May 15, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:Then there is the commenter who lambasted me both here and on his own site, for whose words profanity is rather too weak.
I recently lost my dog, Annie, a beautiful and very empathetic Springer Spaniel.
Your response to your dog's death, however, is indicative of just how warped your perspective has become by being a childless, self-worshipping woman.
Have children. Develop some perspective. Quit living like a child.
It's not very attractive.
Oh, and by the way, there's a fairy tale that describes this "I'm so sensitive that I'll die" syndrome. It's "The Princess and the Pea."
No wonder the childish ravings of Andrew (Cartman) Sullivan appeal to the author of this blog.
What a collection of spoiled children!
I could shrug this off, for after all, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, and whatever psychological scarring produced the urge to say that in response to, let us recap a poem posted during an emotional moment at 4 am must be pretty catastrophic. But however deeply broken this man may be, it's rather harder to sanction this:
We've discovered in the past few weeks that the proprietor of this site is a fag hag, childless and treating her dog as a child. Yet, she wants to have adult input into the tradition of marriage. In other words, she wants nothing to do with the adult responsibility of tending to the future. Yet, in infant that she is, she thinks that she should be able to destroy an institution that she takes no part in.
In response to the others who have asked, I've posted my comments on my site: www.harleyscars.com.
Apparently, Shouting Thomas feels I've betrayed him by hiding my childlessness, my dog, and oh yes, my fag-haggery.
Frankly, I'm puzzled. Puzzled, first, because I cannot even begin to comprehend how my dog's death has become so tightly linked in his mind with the issue of gay marriage, an issue upon which I have never expressed an opinion pro or con. Let me reassure you that there was absolutely no evidence that Finnegan was homosexual; indeed, long before the issue became salient, we permanently curtailed his interest in all matters sexual with the aid of a cooperative veterinarian. Nor do I meet any of the conventional definitions of "fag hag", at least as the term is employed in any of New York's more unpleasant social circles; though I have a lot of male friends, most of them are heterosexual, and I do not knowingly date, much less marry, homosexual men.
I am thus searching for less common usages that my cover me. "Has had dinner with Andrew Sullivan" seems to be a prime suspect. Or is it that I think gay people are . . . erm, people, who should be treated like other people? Perhaps it is that I think Andrew Sullivans are people? Or that I count non-Andrew-Sullivanish gay people in my circle of friends and loved ones? On any of these definitions, I am out and proud. Indeed, though the unexpected moving and veterinary bills have left the grouch bag a little low here at Stately Galt Manor, if there's a club I'll join it, and if there's a t-shirt, I'll order one.
Posted by Jane Galt at May 15, 2007 10:59 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
I've been reading Shouting Thomas' blog for the past couple of years and while he's sometimes a bit gruff, this level of sheer vitriol is something else entirely. It's perfectly normal for people to be saddened by the death of a pet. And that's true even if they have children and don't particularly like gays.
I've been reading Shouting Thomas' blog for the past couple of years and while he's sometimes a bit gruff, this level of sheer vitriol is something else entirely. It's perfectly normal for people to be saddened by the death of a pet. And that's true even if they have children and don't particularly like gays.
The world is chock full of callous, hollow idiots. I try very hard to keep them at arm's length. I'm sorry you've had to come into rather close contact with them as well as sorry about your dog's passing away. Don't let a couple of insensitive morons make you feel as if you shouldn't mourn the death of a longtime friend.
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think. I often wonder what it's like for those who do neither.
Could one of us buy you the T-shirt? Or a different T-shirt? I would totally get you one of the items on this page: http://www.cafepress.com/kawaiinot/1151702
Unfortunately Cafepress's search engine and my browser aren't speaking right now, so if there's a "My Kitchenaid Mixer Just Beat Up Your MBA Student" T-shirt, I can't find it.
I've had to make two vet runs in the last four days -- one resulted in staples (it was my fault, with the scissors while grooming; she didn't bleed, and seems fine) and the other in a "Well, she might have pancreatitis, you know, she's old." (Nine this summer.) And I was a bawling wreck reading the poems in the previous comment thread. Which is to say, I know this has been a rough year for you, and I know not having Finnegan around isn't going to make the rest of the moving stuff easier, but you seem to be on your feet a lot faster than I would have been.
Still thinking of you.
I went to his blog to leave some unkind comments but I see that many of your loyal readers have already beat me to it. (at least he kept them up there) I saw no need in hurting him again, but I did want to say a few things here:
1. Losing a dog is sad
2. I like Jane Galt
3. I'm sad for Jane Galt
4. Hugs
Hope you feel better and if you need to take a little break from blogging, we won't hold it against you.
You're awesome, and fuck that guy. He's a douche, and a clueless one at that.
This whole thing really is bizarre. I've witnessed similar events when others have expressed genuine emotion on the internet. It's just one of those things.
In any case, I'm sorry your dog died, and I'm additionally sorry that you had to put up with the internet repercussions of telling us your dog died. I also wanted to say that we met at Reason Happy Hour the other night, and I thought you were one of the friendliest people I've met in a long time. I can only hope you will feel better and the trolls will feel worse.
Around here we don't spend an awful lot of time speculating about the private life of Jane McGalt, but there is something of a parlor game of thinking which pieces in the Economist you wrote. We are nominating you for author of the review of Terry Mac's book on Dem Party fundraising, and in specific for the line about providing another reason to hate Barbra Streisand, that she hates dogs.
So sorry about your loss.
Jane
You've just discovered why so many of us of a 'liberal' bent, have trouble with the right.
It's just like being back at high school. The worst insult is to call someone a 'fag' (or a lesbian). Any expression of emotion, sympathetic emotion, or any emotion other than anger/outrage/disgust is contemptible.
Turn on Rush Limbaugh some time and listen to the vitriol 'disguised' as humour (sometimes).
A world divided into 'us' and 'them'.
And 'us' are white heterosexual men, who are oppressed. And 'them' is just about everyone else, who are plotting to take it all away from 'us'. 'Feminazis' 'the homosexual agenda' 'those not born again' 'the American Civil Liberties Union' 'communists and union organizers' 'towel heads' etc.
It was the encounter with the street level activists in right wing parties (counting myself a dedicated neo-con, at the ripe old age of 19: remember the Michael J. Fox character in 'Family Ties'? That was me) in 3 countries (Canada, US, UK) that convinced me I had to find another political home.
I am sorry your dog died. A little soul, gone somewhere else to be happy, we hope.
While you live, and remember him, and honour his name, he is not entirely gone.
I shall light a candle for you and him in my local church-- St. James's of Picaddilly, one of Christoper Wren's masterpieces.
Vt
on the comment 'fag hag'
Remember how Mrs. Thatcher was a gay icon? Particularly popular amongst the cross dressing 'camp' crowd?
This despite official government policies (the famed Clause 28 restricting local governments from providing services to gay people) which were anti gay, and a fairly deliberate decision (for a time) to do nothing about the AIDS threat. She was hardly a person who promoted the interests of gays, yet she was terribly popular with gay men.
You are tall. You are articulate and empowered. You are not afraid of expressing your emotions both positive and negative: but you are hardly a 'weak willed emotional girlie'. In other words you act a bit like a bloke. You are a very attractive woman but not in a 'cushy dumb blonde' kind of way.
It's easy to see how gay men would be drawn to that-- gay men tend to like and appreciate female company, particularly strong willed, capable women.
So what your interlocutor is doing is projecting that. Gay men might find you an attractive person to be with, so therefore you must be a 'fag hag'.
It amazes me, emotionally, how some people never leave high school.
This is also a defensive response from someone who has a "difficult" relationship with a dog. Sound mushy but true. As Rudyard Kipling said in the Just So stories, the dog was the first friend of mankind. (unlike the cat!)
The relationship of the adopted human pack leader to the dog is one of amazing wonder. The world is right for my dogs when I'm back from a business trip. My wife is good company to them but I'm the designated alpha. They accept their responsibilities of loyalty and membership gleefully. This is so different from parenting where you raise children to send them out into the world. Your responsibiltiy to them is lifelong. One of the worst times is at the end of a dogs life when you have to make decisions. I've always struggled with the notion of when to put them down. Am I doing it today for my own convenience? Fortunately my prior pups have always done it for me or the time was clear.
Feel free to howl at the moon in grief.
I'd like to point out an unintended consequence of that idiot's comments in the earlier thread.
They gave Will Allen a chance to pummel him mercilessly with words.
Good job, Will. I'd like to have someone like that in my corner when I was kicked.
You are greatly appreciated, Megan, out here in the internets.
My condolences for your loss.
I've got to work today. As much as I enjoy a good name calling cat fight, I haven't got the time.
Don't know whether my bandwidth will take the beating, but rest assured I can.
I've put up a new post for all of your who would like to get even angrier. It's the daily outrage.
Wow, just wow. Jane, I don't know you personally and won't pretend to, so I'll be brief:
1. I like your blog, especially when you write about politics and economics.
2. I'm sorry that you lost your dog, and that you had to move, and I respect that you had the guts to share some of that experience with a bunch of strangers, many of whom seem to read your blog simply so that they can engage in "liberal" vs. "conservative" vs. "libertarian" vs. "smarter than the rest of you" name-calling in the comments.
3. It had to have occured to you at some point (though, perhaps not at 4 am at the hospital) that some fraction of your readership would have only nasty things to say to you about your grief.
4. Therefore, I'm sorry that you took the nasty stuff to heart, rather than the copious amount of well-wishing from most of your posters. Shouting Thomas probably said that stuff more to rile you and get a link to his site from you than for any other reason. Now somebody's reading, and he apparently likes flame wars.
There's my unsolicited two cents. Best wishes,
This Shouting Thomas person is reaching Frischian levels of trolling. Get a hobby, dude. Scratch that, get a real hobby.
I have children. I've lost dogs in the past. I've cried over the dogs. It doesn't make me love my children less. Grief over a lost friend is real. You have my sympathy and I'm glad you had good times with your dog in his happy life.
Also, I'm sorry for your dog. Dogs are wonderful companions and it's a sad thing when they go.
What winterspeak said.
Jerk. Troll. Ignore.
Megan,
I had so hoped that you hadn't gotten down that far. I think those comments are rude and unnecessary and well, mostly rude. No one in your situation should have to put up with that kind of thing.
My general feeling is to ignore the trolls but I wanted to tell those people to piss off. But it's your blog and I knew you could handle yourself.
I regret the day when AI gets so big that it starts attracting punks like them regularly. I really like the usual suspects of commenters that you have: Njorl, John, Will, anony-mouse, Brian, Thorley, Rob and the rest.
I'll hate to see that go.
Wow. Looking at what the troll (we are feeding trolls today, right? Talking about the troll is what fuels them, gives them recognition and encourages troll-spew, right?) had to say, it seems like he feels more pain than most of us do. Perhaps the troll will move on to greener pastures, or perhaps learn self-respect.
So, make your list of problems, deal with the simplest and more important first, then check for the next on the list. We breathe, we think of friends both present and absent. And watch the night as it passes. Blessings.
From what I recall of Shouting Thomas's posts in the past, why would you care what he thinks? In fact, it's an honor to be insulted by certain people.
Terribly sorry about your dog.
Wow, you have non-Andrew Sullivanish Gay friends? I'm shocked and outraged.
After two years of treating her for lymphoma and a month of hardcore downward spiral, we put our pit bull to sleep seven weeks ago. Two days later, our daughter was born.
Hopefully this will give me some subjective credibility when I tell Shouting Thomas that he's an asshole. Yes there's a difference between a dog and a child but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be upset when their dog dies and it REALLY doesn't mean somebody else should go out of their way to insult them for it.
Megan, the following is is by no means a defense of Shouting Thomas. Several months ago, I looked over at his blog after he put up a really weird comment here (bashing homosexuals, I believe). I read several posts where he is grieving the death of his wife. And, according to those posts, admitted to being deeply depressed and having a very difficult time with that loss. I wonder if that isn't what touched a nerve with him. I think his behavior is inexcusable, but it may suggest a deeper pathology.
Its unfortunate that he has included you into his emotional vortex.
My two bits, for what its worth.
I don't care for dogs. But, I don't hate dogs. While I didn't really care that your dog died, I didn't feel the need to chastise you for feeling grieved that your dog died. Heck, I was sad as a kid when my pet(s) died. Perfectly normal.
Is this connected, in any way, with other stances? No idea, but it is in poor taste to criticize someone over this.
In summary, sorry your dog died, but it doesn't effect me, I'm a little short on empathy (my problem, not yours), and I don't expect you to write this blog for me, so I can skip the parts that I'm not interested in.
But what Shouting Thomas has shown is that sometimes it is better to shut up.
After the dolt used the "fag-hag" slur, I recalled who this cretin was, and decided to not engage him any further, beyond one last shot. He was obviously trying to attract traffic to his site (posting the web address should have tipped me off), and is about on the level of somebody who hurls the label "nigger" for the same purpose. In my view, no more needs to be said about this rubbish.
Thanks for the kind words above, but Megan does not need me to be in her corner, as she is more capable than I in the use of language. I'm no politeness sheriff, but there is a certain level of bad manners, when it has been completely unprovoked, which I find perfectly contemptible.
Value: Please reflect that everything you attach to "the right" in that context can be applied with equal ease to "the left". For every Rush Limbaugh there appears to be a Michael Moore, a Randi Rhodes, or an Al Franken.
"Us vs. Them" is not a "right wing" worldview, it's merely a common human one - on rare occasions accurate, usually vastly overblown, but not limited to "them" any more than never found in "us".
I'm neither a man of the right, nor a man of the left, as such, so I don't have anything at stake here, except an interest in accuracy and fairness; and that leads me to remind you that none of those things are partisan.
(Especially the uselessness of "street level activists". Along the lines of Nazis and Communists; the urge to be an activist can be translated to any cause, and "street level activists" tend to be pricks, no matter the cause they've chosen.)
I'd apologise for bringing politics into this, but I didn't - I'm trying to take politics out of this; again, nothing about "hate" or "intolerance" is partisan, as a cursory look at Democratic Underground will reveal, given that you're already aware that the "they" on the Right can possess those failings.
That Shouting Thomas happens to appear "right wing" (though whether or not that's his worldview or just the most convenient mode of trolling for reactions he could find is another question) is not an indictment of "the right" any more than DU posts are an indictment of "the left".
They, for instance, make me think no less of Oliver Kamm or the late George Orwell, both absolutely respectable - and honestly intellectual - men of the Left. You might wish to apply that notion to "the right", when confronted with people like Shouting Thomas.
(My sympathies to Jane, for whatever they're worth - I can't imagine the condolences of a stranger on the internet are worth much; I find it hard to believe they'd comfort me in similar straits, but I offer them nonetheless if they're of any use.
If it wasn't patently obvious that Thomas was doing this simply to be a jerk and get traffic, I'd wonder if there was simply something wrong with him that he couldn't grasp that people grieve when pets die.
Since it is patently obvious, especially given his post in this thread, that he is simply trolling, I'll just call him an asshat and leave it at that.)
But he sings songs. Nobody who sings could be an evil man.
Megan, I'm no fan of your politics or your insipid pseudonym, but you seem like a nice person, and this jerk insulting you is clearly a very disturbed and pathetic individual. Rest assured that approximately zero decent human beings on the planet would agree with his point of view.
Keep your head up, and don't let the bastards grind you down.
(I'm very sorry to hear about your dog.)
A few days after our son was born, our dog that we'd had most our married lives had to be put down at age 19. He was quite healthy - but had had a stroke, and was losing motor control.
I cried and cried and cried, even as I rejoiced in having a child against all odds, after many years of trying and many miscarriages.
My Condolences, Megan, and Hugs too.
I hope that you remember the happy years you had your beloved dog, and are able to wonder that the Universe has a place for such love, even for a little while. We must enjoy what we can.
Now once you've cried yourself out, there's another puppy waiting at the pound for someone like you to love.
Hugs again, Zoe
"Now once you've cried yourself out, there's another puppy waiting at the pound for someone like you to love."
Jesus. Tripe like that makes me think Thomas is onto something.
Jane, sorry for your loss, and sorrier for you having to take this kind of nonsense when you are down . . . don't feed the trolls. That guy is obviously a cretin.
Jane, stop trying to change these kinds of people. You know the old saying... "You can't teach a pig to sing"
with respect to the dog's surgery and his sexual orientation -- Ms. McArdle, I really think you might enjoy reading Paul Auster's "Timbuktu" right now. It's a sort novella and I got it some time back for I think $6 from amazon -- one of those clearance dealies. His discussion of the whole surgery-versus-dog's-sexual-perception-of-itself thing is a blast.
Yeah, I know, everyone on the Internet is all, hey, you _gotta_ read this book or that book. But that's what I thought of anyway.
Megan,
I've not visited here for a while. My condolences about your dog. Even moreso coming on the back of a line of misfortunes.
I found comfort in this poem:
TREAT ME KINDLY
Treat me kindly, my beloved friend,
For no heart in all the world is more
rateful for kindness than the loving
heart of me.
Do not break my spirit with a stick,
For though I should lick your hand
between blows, your patience and
understanding will more quickly
teach me the things you would
have me learn.
Speak to me often, For your voice is
the world's sweetest music, as you must
know by the fierce wagging of my tail
when your footsteps fall upon my ears.
Please take me inside when it is cold
and wet, For I am a domesticated
animal, no longer accustomed to the
bitter elements. I ask no greater glory
than the privilege of sitting at your
feet beside the hearth.
Keep my pan filled with water, for I
cannot tell you when I suffer thirst.
Feed me clean food that I may stay well,
to romp and play and do your bidding,
to walk by your side, and stand ready,
willing and able to protect you with
my life, should your life be in danger.
And, my friend, when I am very old, and
I no longer enjoy good health, hearing
and good sight, do not make heroic
efforts to keep me going.
I am not having fun. Please see that my
trusting life is taken gently. I shall
leave this earth knowing with the last
breath I drew, that my fate was always
safest in your hand.
--- By Beth Norman Harris 1968 ---
What a turd. So, sorry about your dog, Megan.
My deepest sympathies to you in your time of pain. And my absolute anger at the kind of scum that could take pleasure in another's pain.
adrian - read Kipling on the subject. Is he Macho enough for you?
Here's a hint:
http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~rneville/dogpoem3.html
Of course some people shouldn't have a dog. Megan though is one of those who should.
Sorry if I over-reacted to your macho BS adrian, I have an unusual history that makes me particularly sensitive to it. I know, it's a guy thing, not your fault.
I was talking to Megan, not you, anyway, and the reason I only gave the URL to Kipling's poem rather than quoting it is because I don't want her breaking down reading it. It's a gal thing.
I second Biomed Tim's excellent sentiments. As for these nasty people, I feel very sorry for their children.
I thought the poem was a very nice touch, myself.
I've lost several family members, and also a couple of great old dogs, and the feelings are similar. I think dogs (the good ones, anyway) become more human when they live with us.
My last dog died at age 15, and he knew each of my family members by name, and the directions to each one of their houses. So yes, it's a loss. We ALL miss him.
As far as Thomas whatshisface:
Forget him. Ignore him. Do not feed the trolls.
Peace and best wishes to you.
Hannibal Lecter would totally eat that dude's cheeks.
::hugs::
Oh, Megan.
I'm so sorry that your grief got pissed on by an idiot.
And I'm sorry for your grief. Dogs are special. Pets are special.
Anyone who discounts their places in our lives is missing an important part of their brain.
I'll copy here what I said in my journal:
Megan, if you were not at a difficult crisis right now, I would send you ton of links to this guy's statements that -first- would make your eyes pop, but then, gradually, just crack you up every time you see the signature of this clown. He's not to be taken seriously, period.
As Roger Kimball said yesterday, answering a question of appropriate reaction to a incoherent ideological blabbering - the only way is to ridicule.
I'm glad that you started to see that, judging by the "my-dog's-sexual-orientation" bit.
Saddened to hear about all other grevious things that happened to you this year. I wish you courage - and good friends.
It's funny. Shouting Thomas criticizes Megan for being unmarried, yet one of the common themes on his blog is that men should marry foreign women rather than American women.
[Hugs Jane]. ~_~
I've lost pets in the past and no matter how many times it happens it never gets easy. You have my sympathy. Don't let the baka get you down. I suspect that Will Allen is right about his motivation and that the best thing to do is take Kipling's advice again and "feed him silence". That said, I hope you take Zoe Brain's advice about getting another pet when the time comes. The new one can never be a replacement but he can be a consolation and make full an empty void.
On the Internet, I found an excerpt from the Vicki Hearne' essay on the loss of a dog/pet. I promise you that the entire essay is so very worth your time, ma'am.
``Der Tod ist gross,'' writes Rilke. ``Death is huge.'' But various psychologists deny that it as huge as all that when it is an animal who is mourned. I have read statistically studded reassurances that mourning for a cat lasts at most one month, for a dog three. I have read that when an animal dies there are no regrets, no rehearsal of the wail ``If only I had ...,'' and also that the splendid thing about animals, what is said to make them so convenient to our hearts, like anti-depressants,
is that when we mourn them we are only mourning a personal loss and not ``the loss of life and potential,'' according to
_Between Pets and People_ by Professors Beck and Katcher, authorities on all of this at the University of Pennsylvania.
This is way that psychological authorities talk - ``Eventually an animal can be replaced,'' they write in their books - but that is not how the experts talk. I realize that psychologists and suchlike are generally understood to be experts, but I have met none who were experts in the various ways my good Gunner's work with scent developed, especially when he began scenting out the human heart. Of course, I am just a dog trainer. My thinking, such as it is, I learned from the animals, for whom happiness is usually a matter of getting the job done. Clear
that fence, fetch in those sheep, move those calves, win that race, find that guy, retrieve that bird. The happiness of animals is also ideologically unsound, as often as not, or at least it is frequently wanting in propriety, as when your dog rolls in something awful on his afternoon walk or your cat turns off your answering machine.
In over a quarter of a century of dog training I have never met an animal who turned out to be replaceable. Dick Koehler says, ``Hell, even trees are irreplaceable, but we don't know it, and that is our loss.'' The loss the dog trainer has in mind is the loss of eternity, as for Wittgenstein put it, ``Denn lebt er ewig, der in der Gegenwart lebt.'' ``So he lives forever, who lives in the present,'' wrote the philosopher, and this is how the animals live, in the present, which is why the experts' difficult and apparently harsh advice, advice they occasionally take themselves, is: ``Another dog, same breed, as soon as possible.'' Not because another dog of the same breed will be the same, but because that way you can pick up somewhere near where you left off, say that you have it in you.
Vicki Hearne, ``Oyez a Beaumont'' in _Animal Happiness_
Oh, the bullying of the reproducers. Remember, when they tell another he is treats his pets like children, they are really conceding that they regard their children as pets!
As a critic, I hope this mean streak in your commenters passes.
sorry about your dog.
After all the steaming pile of bullshit, I actually received a pertinent and sensible comment from Paul. I reproduce it and my response below:
Thomas,
I like Megan. I you were being a little harsh on her. I think you were being needlessly harsh. But let me try to answer your questions as honestly as I can without being dragged down to your level.
Marriage: maybe Megan does want to get married? I'm sure she would make a lovely wife and an excellent mother. Look at the way she writes, how very intelligent she is. These are good things. The problem is, one simply doesn't decide that they can get married one day. One MUST find someone else in their life that is willing to marry them. And for women it is particularly harder for them as they must wait to be asked. Maybe none of her boyfriends have asked her for her hand? Think about how awful you made her feel if she wants to get married and there is nothing she can do about it?
Paul,
Finally a comment that actually contains something that I can respond to.
I agree with your assessment of Megan. Whether I was too harsh on her, I cannot say. I'll bet that she is now considering what I had to say, don't you? The bitterness of her reaction says a lot. I think she was just kidding herself when she said that she didn't feel the need for children.
The culture of Manhattan has become very negative as fag-worship has taken over completely. It is most unfashionable to think that one's emotional needs might be served by the very old fashioned remedies of love, marriage and children. There is absolutely no support in the spoiled brat culture of Manhattan for that.
Yes, you're right. Megan seems like she would make a lovely companion, wife and mother. She needs to shrug off the fashionable nonsense of Manhattan to get there. And, you are also right that the men she's likely to meet in Manhattan are almost uniformly worthless for that purpose.
Shouting Thomas
Jane, stop trying to change these kinds of people. You know the old saying... "You can't teach a pig to sing"
Perhaps not, but it is on occassion hilarious. Witness this very post -- good to see Jane returning to her old form, yes?
Incidentally, in reference to the post that just preceded mine, I would suggest letting Sleeping Thomases lie this time around...
"The culture of Manhattan has become very negative as fag-worship has taken over completely. "
While it's true that orthodox fag-worshippers can be a real drag, the Church of Unified Fag, Lesbian and Transgendered Saints is upbeat and optimistic!
I'll bet that she is now considering what I had to say, don't you?
I'm considering that maybe he's Fred Phelps.
Thomas actually responded to me with a reasonably intelligent, and thoughtful response. Take a look at his blog if anyone cares.
What this thread urgently needs is a good argument between the fag-worshippers and the fag-atheists.
The rest of us can just watch the fabulous faux fur fly!
What this blog needs is for people to stop cracking jokes and start taking this seriously.
Obviously, Megan is very hurt (need I say "wounded") by what Thomas has said. I know I would be if I was her. If she wasn't wounded, she would not have created her response on her on blog. Obviously, she cares. If she didn't care what he said (if she was truly able to "shun" Thomas), she wouldn't have created this post. But she did.
Instead of joking about this, maybe you should examine why she was so hurt by someone that many of you claim (dare I say, "all" of you claim) is such a worthless asshole?
Ignorant people can't usually hurt intelligent peoples' feelings.
Paul, if for some unknown reason Meagan wishes to discuss her pain with me privately, I'm more than happy to listen and take her seriously, for whatever that's worth.
Publicly, however, the ridiculous deserves only ridicule. And I find the notion "fag-worship" taking over the home of Wall Street and Skadden Arps too amusing to resist.
Sigivid
I've never met a homophobic liberal. Have you?
(I've actually never met a racist liberal. Or indeed a xenophobic one. But they could be out there. I've certainly met conservatives with both traits)
The particular culture, that I despised in high school, was a homophobic, anti-intellectual ethos. Somebody crying because their dog died would have been a soft target.
I've run into those people again and again as activists of, or supporters of, right wing parties.
If we take 'The Daily Show' as the apothesis of liberal media, v. say, Rush Limbaugh (who I would be the first to agree is less offensive than O'Reilly or Anne Coulter), I think it's fair to say that TDS has a lot less anger in its approach.
Turning to Michael Moore, he too has a sense of humour. I don't agree with his conspiracy theories.
So I guess it's really a question whether you think MM is more representative of liberals and liberal thinking, or TDS?
I spent my academic years clashing with university Marxists. But I hardly think they are representative of modern 'liberals'. I agree they are often hateful intolerant b-stards though.
But I never met one who was a homophobe.
Rob,
I think you are missing the point.
"Paul, if for some unknown reason Meagan wishes to discuss her pain with me privately, I'm more than happy to listen and take her seriously, for whatever that's worth."
She isn't about discussing it privately. She created this blog entry. That means she is discussing it PUBLICLY (for some unknown reason.) That is how hurt she is.
You don't have to take Thomas seriously if you don't want. I don't take him seriously and he couldn't hurt my feelings. But Megan DOES take him seriously. Her feelings are hurt. If she didn't take his words seriously, she would have fobbed off his remarks are mere ignorance and left them alone.
She didn't do that. She included us in her pain, her pain about her dog's death, and her pain about others being less than sympathetic.
(WARNING: Ongoing thread-hijacking!)
Value: Note that I didn't say "homophobia", or "liberals". I was talking about "the right" and "the left", and "intolerance and hate", in general - there's rather more to the claim that one's opponents are hateful while one's own side is not, than any single issue, is there not?
(Aside: I won't call leftists "liberals". Today's "liberals" aren't; classical liberalism stopped using the name perhaps a century ago.
The idea that "left = liberal = democrat" and "right = conservative = republican" is pernicious to political dialogue; it abuses terms and radically simplifies the complex thing it pretends to discuss.)
Certainly in America at the moment, the Left is not the home of homophobia.
(Though there are people on the left who are intolerant of homosexuals... but they're quiet about it to not be drummed out of the Party.
I've heard them talk about "faggots" when they're disparaging people on the "right".
Sounds like homophobia to me, at least if we go by the common mis-use of the term.
And of course their abuse of homosexuals who are not leftists is a sight to behold; don't leave that plantation, or else.).
And I don't know that I agree with your cherry-picking of The Daily Show vs. Limbaugh. RAdio vs. TV? What about the dismal hate-filled failure that is Air America? Randi Rhodes calling celebrating the notional assassination of a President simply because he's of the wrong party?
I'm not a Republican or a man of the right (full disclosure: registered independent, voted for Democrats for Governor and Senator in the last election), and I'm not buying that. It's too convenient, too pat, and too poorly substantiated.
We're back to the "us vs. them" that oddly only ever seems to be an affliction that "they" hold. Never "us".
(And re. Moore, he has a "sense of humor"... well, so does Coulter, but she ain't all that funny either.
Reflect on how you seem to be eager to claim that the "us" are humorous, and the "them" are just mean/hateful.
Perhaps, as my original point went, this is not so much reflective of reality, as of what you want to see?)
(And on the Marxists, they seem to be ignoring Engels' stance on the subject. Doubtless it's too inconvenient to have one of the Saints reject current orthodox belief, so it's just ignored.
Now, as I disagree with Engels on this as I do almost everything else, I can't really blame the academic Marxists for ignoring him... but they're not very good Marxists, then, are they?)
I could have made this double the length, but this is already the wrong place to post it, even with a warning on top.
(But at the same time, it's an interesting conversation, and one that shouldn't just be dropped, I think. I obviously need my own blog, but I already have too many things to do.
Just let me know if it's irksome, Megan, and I'll hush up.)
Paul, the only way to respond to the ridiculous is with ridicule. And it is ridiculous, and offensive, to psychoanalyze Megan via her blog. You don't know her by any objective measure,* and your (and Thomas') sense that you somehow are qualified to opine on her personality and psychology is creepy. To say the very least.
In any event, Shouting Thomas has gotten his 15 seconds of relative fame. To paraphrase the Sex Pistols, "do you feel cheated?"
*Nor do I, by the bye.
I'm not psycho-analyzing anybody Von.
I just don't like people being smarmy and condescending towards those whom they disagree with.
Paul - clearly some things are simply in bad taste and rude. Not all viewpoints are valid. People were being "smarmy and condescending" to Shouting Thomas because what he was saying was simply completely irrational. As Von said, "the only way to respond to the ridiculous is with ridicule."
Shouting Fool's bigoted opinions have no value at all. I know this must be difficult but when someone like Shouting Fool says what he does, there is no obligation on our part to take it seriously.
Who says I disagree with ST? I certainly never said that, and broadly speaking, I think you could frame an argument making similar points to what he said with which I would mostly agree.
But agree or disagree with him, he was one hell of a jerk for no reason at all.
umrcitk eqidkfgh asolqpcni hfrxolta mpgjisnwr frtjnyobg xnqhjbv
umrcitk eqidkfgh asolqpcni hfrxolta mpgjisnwr frtjnyobg xnqhjbv
I am truly sorry to hear about your dog. If a person has a reasonable amount of sensitivity and thoughtfulness, of course they can be expected to experience rich and deep emotions upon the loss of a kindred soul and beloved member of their household. No doubt the world would be a better place if more people appreciated this. Best Wishes!
Unbelievable.
I am a heterosexual white male of vaguely conservative bent. I am married, and have a son. WTF does any of this have to do with grief??
I have been widowed, lost a parent, and lost a couple of good dogs. I assure you that althugh the experiences are not the same they are ALL grief, if you have a heart.
Jane is greiving. Stop hijacking the thread to make political points and try giving a little comfort.
Comments are Closed.