are the responsibility of the conflicted, not one's partner. Nor is it particularly ethical to impose that conflict on a loved one's life decisions. Parker Malloy is perfectly correct: these are not good signs to read and it might be best if UGH moved on to a nice cross-dresser who has no intention of ever having SRS. (Is it acceptable to use GRS instead? The surgeries don't really change one's innate sexuality, you know. Or perhaps you already do. Apologies if so) Then UGH can have his (warning: trigger word and used specifically as a derogative toward UGH and not professional sex-workers or trans women at all) "she-male" fantasy and everyone is happy except his former SO who would naturally feel pretty unhappy that a piece of flesh was the only thing her former boyfriend really liked about her. My hope for her is that she has a support system somewhat more reliable than UGH, because, well: ugh. I wouldn't trust him with change from the grocery store, much less my identity, either gender or sexual.
I'm a bit disturbed by this letter, partly because of UGH's denial of objectification (although we must give him points for at least asking about it. He still needs a little therapy to untwist that conflict), and partly because I empathize with UGH's SO. Too many of us late-transitioners waited because our loved ones liked our junk just the way it was and mountains of suffering resulted. Perhaps it's not so black and white for the younger trans folks today, but it seems rather presumptuous of UGH.
Nov 19, 2011
commented on On Glitter, Transphobia, and Hate Speech
Oh, dear me. My community certainly attracts the deeply disturbed, doesn't it? I think they call it 'co-morbidity'. Even our allies are radicals who would rather burn down Parliament than debate within its walls.
Let's give Danny the Voltaire treatment, okay? Disagree with what he says if you must, but defend unto the death, etc. In the meantime, what's wrong with minding our manners? Temper tantrums are so dreadfully boring.
Also: assault with a deadly weapon (a glass jar can be easily classified as such by any freshman ADA) is a particularly stupid way to make a point.
Mar 24, 2010
commented on Transgendered Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna Betrays His Community
Dear, me. This seems to be a topic that desperately needs to give birth to one thing or another: either the political point dear ol' Dan is trying to make (albeit clumsily) or the issue of whether Danny Boy is a transphobic A-hole.
Hmm. Mebbe we oughta pick one and stick to it? No? (sigh) Okay. One after another then. Logic tree? Yes, let's do that. Attendez, y'all!
IF: The WA State AG is in fact FTM...
THEN: Dan's comment, although snide, is perfectly valid
BUT: There appears to no validity to that position. (caveat: I couldn't follow the link in post #97. Someone please post a link indicating some veracity to this statement.)
THEREFORE: The comparison/analogy/metaphor/allegory/WTF is quite simply; bad writing. Poor journalism. Crappy reporting. You get an F on that one, Danny Boy.
(Being trans and having read your snide trans comments in the past, I felt a slight echo of temptation to take this personally and reduce you to radioactive vapor, Danny m'boy, but others are doing such a fine job in this regard, I felt it was unnecessary. Why bring a blowtorch to a barbecue? No, don't stick a fork in him yet, he's not quite done.)
Regarding the political aspect of his post (which was his original, if somewhat inarticulate intent, I think), we can proceed thus:
IF: The WA State AG (and other State AG's of Republican origin) are in fact douchebags for attempting to block the Health Care reform bill...
THEN: It's perfectly okay to use the same tactics and strategy that the Republicans have used on us to such great effect in the past, i.e.; slurs, libelous comments, outrageous claims and outright untruths.
FIRST COROLLARY: It's equally okay for all to use those tactics as well. All's fair in love, war, politics, business, etc, ad nauseum. Right?
BUT: No, actually it's not. To quote Harlan Ellison: "You lie down with pigs, you get up smelling like garbage." Personally, I don't want that kind of stink on me. It's harder to be better, smarter and faster than the opposition which is why most people opt for name-calling and behavior that should have been left behind in grade school. Easier to resort to flipping someone off and calling them a Nazi. Easier to ignore the fact that the other person is a human being, even if tragically wrong-headed.
THEREFORE: You fail on both accounts, Danny Boy. You failed to make a salient point and you failed to separate your transphobia from your intent. F on that one, too.
CONCLUSION: Dan Savage is not only a pretty bad journalist and political pundit (sorry, but you're right: writing the post in a hurry IS no excuse. Next time, do your homework earlier.), he's also a transphobic A-hole.
BUT: this is not news. Not to most of us here. He's left a permanent record establishing that point rather well, I think. (Pity. Your past work is going to bite you rather hard, dear boy. I hope you've laid in a supply of Neosporin. You're going to need it.)
Therefore (and it's a lowercase 'therefore' so it's personal, okay?), I can only say this:
You do not speak for me, Dan Savage. You do not speak for my community. You do not speak truth. You do not speak courteously. You do not speak with intelligence. Therefore, you should be ignored as much as possible, bully pulpit notwithstanding.
(sigh) To think that you should be considered an ally distresses me greatly. I'd as soon bunk with a pit viper.
Michelle Diane Rose