Is this prejudice?

Most of you, if you saw the Super Bowl, probably remember the Snickers ad where two grease monkeys working on a car start eating a Snickers bar from opposite ends. They meet in the middle of the bar, accidently kissing. Shocked, they decide to do something “manly” by ripping out swatches of their own chest hair.

Not the best commercial, not the worst. But of course, someone has to have a problem with it.

Here’s a clip from the article:

“Groups such as the Human Right Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) condemned the ad, saying it promoted anti-gay prejudice and condoned violence against gay Americans.”

Now, you should all know by now that I’m not down with anti-gay hatred. You also know by now that I’m not down with mental masturbation in the guise of fighting for equality. In fact, I think that picking the wrong battles can be a great loss to your cause. That, as  I see it, is what’s happening here.

Exactly how is this commercial promoting anti-gay prejudice? I’m not anti-gay, but I still don’t want to kiss a man, and would not like it if it accidently happened. Is not wanting to be gay when you’re not gay suddenly an act of prejudicial hatred? Is it “anti-gay” of me, as a straight man, to not want to kiss another man? And exactly how does this commercial foster violence against gays? The only “violence” in the commercial was self-inflicted.

Wouldn’t the above organizations be better served by addressing REAL violence against gays? Couldn’t they, as I suggested before, spend more time trying to reverse the prejudicial laws that more than half the states in America currently have? What is to be gained from trying to bully the whole nation into keeping certain words under wraps, or by harrassing networks about a commercial? I don’t think it’s hateful or biased to say “Look. Many men aren’t gay, and don’t want to be. They don’t want to kiss other men. In the case of some hick redneck grease monkey, the reaction might even be humorously overblown.” In real life, one of these guys might have been hurt in the aftermath, but not in the commercial.  The men in the commercial never said anything about gays being lesser creatures, or that they shouldn’t have rights. They didn’t even say the word “gay” or any word that means the same thing. If anything, this reaction shows an intolerance for heterosexual men on the part of the organizations above. I guess if these men don’t want to be “haters”, they should LIKE kissing other men. Once again, I think the commercial was far from stallar, but hateful? Violent? I just don’t see it.

I fully support the organizations in their quest for homosexuals to have the same rights as heterosexuals in the workplace and in society. I fully oppose ANY organization in their quest to take away anyone’s right of free speech to assuage their tender feelings. The US Constitution does not guarantee the right to go through life unoffended to ANYONE. Learn to live with that, and start fighting for the rights that really matter. Whining about stupid stuff like this just makes people less likely to listen to you when you have a real point to make.

Advertisements

32 Comments

  1. Luckily it wasn’t Mr. Goodbar!

  2. I said the same thing, but you said it better. So now I have to hate you. Damn it. {smile}

  3. LOL Paula!

  4. The constitution doesn’t guarantee you the right to not be offended. Brilliant.

    And I agree, pick your freaking battles – the ones that MATTER. And advertising? Is about speaking to people in a way that they will ACTUALLY connect with – not being “so PC it’s fucking fake”.

    Straight men? Freak the hell out at the idea of accidentally kissing. Whether it’s PC or not, it’s true.

  5. You know, I completely agreed with you on this (and posted that opinion on some other blogs), but I found out today that apparently the Snickers web site had some alternate endings to the spot — like one where one dude beats the other with a tire iron, another where a bunch of football players are grossing out at the site. When I heard that, I was much more affected. I still think the original spot was funny and pretty tame, but the alternate endings (which I have not seen, only heard described) definitely went into the realm of gay bashing. Who thought that was a good idea? That’s amazing to me that those ever got out.

  6. I see your point, Jeff, but those endings weren’t on TV, and the news reports specifically point out that the objections were about the televised version with the self-inflicted chest-hair pulling. That is the one that’s being pulled. The others were never shown on the tube. Does it make sense to pull the one off of TV because some people didn’t like the ones that weren’t shown on TV? Not to me.

    Like I said at SuperSnarks, those caveman commercials seem a lot more hip all of a sudden.

  7. I didn’t see the ad, but from your description, the whole debacle sounds utterly ridiculous.

  8. Go along with pretty much what you and everyone else has said, you have to pick your battles. If you keep being outraged at every minor thing, when a big thing comes along nobody takes any notice.

  9. I haven’t seen the ad, of course, so I have to go by your description.

    Firstly, I don’t understand why GLAAD objecting to this ad, and GLAAD fighting other, more obvious instances of anti-gay violence or prejudice, have to be mutually exclusive.

    I also don’t understand why just condemning something amounts to an infringement of someone else’s freedom of speech. Of course nobody has the right not to be insulted. But surely everybody has the right to say so if they are insulted.

    Is it “anti-gay” of me, as a straight man, to not want to kiss another man?

    No. But to describe or depict the act of two men kissing as disgusting is, I would argue, anti-gay.

    Having said that, the GLAAD position is a little over-the-top. I don’t think that ad is laughing at homosexuality so much as it is laughing at the insecurity of the two grease monkeys regarding their own sexuality. Surely that’s the point of the ad: if the two greasemonkeys were comfortable with their sexuality, they would not have reacted in the way that they did.

  10. The men in the commercial never said anything about gays being lesser creatures, or that they shouldn’t have rights. They didn’t even say the word “gay” or any word that means the same thing.

    You’re taking it too literally. An ad does not have to contain the explicit words “We don’t like gays” to be considered homophobic.

    If anything, this reaction shows an intolerance for heterosexual men on the part of the organizations above.

    I don’t see how you could reach that conclusion.

    I guess if these men don’t want to be “haters”, they should LIKE kissing other men.

    No. But nor should they react to an accidental kiss as if they have just swallowed battery acid.

  11. “Whining about stupid stuff like this just makes people less likely to listen to you when you have a real point to make”.

    Yes. I take issue with gays on things like this. If you don’t want criticism don’t put yourself out there asking for it.

  12. Yeah, there are a lot more important things to fight over. The sponsor was LOOKING for controversy, and those offended fell right into the trap.

  13. “But to describe or depict the act of two men kissing as disgusting is, I would argue, anti-gay.”

    From the point of view of the men who kissed, it was disgusting. That is, to them, a valid viewpoint. Why does that have to be kept under wraps? Are you saying that no viewpoint concerning men kissing each other should be seen or heard in public unless it is one that gay people will approve of?

    Just two weeks ago, I argued with a guy over at Lucy’s blog about gays. He, a Christian, said that they should just do their thing in private and not make a public spectacle of their gayness. “Why can’t they just do their thing in private and just be quiet about it?” was his gist. I said that people should not have to hide who they are and just skulk in their homes because their behavior isn’t welcome in public. Now, I have to say the same thing in the opposite direction. Straight people who find men kissing to be discomforting should have a right to express their preference for heterosexuality publicly (in non-violent fashion, of course) as well. It’s the exact same thing. I’m not putting either side above the other. I’m talking about equality. A lot of people throughout history have confused “equality” with “appease our every whim”, and that is not the same thing. Gay people should be allowed their place in society as equals, but they cannot expect the entire society to walk on rice paper around them. As equals in society, they will be offended sometimes. EVERYONE is offended sometimes. It’s part of living in a free society.If the only problem you have is that you’re offended, I don’t give a shit, because no one is guaranteed the right to be unoffended.

    ” I don’t think that ad is laughing at homosexuality so much as it is laughing at the insecurity of the two grease monkeys regarding their own sexuality.”

    My point, and SuperSnark’s, exactly. The grease monkeys are not portrayed as America’s finest minds at work. They’re more like the current administration.

    “An ad does not have to contain the explicit words “We don’t like gays” to be considered homophobic”

    Then almost anything imaginable to someone with a grudge to air will qualify. My point is that the men in the commercial made a judgement only as far as their OWN actions were concerned. There was no blanket statement about how others should behave.

    “But nor should they react to an accidental kiss as if they have just swallowed battery acid.”

    I see. So heterosexuals shouldn’t tell gays how to feel about or react to this commercial, but gays should tell heterosexuals how to feel and react about kissing each other. After all, heteros are the ones saying that this shouldn’t be seen as offensive, and you’re arguing that. Why this disparity? Are gays better at assigning feelings to people because they’re more “sensitive” or something? Gays are victims in very real ways every day. This simply isn’t one of them.

    My stance is this: Everyone deserves equality. NO ONE is entitled to blind deference. Not the Christians who want gays to live in hiding (or to be arrested and executed as some of the Prince of Peace’s “followers” have suggested)or the gays who want to traipse through life with no one ever disapproving of them. Not hispanics who want everying in public to be translated into spanish, not “Americans” who feel that no kid should enter kindergarden unless they already speak English. Not the Ku Klux Klan, not black people who object to public use of the word “niggardly.” Not women. Not men.

    The ONLY way to be assured the freedom to live as you want is to help assure that freedom for everyone else. That doesn’t happen when people are saying “You can’t say that because it offends ME.” It happens when you say “I disagree, but you are free to say that.” The latter is NOT what the groups named above have done, is it?

  14. Woohoo! Joe for Prez!!

    Well, we have to tolerate being offended and they (whoever) have to tolerate us saying we’re offended even if that hurts their feelings and then they get to say we’re rude and we get to say they’re fat and they get to say we’re ugly. I think. Yah. Can’t draw the line at one particular spot (as long as it’s all talking and not inciting to violence) and say, no, RIGHT HERE is where you can’t say anything more.

    So re the other post. One man gets to act gay and another gets to call him a fag and we get to tell the second guy he’s mean. That’s all cool as long as there are no laws preventing anyone from saying whatever, right?

  15. It’s allllllllll talk, as the song goes. Where does having to go into therapy to protect your job stand on this scale?

  16. Well, personally I’m fine with employers hiring and firing at will (protected classes excepted). So if some producer tells a guy to go into homophobe therapy, or some chick to lose weight and get a nose job, or whatever, I have no problem with it. They can always get their old job back at Denny’s, right?

  17. I guess I’m just not comfortable with cherry-picking who gets to speak freely without harming others and who doesn’t.

  18. Are you saying that no viewpoint concerning men kissing each other should be seen or heard in public unless it is one that gay people will approve of?

    No: where did I say that?

    Straight people who find men kissing to be discomforting should have a right to express their preference for heterosexuality publicly (in non-violent fashion, of course) as well.

    Expressing one’s preference for heterosexuality is one thing. Articulating one’s disgust for homosexuality is quite another.

    Gay people should be allowed their place in society as equals, but they cannot expect the entire society to walk on rice paper around them.

    (i)If you were to replace the word “Gay” in that sentence with “Black” or “Jewish,” would you still endorse its sentiment as heartily?
    (ii)What makes you think that gay people in general agree with GLAAD’s position on the Snickers ad? How do you know that gay people in general expect society to walk on rice paper around them?

    If the only problem you have is that you’re offended, I don’t give a shit, because no one is guaranteed the right to be unoffended.

    Obviously you do give a shit, otherwise you wouldn’t have posted on this matter. You’re angry that GLAAD have taken offence at the ad, and you want them to shut up about it. To put this another way, it’s GLAAD’s turn to walk on rice paper around you.

    Then almost anything imaginable to someone with a grudge to air will qualify.

    Wrong.

    My point is that the men in the commercial made a judgement only as far as their OWN actions were concerned. There was no blanket statement about how others should behave.

    And my point is that if you’re only going to look at an ad at its most literal, simplistic level, you’re being incredibly naive. It is possible for an ad to be homophobic in a far more subtle way than simply screaming “GOD HATES FAGS!” (And I’m not specifically referring to the Snickers ad, which from your description I would not describe as homophobic–I’m speaking in a general way.)

    So heterosexuals shouldn’t tell gays how to feel about or react to this commercial, but gays should tell heterosexuals how to feel and react about kissing each other. After all, heteros are the ones saying that this shouldn’t be seen as offensive, and you’re arguing that.

    No: you’re saying that the ad shouldn’t be seen as offensive. And for all you know, a lot of gays mght agree with you. But you seem to implying that GLAAD speaks for the Gay Hive Mind, and Joe the Troll speaks for the Heterosexual Hive Mind. How does that work?

    NO ONE is entitled to blind deference.

    Relax. No one’s asking for it. (Except, perhaps, the fundies.)

    The ONLY way to be assured the freedom to live as you want is to help assure that freedom for everyone else. That doesn’t happen when people are saying “You can’t say that because it offends ME.” It happens when you say “I disagree, but you are free to say that.” The latter is NOT what the groups named above have done, is it?

    Well, yes, actually: it is. All they have done is given voice to their objections. People may not have the right not to be offended, but they certainly have the right to say so if they are offended. The same right to free speech that gives you the freedom to offend also gives others the freedom to let you know that they are offended.

  19. “Expressing one’s preference for heterosexuality is one thing. Articulating one’s disgust for homosexuality is quite another.”

    You must have hated “Will and Grace” then, because that Jack character always got the screaming heebies whenever sex with women was the topic. I’ve had gay friends who did the same thing. I thought it was funny. But then, I try to see both sides since I have no personal axe to grind.

    “i)If you were to replace the word “Gay” in that sentence with “Black” or “Jewish,” would you still endorse its sentiment as heartily?”

    Yes. That was made quite plain when I said this: “Not hispanics who want everying in public to be translated into spanish, not “Americans” who feel that no kid should enter kindergarden unless they already speak English. Not the Ku Klux Klan, not black people who object to public use of the word “niggardly.” Not women. Not men.”

    Where are these homosexuals who want GLAAD to back off? Their silence is screaming.

    “Obviously you do give a shit, otherwise you wouldn’t have posted on this matter.”

    Okay, you’ve said other things that are actually intelligent, so I’ll let that slide. It’s the fact that yet another special interest group has controlled what the entire country can watch by whining about being offended that I care about, not the whiners feeling offended.

    “To put this another way, it’s GLAAD’s turn to walk on rice paper around you.”

    Sorry, you’re really full of crap there. I object to the fact that a commercial has been pulled by the insistence of a group that has at the very least grossly exaggerated the commercial’s effect. Do you know of any case where this commercial – THIS ONE- incited violence against a homosexual? Do you? Well, GLAAD has said that it promotes violence, and should be pulled, and accuses to candy manufacturer of promoting bigotry. If you’re whiny enough, you can get people to accept that without having to prove anything.

    There’s a personal undertone to what you just said there, too. You seem to feel that I am against homosexuals in general, and have this issue as an excuse. You don’t know me well, so if that is what you are thinking, get off of it. Any of the folks here who know me can tell you that I’m not a hater. I take things issue by issue. I simply see giving undue deference to ANY group as nothing more than another form of discrimination. If I don’t have the right to avoid being offended, why should anyone else? There is no way to have that AND freedom of speech.

    “And my point is that if you’re only going to look at an ad at its most literal, simplistic level, you’re being incredibly naive.”

    Now you’re throwing stones, after I’ve been very polite and respectful. Obviously, you don’t know me well, because you’re venturing into ground where I can play very, very effectively, and I don’t think you want that. OF COURSE I look at them literally, because anyone with a grain of common sense stops there. It’s a commercial for a candy bar, not Anna Karenina, FFS! If I WANT to delve into something and find offense in it, I can, no matter what it is. If you go looking for something to whine about, something will pop up. Don’t expect the rest of the world to give a fuck. If a homosexual is actually harmed, either physically or financially, I will care. I do not care if anyone is offended. I’m offended by stuff every day. IT IS THE PRICE OF LIVING WITH FREE SPEECH. DO you think those Pride parades don’t offend Christians? Yes, they do, and when they whine about it (and draft petitions to stop it)I wish they would shut the fuck up, too. Their rights are not being violated, just their sensibilities, and our country does not have a guarantee against that. For ANYBODY.

    “But you seem to implying that GLAAD speaks for the Gay Hive Mind, and Joe the Troll speaks for the Heterosexual Hive Mind. How does that work?”

    Now you’re just being an ass. You know how this blog thing works, right? People post their OPINIONS. They don’t all post specific disclaimers about whom they’re NOT speaking for. That is generally taken for granted among those people who aren’t desperate for something to hold on to in their weak little arguments. You’re quickly becoming a Blogovian cliche. Besides, look around. The media buzz is just like it’s portrayed here. I haven’t seen any gay folks on TV telling GLAAD to settle down.

    And I think this statement ”
    saying it promoted anti-gay prejudice and condoned violence against gay Americans.” is more than an OPINION. It is a LIE, and it slanders the intentions of the company that made the commercial. Here’s another: “That Snickers, Mars and the NFL would promote and endorse this kind of prejudice is simply inexcusable,” GLAAD President Neil Giuliano said in a statement.

    Accusing three companies of prejudice and inciting violence against gays is more than just voicing objections to a commercial. When someone accuses specific homosexuals, say for instance ones that want to be teachers or Cub Scout leaders, of being predators who want to convert innocent children to homosexuality, is that the same as simply voicing their discomfort with homosexuals? No, it crosses a line. The statements from GLAAD do the same thing in the same way.

    Once again, I will support homosexuals or any other group (except NAMBLA, because I’m just that way) when fighting for real, material rights. I will support groups that I wholeheartedly disagree with when asking for the right to express their views, even. I will not support any group in whining just to get attention and deference.

  20. BTW, AV, I’ve been trying to post a comment on your blog, but haloscan won’t take it two days in a row. What’s up with that?

    Here’s what I tried to say there:

    We hear the same crap about the sanctity of marriage in America. What’s destroying marriage isn’t homosexuals, it’s the “no fault divorce.” People are no longer obligated to work at a marriage, they have the option to just bag it at any time they say. Therefore, the vows are meaningless now. This wasn’t done by gays, the heterosexual community did it to themselves.

    It’s ironic that many of the politicians and pundits that decry gay marriage because of “sanctity” have had multiple divorces themselves.

  21. I didn’t think it would be long before the arguments ended and the ad hominems began . . .

    Where are these homosexuals who want GLAAD to back off? Their silence is screaming.

    Maybe they’re not as apoplectic about this issue as you seem to be, and are getting on with their lives. That you personally haven’t heard a gay person criticise the GLAAD position doesn’t mean that every gay person in the United States is in lockstep behind GLAAD. Silence does not automatically mean consent. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t.

    It’s the fact that yet another special interest group has controlled what the entire country can watch by whining about being offended that I care about, not the whiners feeling offended.

    Please. They’re a lobby group, and lobbying for what they perceive are the interests of those they represent is what lobby groups do. And they have the constitutional right to do so. Whether they are listened to by those they are lobbying, of course, is another matter.

    I object to the fact that a commercial has been pulled by the insistence of a group that has at the very least grossly exaggerated the commercial’s effect.

    So go complain to Snickers, Mars, the NFL, etc. They’re the ones that made the decision to pull the ad. They’re the ones that opted to listen to the concerns expressed by GLAAD. Why, then, aren’t you condemning the organisations that actually decided to pulled the ad (i.e. the companies)?

    If you’re whiny enough, you can get people to accept that without having to prove anything.

    Bullshit. The US is a free country, isn’t it? Snickers, et. al. made a decision, and were (I assume–unless you can correct me by pointing to a law that prohibits ads like the one in question) completely free to choose otherwise if they so desired.

    There’s a personal undertone to what you just said there, too.

    No, there hasn’t been. But here’s one: you strike me as oversensitive. And you also seem too eager to confuse criticism of your arguments with attacks on your person. I’m inferring this, of course, from what you’ve written here. For all I know you might have a much thicker skin in real life.

    I might also point out an irony here: you demand that the Snickers ad be read only in its most literal fashion, yet you’re willing to read “personal undertones” into my remarks.

    Obviously, you don’t know me well, because you’re venturing into ground where I can play very, very effectively, and I don’t think you want that.

    I’m sure I’ve heard worse, and I’m really not all that concerned. But what I do want is for you to calm down and stop taking this debate so personally.

    I do not care if anyone is offended.

    LOL: So you keep insisting. 🙂

    Their rights are not being violated, just their sensibilities, and our country does not have a guarantee against that.

    You don’t need to keep repeating yourself–I agreed with you the first time. But your rights are not violated by the mere fact that someone finds something offensive. It is, after all, as you say, the price of living with free speech.

    You know how this blog thing works, right?

    I do: people post their opinions, and then they have these things called “Comment boxes” inviting others to share their own opinions on the topic. Sometimes blog owners will encounter opinions in these comments that differ from their own–and certain bloggers handle this difference better than others, it must be said.

    I haven’t seen any gay folks on TV telling GLAAD to settle down.

    Again, silence does not automatically imply consent. Maybe they’re not as excited by this issue as you seem to be.

    And I think this statement ”
    saying it promoted anti-gay prejudice and condoned violence against gay Americans.” is more than an OPINION. It is a LIE, and it slanders the intentions of the company that made the commercial.

    Well if it was slanderous, Joe, then why isn’t Snickers suing the pants of GLAAD right now? Why didn’t the company stand up for itself and defend its good name?

    I will not support any group in whining just to get attention and deference.

    Nobody’s asking you to.

  22. BTW, AV, I’ve been trying to post a comment on your blog, but haloscan won’t take it two days in a row. What’s up with that?

    I don’t know. It must be an issue with Haloscan. Perhaps you could try posting anonymously and signing off with your name.

  23. “That you personally haven’t heard a gay person criticise the GLAAD position doesn’t mean that every gay person in the United States is in lockstep behind GLAAD. ”

    I never said they were. That’s your little fantasy to help you avoid the real statements here.

    “They’re a lobby group, and lobbying for what they perceive are the interests of those they represent is what lobby groups do. And they have the constitutional right to do so.”

    And I have the constitutional right to say that they’re being a bunch of whiny fuckheads, and if people get to the point where they don’t care what rights gays want and won’t listen to their concerns, then they have only organizations like GLAAD to blame for crying wolf.

    “Why, then, aren’t you condemning the organisations that actually decided to pulled the ad (i.e. the companies)?”

    Because they were protecting themselves from bad press that they didn’t deserve. Wasn’t that obvious enough for you?

    “I might also point out an irony here: you demand that the Snickers ad be read only in its most literal fashion, yet you’re willing to read “personal undertones” into my remarks.”

    You’re not telling a silly story to get me to buy a candy bar, are you? It’s a different situation. I wouldn’t criticise someone for reading too far into “The Grapes of Wrath” because it isn’t just a commercial. Telling me that I expect GLAAD to walk on rice paper around me personally is not critisising my argument, it’s commenting on the character of someone you don’t know. I have come right out and said that I accept that people will say things in public that I disapprove of. I don’t make a nationwide case out of it, or endorse any lobbying group to do so. On my own blog, though, I’ll say something about it. It’s my right. Just like turning off the comments would be my right if I was afraid to read something I don’t like. I’ve never done that, BTW. I never ever said that GLAAD doesn’t have a right to say what tghey want. I said that bullying a candy company with inflated accusations of bigotry isn’t going to help them or the people they represent in any demonstrable way, and may hurt them in the future when they want people to listen to a genuine concern.

    ” But what I do want is for you to calm down and stop taking this debate so personally”

    I’l feel how I like here. This is MY place. You don’t like it, there’s the door. Do you see me going to your blog and telling you how to feel?

    ” But your rights are not violated by the mere fact that someone finds something offensive. It is, after all, as you say, the price of living with free speech.”

    I never said my personal rights were being violated. I said that GLAAD is barking up the wrong tree, and should concentrate on issue where homosexuals are being demonstrably harmed, because press like this does nothing for them and can dilute their main message, harming their efforts to make real advancements for their people. Maybe you’d be okay with never getting legal marriages or workplace equality as long as no one insults your sensibilities, but I’d call that shooting yourself in the foot.

    ” certain bloggers handle this difference better than others, it must be said.”

    When you alter my words to change my argument, that is weak and disingenuous, it must be said.

    “Again, silence does not automatically imply consent. Maybe they’re not as excited by this issue as you seem to be.”

    As I seem to be? You’re here, too, right? Did someone drag you here, force you past the top post, and make you keep posting comments on this one? Don’t pretend you don’t have a concern here.

    ” Snickers suing the pants of GLAAD right now?”

    Because of public perception, which rarely has anything to do with truth. Honestly, that was a really stupid question. Do you expect them to sue a lobbyist for a minority group and have them come out looking good, regardless of who is actually in the right? I’d say you’re being naive now.

    Look, all I said was that their attitude was ridiculous and that they’re doing their own cause no favors in the long run by whining about something insignificant. I said the same thing about the NAACP when all that “niggardly” stuff happened, and about the Anti-defamation League when they didn’t like a Star Wars character. YOU are the only one taking exception to my attitude, and you are the one who is arguing every little nuance of my statements. I never said that anyone should be forced to do or say anything. So don’t come here with your fucking bullshit that I’m refusing to let go of something that YOU are instrumental in continuing, okay? I expressed an opinion that you aren’t going to change. So if I’m the one who’s obsessing, just what are YOU doing?

  24. And I have the constitutional right to say that they’re being a bunch of whiny fuckheads,

    Who’s arguing otherwise.

    and if people get to the point where they don’t care what rights gays want and won’t listen to their concerns, then they have only organizations like GLAAD to blame for crying wolf.

    No, they can blame their own prejudice and stupidity–if their concern for gay rights in general is conditional upon GLAAD behaving itself.

    Because they were protecting themselves from bad press that they didn’t deserve.

    If they didn’t deserve it, why didn’t they make a better fist of defending themselves? It seems to me that Snickers was vindicating GLAAD’s accusations by pulling the ad.

    I wouldn’t criticise someone for reading too far into “The Grapes of Wrath” because it isn’t just a commercial.

    The difference isn’t as great as you think. Commercials can convey subtle messages as well as explicit ones. That’s all I’m saying.

    I said that bullying a candy company with inflated accusations of bigotry isn’t going to help them or the people they represent in any demonstrable way, and may hurt them in the future when they want people to listen to a genuine concern.

    So you’re telling me that if you see a gay man being beaten up in the street, you’ll be less inclined to assist him now that GLAAD has complained about a candy bar ad?

    I’l feel how I like here. This is MY place. You don’t like it, there’s the door.

    Actually, I’m beginning to enjoy it.

    As I seem to be? You’re here, too, right? Did someone drag you here, force you past the top post, and make you keep posting comments on this one? Don’t pretend you don’t have a concern here.

    Initially I hung around because I thought your post might generate a half-decent discussion. Now I’m here because I find your ranting and raving amusing.

    Because of public perception, which rarely has anything to do with truth. Honestly, that was a really stupid question. Do you expect them to sue a lobbyist for a minority group and have them come out looking good, regardless of who is actually in the right?

    Why not? Is GLAAD really that powerful and influential, compared with a major corporation? I doubt it.

    YOU are the only one taking exception to my attitude, and you are the one who is arguing every little nuance of my statements. I never said that anyone should be forced to do or say anything. So don’t come here with your fucking bullshit that I’m refusing to let go of something that YOU are instrumental in continuing, okay? I expressed an opinion that you aren’t going to change. So if I’m the one who’s obsessing, just what are YOU doing?

    You use CAPS LOCK a fair bit, don’t you?

  25. “they can blame their own prejudice and stupidity–if their concern for gay rights in general is conditional upon GLAAD behaving itself.”

    It need not involve prejudice. If your child complains about being beaten up by his brother, for instance, and it is shown to be false more than once, then you won’t listen to him complain when it really does happen. That’s not being prejudiced against your child. It’s simply not being concerned with the complaints of someone who has made frivolous complaints in the past.

    “why didn’t they make a better fist of defending themselves? ”

    I’m not explaining it AGAIN. I’ve already used small words for your benefit.

    “So you’re telling me that if you see a gay man being beaten up in the street, you’ll be less inclined to assist him now that GLAAD has complained about a candy bar ad?”

    That’s a stupid way to take that. No, I’m saying that when a real issue of discrimination and violence comes up, some people will remember things like this that were considered frivolous and ignore the new issue, even if it has merit. And it was pretty obvious that I was saying that to anyone interested in a truthful discussion. In fact, it was the final sentence of the original post.

    Besides, if I see someone being beaten, am I supposed to saunter up and say “Excuse me. Are you beating this guy because he’s queer, perchance?”

    “Initially I hung around because I thought your post might generate a half-decent discussion”

    Then why are you purposely distorting my statements? People who want a half-decent discussion don’t do that. I think you’re being pretty disingenuous here. A half decent discussion need not involve my having to agree with your conclusions. Look at Jeff K up above. We disagreed…. does that mean we didn’t have a “half-decent discussion?” I guess it does, since a “half-decent discussion” seems to involve me seeing your points and you refusing to see mine.

    “Is GLAAD really that powerful and influential, compared with a major corporation? I doubt it.”

    You’re familiar with the term “underdog”, right. Do you always need to be walked right up to the obvious?

    “You use CAPS LOCK a fair bit, don’t you?”

    You try to change the subject a lot, don’t you? What, was that point too difficult for you to address? Is the truth that you’re here disingenuously to pick a fight too much for you to be faced with?

    Look, you’re missing the point way too much for it not to be on purpose. You’re welcome to comment on any other post, but I’m done with you on this one. If you need to pretend that someone is saying something other than they are in order to have your “half-decent discussion”, do it elsewhere, because this insincere whining of yours is taking this thread absolutely nowhere, and I do not appreciate someone taking what I write and turning it into something that it isn’t.

  26. Look at Jeff K up above. We disagreed…. does that mean we didn’t have a “half-decent discussion?”

    Actually, I’m on my way to your house right now. I’m wearing a diaper…

  27. I’ve got my camera ready, Jeff. That’s a pic I can’t wait to post!

  28. Mmmkay, so after reading the whole exchange between you and AV, I’ve come to the happy conclusion that I have a new Hero of Reason and Rationality. (Hint: It ain’t AV.)

    Beautifully, intelligently argued, point by point.

  29. you are the one who is arguing every little nuance of my statements.

    The telltale sign of losing a debate, which is why they have time limits in the competitions – to keep wordy, supercilious snots from embarrassing themselves. I didn’t think of AV as such when the dialectic began, but boy, did my opinion of him/her degrade!

    Congrats Joe (and we call YOU the Troll! Oh, look – CAPS LOCK 1 1 1 1 1, I mean ! ! ! ! !) – you swatted all the screwball pitches outta the park!

  30. Thank yeeeew, thankyuhverruhmuhhhhhch…….

  31. deposit free bonus casino
    see to signature…

  32. popular free ringtones

    http://www.thehotstop.info

    signature…


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s