Comments
Please wait...
and remember to be decent to everyone
all of the time.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Re: The Iraq war...I was also "for it before I was against it," mainly because I stupidly believed some of the rhetoric, and because I was so appalled by what had happened, and didn't connect the dots in the right way at first. It's okay to admit you're wrong, though. I don't think Republicans do that very often. I was wrong about it, and I've never voted Republican, either.
What stumps me is that I consider myself fairly conservative in my views and I'm pretty much pro everything Dan states here (assuming "parostition" is "prostitution"). One thing Dan does that a lot of liberals don't is tout personal responsibility. The republicans pay a lot of lip service to personal responsbility but don't actually do anything about it. Unless yanking the rug out from under the feet of the poor & disenfranchised counts as doing something about it.
... and I'M fuckin' brilliant!
Your political ideology is determined by your manner of discourse, not your political ideology.
Congratulations again and best wishes today.
Sorry, Republicans, not all Democrats want to live in a hippie commune where everyone jointly raises the kids and has orgies or lives in three/four/five/+dog relationships.
(@1, remember Dan's in the Eastern time zone today, and has been awake for awhile, here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/live
Now I'm clicking that link of yours, and hoping to see Dan in a Tom Ford suit...
I went over there, read the post, and some of the comments, and I have to say that's some high quality intellectual wankery goin' on over there! When I looked there was a spirited debate as to the correct definition of "radical" complete with people busting out the Latin roots.
I think that as you gain a wider and wider audience this sort of thing is inevitable. People are going to pick apart everything you say and do, either at the dinner table or on their blogs. The folks over on LG&M appear to be fairly Marxist in their point of view, so by contrast you might as well be Margaret Thatcher. But really, reasonable people every where, know that you are not a Republican.
Doh, why won't the White House Live Stream work on my phone, gus?
I believe the people in the background onstage are kids and parents, and in the foreground are a few of the academics invited, who from the sound of it have been doing solid studies on bullying for a decade or more.
I didn't tune in early enough to see the Obamas' opening remarks, the only time the schedule shows them appearing at the conference today, but a fun online White House watcher did, and noted:http://www.whitehousedossier.com/
If it's any consolation the conference seems very focused on the academics rather than media leaders, so it's possible Dan may not get a spotlight.
I love the comment about how "Having two dads means x2 the Patriarchy!"
Gaia, save us from your followers.
"I’d argue that the problem with ... Savage’s writings, is ... that the battle to win is one with patriarchy (or other single enemy) and not against a wide array of interconnected conservative values that includes patriarchy broadly defined, but also neoimperialism, structural racism, developmentalist attitudes toward nature, emphasis on property values and white homeowner populism, homophobia, etc., etc., etc."
Right, because a sex advice column is a perfect platform to assault all those things.
Reading the comments there was nearly as trying as reading the comments on some Feministing article about Dan that he linked several months back. I find all that earnest idealism, completely ungrounded in practical suggestions, to be totally blinding.
The summary for me is: "I agree with Dan Savage about the one or two social issues I've seen him cover in his sex column, but he is totally silent on these eight other very abstract things that I care deeply about. Because of this, I see him as an enemy. Because of that, I see him as a Republican. Because of that, I dismiss him. Fie, Dan Savage!"
What a load of horse shit.
Some starting Lakoff-ian principles:
1. Both conservatives and liberals "value" family, but the former places more emphasize on a hierarchical one the obeys the father, whereas liberals recognize different familial structures and try to nurture children rather than police them. An "ideal" conservative family renders the mother a child vis-a-vis the all powerful husband, whereas an ideal liberal family values "co-parenting," equity, teaching children to be themselves and question things, etc.
2. Contemporary progressives lose, lose, and lose again because they operate within conservative framing of issues--responding both within conservative assumptions and with conservative talking points. This I find to be pervasive and maddeningly frustrating!
3. Conservatives and liberals place higher "value" on different things, with the former prizing purity/hierarchy/loyalty and the latter decenty/fairness/equity, Because of this distinction, these groups often talk past each other because they fail to realilze that they prize different values as "moral." (I would argue that liberal values are a higher order of morality because conservative values by defintion lead to internal policing and the exclusion/repression of those deemed "outside" and thus a threat, to the ingroup. But, that's an aside...)
In sum: If you find yourself ceding the moral high ground to the right, particularly the GOP, you need some time with Lakoff.
Also: You and Sarah Palin are the same age LOL.
Also, voting is not the highest expression of our values (or at least it shouldn't be.) The life you live is. Voting--particularly in this country--is too often a pragmatic decision among unattractive alternatives.
— Dr. Seuss
Dan, I think this describes you perfectly!
Muwah! xoxo
Or something. I don't even know. Hyper feminists are insane people.
Too ill to comment extensively; I should be in Madison right now, locking down the Capitol. Fuck this flu.
In other words, not only do you fail to whine about the thin-privileged patriarchy of rich white men at every turn, you actually call bullshit on that kind of nonsense, which to the extreme-left fringe makes you Phyllis Schlafly with a penis.
Oh and you're a white male, which is basically a million strikes against you.
2) You'd be a Libertarian if you knew anything about economics. :)
the troll empathizes, Danny.
we always have regretted not being able to book passage on the Titanic.....
but don't feel too bad-
shilling for Blobama is actually better than voting for Carter...
Danny ever voted for were
a Good'ol Boy Southern Bubba who passed DADT
and
the "homosexuality=bestiality/child rape" Farce Advocate?
Really?
Danny, is it SelfLoathing or Stupidy that animates your choices?.....
Good radical liberals know that parents/kid/"nuclear family" look-alikes are conservative ideas. Also, all ideas/positions are defensible, but some are less radical than others (and so, less cool).
Dan gives advice which obviously means he believes his white, male opinion is better than someone else's. He also has a partner and a kid, which is like waaaay normal conformist.
"Lame!" shout the radical feminist Marxist hipper cooler true lefties, who then pause to mutter, "Wait, lame sounds judgemental and childish... Ok: Conservative!"
There should be a Godwin's Rule analog for this.
It's everyone having the same health insurance and the insurance is run by a single company.
That's right. Gay marriage is going to *save* marriage. I think gays should use this as a tactic when conservatives start complaining about the destruction of marriage. Allowing gays to marry will save their sacred institution from philanderers like Newt Gingrich who shit all over it every day.
Me: Reagan, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama
Personally I think there has been little to no progress in American politics since about 1970, and they're still fighting the same fights. Why else would "have you ever smoked pot" or "did you fight in Vietnam" still be valid questions for a presidential candidate?
...except the profits of the health insurance industry, which is, of course, why it must be prevented.
This despite that it is the primary system of every. single. industrialized nation save us--and those countries have better outcomes and lower costs. Even better? No one in those countries EVER goes bankrupt or loses their home because someone in their family couldn't afford surgery, or got cancer and had an insurance company drop them...
If Danny WAS pro-science he would accept the medical community's verdict on the best way to prevent STDs.
No....
Your Danny is an ignorant pussy who follows his own theological beliefs in the face of science.
And it kills thousands of homosexuals every year.
I have, on occasion, voted GOP, when the Democratic candidate was a Larouchite (as in Lyndon Larouche). Sometimes, the choices are between a crook (Joe McDade), and crazy (Larouchite).
Can't believe so many people are asking what "single-payer" means. I was always too embarrassed to admit I didn't understand what "single-payer" was during the runup to the health care bill, but I figured it out eventually.
yeah- dumbass liberals don't know what the fuck 'single payer' is but they're sure they want the 'rich' to buy it for them....
They wish so hard that they had a little red book that everyone must memorize and agree with, but the complexity of plurality in the Left makes them wail and gnash their teeth.