Blogs Apr 29, 2015 at 8:50 am

Comments

1
I don't know anything about the law except for what I see on TV, but isn't this the time when the judge is forced to recuse himself?
2
Well, we all knew he was thinking it. I just thought he had enough sense to not say so out loud.

Then again, I'm not all that surprised.
5
A perfect quote for Scalia to lead with in the decision or dissent, whichever way the case is decided.
8
Is there any reason for me to come to the defense of Justice Scalia, whose jurisprudence I disagree with in almost all circumstances and whose bullying style I find reprehensible? Probably not, particularly when I will face only derision in this group of Savage Love fans, who I consider my peeps. Add to it that I am almost always in tune with what Jeffrey Toobin says, and I am really unnecessarily out on a limb. But after listening to the audio a few times, and the entire courtroom's reaction to it, it sounded to me like Justice Scalia meant it more as quip on the usual solemnity of the Court's proceedings and formality of the day. I wish we could ask one of the other Justices whose judgments we might trust a bit more what their take was (such as Ginsberg, Sotomayor or Kagen). In any event, I think we will have plenty of real criticism to direct to Justice Scalia when he writes his dissenting opinion in this case.
9
@6: If you cry just a little bit more, it might make your opinions relevant again, or you less impotent to do anything about equal rights for gays.
11
@8 - I agree. More likely, he was just drawing ironic attention to the protestor's directness and non-legalistic language, in contrast to the narrow, technical arguments before him. Scalia is actually a pretty funny guy. He's dead wrong most of the time, but I don't think he's a bigot of the same stripe as that protester.

...Aaand @4, @6 - it's seattleblues! Like a demented malignant genie, he materializes when the topic is anywhere near gay marriage. You may be momentarily right on this one, SB, but as usual, you overstate everything and try to imply that you're more intelligent and better informed than people you simply disagree with - Savage, Toobin, Sotomayor, etc. Among the mouthbreathers you probably associate with, I'll bet you're among the smartest. But you're not in the same league with any of the people you're denigrating. Neither am I, but at least I'm smart enough to admit it.
12
Shouldn't that bloated fuck have to recuse himself after this? He just showed obvious bias and that he can't make a fair and dispassionate judgement.
13
Reading the comments and thinking about it for a while, i'm okay giving the judge the benefit of the doubt here - he could have meant refreshing as in, finally someone's stating plainly what their opinion is, rather than wrapping it in legalistic jargon and strained arguments. A liberal justice could have said the same thing, meaning "it's refreshing - even clarifying - to hear someone state in plain language what this is all about. Now let's just remember what our job is here."
14
We're dying to know Seattleblues - is it you who's pictured in this article under the name "Jonathan Sutter?" You got to admit, it's a stunning likeness.

http://www.thestranger.com/news/feature/…
16
@12

Well, you showed all those things about yourself, at any rate.
17
@15 - first time I've gotten a rise out of you, SB. Maybe you're right, but I could swear I see you comment on gay stuff more than anything else. Anyway, be that as it may, thank you for a moment of honesty/humility regarding Sotomayor, at least. In return, I take back the 'mouthbreathers' comment. I don't know anything about your associates. But while I (perhaps) have your attention... what is it, seriously, with you about Dan? He's so obviously a well-meaning person. It's true he rants at homophobes and calls them names, but it's absolutely accurate to say that in each of those cases, Dan is just returning fire with fire. What's your motivation? You've been accused in these threads before of being a closeted homosexual; honestly, I have to admit, I don't really see any other explanation for your personal animus toward Dan Savage or the 'homosexual agenda'.

if it's not that, what is it?
18
@10 blib is right, of course. @11 (first paragraph) and @13 both wrote the point more clearly and accurately than I did.
19
What I can never get over is that Scalia and Ginsburg frequently vacation together. Once you put aside your ideological differences, I'm assuming he's a fun guy to have a few cocktails with, but still. I'd much rather imagine RBD sneaking some loogies into his morning Starbucks.
20
I think I might have hit a little too close to home for Seattleblues. He's vanished. It's like when agent Starling asks Dr. Lecter to turn his analysis on himself; he shuts down and tells Starling to fly away. (This is of course unduly complimentary to SB, since Lecter was supposed to be a genius.)

I predict that if SB shows back up again in this thread, he will fail to provide a coherent reason for why his disagreements with Dan are so personal and accusatory.
21
Aw man, I missed Seattleblues's posts.
Seriously, where was this level of post moderation back when Juche was basically perpetuating the blood libel here on SLOG? As of this posting, Juche's blatantly anti-Semitic posts are still up (35 in this comment thread alone, most of them seriously offensive) and I'm pretty sure he's not been b&. And Seattleblues just calls gays mean names and gets all supercilious when questioned. It's not like he's accusing a minority demographic of cannibalism and genocide, because THOSE posts get to stay up!
22
@21 - is that you, VL? How did you get your name letters all upside down like that? That is cool.

And but wait - post moderation? Where's that going on? I ain't moderatin' nuthin'. I'm just poking the house troll.

Lastly - I just read Juche's comments. Holy farging shite. That is some serious old-school batshit-crazy antisemitic paranoia going on there. Is he banned now?
23
@21 Yeah I missed Subhumanblues's post too. My guess as to why it got pulled is that once again Subhumanblues went after Dan and Terry's son. Subhumanblues frequently goes after Dan & Terry's son when the topic is about marriage equality and gay/lesbian families. And often those comments are down right frightening.

Given the oppurtunity Subhumanblues would jump at the chance to pull the kid out of his nice safe secure and stable upper middle class life and toss him into the uncertain care of the State.

It is personally threatening to a minor who is not a participant in the conversation and way out of bounds. Slog is right to pull Subhumanblues's comments when they threaten to harm a minor.
24
Oh my goodness! I had no idea. I guess maybe SB is not such a harmless troll after all.
25
@20

Vanished? Nah. Vulgar, profane, abusive- all those are tolerated here. See @3,7 and 12 for examples, just in this thread. Lying and abuse as @23 are fine. Saying outright stupid things like Republicans are all racist- no problem there since it's done all the time. All Johnon ever writes is 'you're stupid' and often expressed wishes for suicide or death in those he dislikes. Compkrtely without content except abuse, but no abuse of comment policy there!
.
But disagreement with the polemics or especially any criticism whatever of Saint Savage? God no! And any other view but that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are special snowflakes nobody can say anything but congratulatory things about will not be tolerated here!

Nice worldview Stranger, that can't endure any questioning at all.

@23

Blah blah subhumanblues blah blah. But ya know, skippy, you might actually know what was written before commenting.
26
@24

You did actually read the comment pulled. And didn't see any comment about the boy in Savages custody. As usual MWS is lying. Unusually he/she is not even pretending to know what I wrote before lying about it..
27
Fucking catholics.
28
Like @8 and @11, I abhor Scalia's votes, especially since he's so damn smart and yet uses his knowledge of the law (and his wit) to retard progress. But in the audio, the "refreshing" comment seemed to be about the outburst in a staid stuffy setting, not about the content of the outburst.
29
The problem here is that humor is all about the tone and inflection. Especially sarcasm.
30
@22: I'm multi-boxing.

@25: As I've said to you many a time, people are perfectly allowed to dissent from and even insult Stranger writers. I've demonstrated this plenty of times, as have so many other SLOGgers. Even vulgar, profane, and abusive language is usually tolerated, as evinced by the post history of people like collectivism_sucks and You Gotta Be Kidding Me and sometimes even 5280 (RIP, you witty old cuss).
What's not allowed? As an approximate rule, your posts are likely to be deleted if you use slurs or hate speech (and yes, that includes pejorative use of words like "fag", "dyke", "tranny" et cetera, in addition to the panoply of disparaging words describing ethnicities) or presumably if you post people's private information, directly incite violence, or make real-world threats. And it's insane that this has to be its own category, but the usual reason for your posts being deleted (other than excessive use of homophobic slurs) is because you go on a rant about how Dan and his husband are ruining their son's life by being gay parents. That may not be the reason for every post pulled, but I've seen it happen enough that you've got a track record of doing so in my book.

And you say that Machiavelli was framed was lying in post #23? Dear me, I really must ask what you think he was lying ABOUT! Let's go through the post in its entirety:

"@21 Yeah I missed Subhumanblues's post too. My guess as to why it got pulled is that once again Subhumanblues went after Dan and Terry's son."
See, the given reason for your post being pulled is presented as CONJECTURE, as a guess, not as fact. No lies there.
"Subhumanblues frequently goes after Dan & Terry's son when the topic is about marriage equality and gay/lesbian families. And often those comments are down right frightening."
I present Exhibits A, B, and C.
"Given the oppurtunity [sic] Subhumanblues would jump at the chance to pull the kid out of his nice safe secure and stable upper middle class life and toss him into the uncertain care of the State."
Refer to above Exhibits and their assertions that Mr. Savage and his husband should not be allowed custody of their adoptive son.
"It is personally threatening to a minor who is not a participant in the conversation and way out of bounds.Slog is right to pull Subhumanblues's comments when they threaten to harm a minor."
If you will allow the implication that calling for a minor child to be removed from his adoptive parents' care constitutes a threat against said child, this is undeniably true.
"Slog is right to pull Subhumanblues's comments when they threaten to harm a minor."
I call this an obvious statement of opinion; do you contest that?
So, Seattleblues, there's the entire post gone over with a fine-toothed comb. WHERE IS THE LIE?
Or are you just baselessly accusing people of lying rather than confront the true things they say?
31
I don't know anything about American law, but under the English system the parties could apply (to the remaining judges on the bench) for him to be removed on the grounds of apparent bias. In In re Pinochet an order of the House of Lords was set aside on the grounds of apparent bias because Lord Hoffman had previous been a member of Amnesty International. No court, even the House of Lords, is immune from the doctrine.
32
That should have been "...previously". Apologies...
33
@30 *sigh* I've always been a terrible speller. Must have missed the spell check red line.
34
@Boy Wonder

That's a lot of words to say nothing, boy. On the one hand you have Stranger writers slandering people and censoring any comment noting that slander. On the other you chopping up a word salad to defend their lies and censorship of dissent.

But attacking family members is Savages game. Altogether too foul and vile a business for me. Play with words all you like, noting that no child and particularly a male child should ever have been placed in Savages custody isn't an attack on that child. Quite the reverse, boy.
35
@ 34, you would know how to say nothing in a lot of words. Such as here where you fail to challenge one single charge VL makes.
36
@34: You're unfit to be a parent. The example you set is of exalting opinion above evidence, demonizing and dehumanizing people even slightly different from you, and putting one's own political opinions above the rule of law. At this rate, your children will grow up full of hatred and arrogance and without the sort of critical thinking skills necessary for a prosperous, dignified, and productive life as an American citizen. For their own protection, your children should be removed from your custody.

^Do you think that's an attack on your family or your children?
You will certainly protest to the contrary, but it's substantially equivalent to the arguments you make. You say that Dan and Terry shouldn't be allowed to parent because they set a bad moral example to their kid; I say that you shouldn't be allowed to parent because you set a bad moral example to your kid, reserving judgment of Mrs. Blues for the time being.
The only real difference is who's making the argument against whom! In civilized debate, you must hold your arguments and those of your opponent to the same standard; you don't get to say "this is true because I'm saying it, but it's different when someone else says it".
I'm still waiting for you to tell me where Machiavelli was framed told a lie in the aforementioned post, and now also for you to tell me what in the original post constitutes slander. To quote JJJ, "Slander is spoken. In print it's libel."

To be perfectly clear, I do not actually advocate for your children to be removed from your care. I was making an argument for the sake of argument.
37
Hey now, I didn't slander or libel anyone. I simply stated that it is reasonable for Slog to pull Subhumanblue's comments when they veer off and start directly threatening the Savage family.

Say all the nasty stuff about Dan that you want too he is public figure and fair game but leave the kid out of it. Have you no decency Subhumanblues?
38
@37 Oh he proved long ago he didn't...
39
@37

Savage family? No such beast exists.

As for your continued brazen lie, I pity the child insanely entrusted to two aging perverts custody. That, despite your inability to understand basic English, is not an attack or insult of the child, moron.
40
@38

Your nom de guerre is redundant.

And how we do things in the US is not the business of a Brit, tetchy or not.
41
@36

Brevity is the soul of wit, child.

And no, your subjective notions about me aren't an attack on my children. Unless, like Savage you engage in a 12 year campaign using a man's family name as foul and vile insult that is. Otherwise you're merely voicing an opinion. Wrong, to be sure, but just your opinion. Any clearer to that willfully clouded mind, boy?
42
I didn't hear 'about' Scalia's response to the unexpected outburst— NPR did the favor of running the audio so I could hear it for myself. Honestly, from the tone of his voice, it sounded to me like he was just trying to convey his sense of reprieve from the sheer novelty of a three-second outburst of fire-and-brimstone amidst the grind of three hours (and counting) of argument taut with historical weight. I'm not naive to Scalia's personal views on social issues but we're are talking about a man who likes to keep himself entertained. Is it really implausible that he might have been expressing— perhaps poorly —his gratitude that someone else provided the entertainment, even if only briefly?
43
Oh sheesh, I need to read the thread more carefully next time. MarkInNYC @8 and Lance @11 said much the same thing, and in fewer words. Lance, I feel better knowing I'm not the only one who often enjoys Scalia's sense of humor independent of his social views.
44
@41: So when someone says that your children should be taken away from you, you don't consider that an attack on your family? Well, if you want to think so that's your prerogative, but other people are allowed to take it as a threat, certainly. So if you go on the web site of a newspaper and call for the children of one of the writers to be taken away from him, don't be surprised if the comment gets pulled.
Your argument boils down to "I'm a good guy and Dan Savage is a pervert". You know, dumb opinions.
45
Well that answers that question.
46
@40 My fiancé is American and I intend to emigrate to California sometime next year, so actually yes, it is very much my business. Furthermore, I am a member of the human race, and since the US government does so love to impose itself across the world, even if I wasn't moving over, it would still be my business.
47
@VL: That Juche thread is bizarre. Apparently a couple comments by me (or one by me one by someone else) about Juche's "waifu" comment got deleted in there, and maybe a couple of his comments, but it's a bizarre patchwork of moderation.

I do stand by what I said at the beginning of that thread though: I don't think he needs to be censored, because it's so ludicrous that it persuades people against him. That said, if YOU want it censored, I defer to your judgment, because it affects you far more personally than it does me.
48
@44
Well, thanks for admitting that any negative comment about Saint Savage is liable to be censored, anyway.

@46

Marvelous! California is our unofficial national insane assylum, so you'll fit right in. (Sorry, California residents from other than the Bay area and LA, but those crazy hippy lefties outnumber you and they're what the rest of the nation sees. But I know how you feel. In Washington we have the Peoples Republic of Seattle and the sane portions of the state, too.)

49
@48: Sonny, are you fucking reading-disabled? What I said, what I have said ABOUT TWENTY TIMES NOW, is that you can say all sorts of mean stuff critical of Dan Savage (or any other Stranger staff for that matter) and not face any moderator action, but that posts calling for his kid to be taken away from him--CALLING FOR HIS KID TO BE TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM--will usually be deleted. You say something patently offensive and outright threatening about someone on their employer's blog, and then you scream that your freedom of expression is being trampled? It's like when conservatives claim that shock jocks are having their 1st Amendment rights taken away when people boycott their advertisers to force them off the air. Cry a little harder, you big baby.

And as far as the whole California thing goes, please stop pretending that you've got public opinion on your side. You know why products containing lead or cadmium or various carcinogenic VOCs have warning labels on them? California Prop 65. You know why our computers just keep getting better and better and better? Silicon Valley, part of the Bay area. You know which state produces nearly half of America's fruits, nuts, and vegetables? California.
Here's what I think your problem with California is, though. There's a really cool effect where California acts as a trendsetter for the rest of the nation, where whatever reforms or cultural changes show up there first before spreading to other states. And you can't stand society moving forward, because it would mean that your precious (and largely fictitious in practice) ideals aren't relevant.

Still waiting to hear where Machiavelli was framed told a lie. Well, Seattleblues? Can you point to any part of his post and show me a lie? Or are you the one lying AGAIN?
50
@49

Offensive and "mean critical stuff," how are they different to your addled mind again? As for threatening that's purely bullshit, the invention of your diseased imaginings. Come to that, the boy in Savages custody is likely a moral and ethical write-off as it is, thanks to whoever placed him with two aging perverts in the first place. In any case despite your and Machievelli etc lies, I've never suggested he be removed from Savages custody. That would be closing the barn door after the horse is 2 counties away, really.

And posts critical of Savage and other writers have been pulled without mention of anything but their sick ideologies so your contention is as always dead wrong.

California is your new passion, boy? Well, enjoy, kiddo.

You're not waiting, you're just unable ro comprehend English. You and Machiavelli etc are liars. I've never threatened, attacked or used insulting language about the luckless boy insanely placed with Savage and his boyfriend. Pretend otherwise, redefine things so that (to your imagination) I did- whatever, child. I haven't, I am not, I will not attack children for their bad luck in the adults around them.

Now, go and play with the other children. I have work to do, boy.
51
@50: If I say you're unintelligent and make arguments that don't stand up to even the most cursory criticism, that's mean and critical. If I call you an infidel cracker, that's offensive. Do you really not understand the difference?
"As for threatening that's purely bullshit, the invention of your diseased imaginings."
So...when you said that the state shouldn't allow his (adoptive) parents to raise little D.J., when you said that it should be illegal for gay couples to adopt children...you WEREN'T threatening the sanctity of the family? "I think that X should be illegal! No, no, wait, you misunderstand me! I'm not saying that X should be taken away from people who already have X!" After your lot attempted to retroactively unmarry a bunch of gay couples in the aftermath of Prop 8 passing in California, forgive me if I don't believe your hasty qualification that you're totally okay with grandfathering in current gay adoptions even if you think they're completely wrong.
And speaking of California, I'm a staunch Chicagolander, but I won't have you unfairly smear the good name of the state of my birth.

You say your posts were pulled for nothing more than political disagreements? Why not show me one of those innocuous posts that was so unfairly deleted? OH THAT'S RIGHT, YOU CAN'T. I've seen plenty of your posts that later mysteriously disappear. I've seen the shit you write. And you're telling me to take it on faith that you've been writing all these posts that get deleted before I can see them that magically don't have anything offensive in them. I'm not buying it.
Hey, if the SLOG mods delete your posts for political disagreements only, how come there are 9 posts of yours here in this post right now that are CHOCK FULL of such differing opinions and haven't been deleted? You don't have to call me stupid for me to understand you're insulting my intelligence; all you have to do is expect me to believe that load of tripe even for a moment.
You keep accusing me and Machiavelli was framed of lying, and yet you cannot point to a single actual lie. It's like it's your defensive reflex; someone says something you don't like, and you just blurt out "YOU'RE LYING!"
And if you think the shit you post isn't an attack on D.J., consider the following thought experiment. Suppose you went up to the kid and told him that his dads are a couple of perverts who have been horrible parents to him and should never have been allowed to adopt him in the first place. Do you think he'd take that as a personal attack? Would you care to explain to him why it's totally not an attack on or a threat against him?
52
@48 That you hate it speaks well of it, you unpleasant waste of flesh :)
53
Venomlash apparently Subhumanblues is incapable of the level cognition you are requesting of it. Subhumanblues simply can't reflect upon it's own actions.

Ponder this for a moment. D.J. has already come out to Dan and Terry as straight. Yes this is really a thing. Dan and Terry of course responded with acceptance and love.

Now suppose one of Subhumanblues's children (it claims to have 2 just on the cusp of their teen years) were to come out as gay or lesbian (given God's twisted sense of humor a likely event). Would Subhumannblues respond with the same love and acceptance as Dan and Terry did?
54
@51

Well, that wasn't fair little guy. To use the phrase "sanctity of the family" as a statement about the odd group at the Savage house? A joke is a joke, but what if I'd choked on my lunch while reading your humor, boy?

As for the rest, finish your remedial English courses then get back to me, all right child?

@53
In your syphilitic or drug addled (or both) mind what you wrote may even have made sense to you,

You have my sympathies.

But the moral failings of Savage and his boyfriend are evident in the poor kid having to "come out" as sexually healthy at all. In a healthy environment that would never have been an issue.

And my kids, were they afflicted with homosexual urges, woukd have my full and unreserved love. And my help in finding their way to wholesome heterosexual expressions.


56
For whatever it's worth, SB, I think you show a lot of heart in your posts— apathy being the opposite of love and all that— you know? I'm serious. I realize sarcasm is rampant here, so I can understand if your sarcasm detector is going off. Here, let me explain:

One of my Christian friends, he grew up on a farm with his family. His parents homeschooled him. Very warm, very inclusive people. They hold their own casual Friday night living room worship service with local friends and families, with focused discussions on faith and the Bible, guitar sing-a-longs, and group prayer. I've been over to their (beautifully rustic) farmhouse several times for such services and while not Christian myself, I enjoy them simply because they're such intimate glimpses of others' religious experience.

My friend and I have had plenty of conversations where we discuss our beliefs. I don't have many, so we mostly we talk about his. And one of those beliefs he's shared with me is that he sees homosexuality— thought and behavior, not the orientation itself —as sins against God. But there was no brimstone in his voice when he said this— only concern that they might never be a part of God's eternal kingdom. Those are his words. I'm just sharing them with you.

Now, I realize that he feels comfortable sharing these thoughts with me in part because he knows that I'm heterosexual and doubts that I would feel personally judged by his words. But he also feels comfortable sharing these things for an even simpler reason: we're friends. Friends seek to understand, not judge, one another. We discuss plenty of topics on which we disagree. We choose to let that disagreement remain tacit so that we can focus on the common ground between us.

Our time as inhabitants of this planet is short. Our time as fellow travellers is shorter still.
57
@54 Ok so love but not acceptance. Got it.

Can they bring their same sex significant other to Thanksgiving dinner? One of them is your kid and you love them, the other is the person your kid loves. Can you bring yourself to sit down at the same table with them and pass the mashed potatoes politely?
58
@54: Seattleblues, I'm pleased to tell you that Strunk & White don't count "disagreeing with some schmo on the internet in matters of opinion" as an error in English writing. We know full well of your disdain for the dictionary and its inclusion of words you don't like, so you can rest from reminding us.
I think it's rather telling that when I raise issues with your statements and point out inconsistencies in your claims, your response is to accuse me in the abstract of lying and to insinuate that I'm unskilled in the English language. I'll spare you the litany of my intellectual qualifications and just say that you're making a pitiful try at distracting from the issues at hand.
59
@58 Strunk & White, I love the Elements of Style. Wish I'd been introduced to it in high school instead of college. When did it find it's way into your world?

Oh would you like some turkey, stuffing, gravy and mixed cheesy bean dish? I'd offer you some mashed potatoes but Subhumanblues doesn't seem willing to pass them.
60
@59: I knew of it since I was little, thanks to an interest in E. B. White's writing (principally Stuart Little, Charlotte's Web, and The Trumpet of the Swan, I'm not gonna lie), but I first read it in high school. I have a wonderful edition of it with illustrations by Maira Kalman that I got as a present.
61
Mr Milo - In a way, concern is worse than animus. Having already turned the seventh, seventeenth and seventieth cheeks, I'm not giving your friend any cookies.

My response to the last True Believer friend I had, on the occasion when he expressed how he didn't want to see me turned away from Heaven (solely because of my having the "wrong" sexuality) was surprise. If that were the sole reason a great friend of mine were to be turned away, I'd decline to enter, because, whatever such a place might be, Heaven it most certainly would not.

Please wait...

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.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.