Random assemblage of reactions as I read the thread, from emmaliminal, who has been an official member of Dan Savage’s fan club since about 1990.
Sampiro, thank you for starting the thread. I think you’d probably enjoy the man himself, as would most Straight Dopers. He is very charming indeed and not at all assholish in person. His major flaw is that he thinks of awesome phrasing for his insights on the spot, rather than hours later like most of us. He probably knows more show tunes than you do, though.
Note to those who think he’s being offensive on purpose and have commented on his slinging of ohmygoodness slurs, even gay slurs: His long-running sex advice column is named Savage Love, but he originally wanted it to be named “Hey Faggot.” He settled for making all the letters in the column start with that as a salutation for a few years. So yes, he has made a career using offensive language to stimulate debate, and has had a fair amount of success at it. I don’t think he enjoys being deliberately offensive just to offend, but rather to engage. Plus, he’s a theater person. They swear a lot.
Also, please to note he was raised very seriously Catholic. Irish-American in Chicago.
Important nuance: He did not say that “the Bible is bullshit.” He said that the Bible contains some bullshit that is best ignored, the better to salvage the rest of it.
Note that he was an invited guest speaker at a high-school journalism conference whose theme was “Journalism on the Edge,” which was specifically supposed to be about beginning journalists dealing with difficult topics. He did it for free. He used a version of the talk he’s been giving all over the place lately – not new material. He asked ahead of time if he ought to tone things down due to the age of the audience, and the organizers asked him not to tone it down. In that context, I personally think the walk-out was pretty pansy-assed.
Fun fact: It’s not Savage who got one wedgie too many—he says he had it relatively easy—but his husband, Terry, who got some scarybad bullying in a small city not far from where I grew up. I don’t think it’s so much that he’s bitter as he’s trying to be a retroactive knight in shining armor.
I think it would’ve been absolutely fine/justified on a college campus. High school? Pushing the line a bit, even if for only saying stuff like “bullshit” or “pansy-ass”.
I don’t know about “every single red blood cell”, but in Jewish law, salting and soaking meat is considered the proper method for removal of blood to the degree considered acceptable. And for blood-heavy organs, like liver, more specialized preparation is required.
And if it did not suffice to remove all but residual blood cells, same reasoning.
As an asidew, explain to me what happens to blood to turn it into not-blood by cooking, please.
Does it matter? They’re still entitled to their opinion, it’s still not a great move by someone who wants to be a journalist, and Savage still shouldn’t have called them names.
He got people talking here about things that have been predecided by an overwhelming majority of posters here. Not exactly the audience he needs to reach.
How is it defensible? His qualifications are that he writes a sex advice column and says mean things about religious people. He should never have been asked.
The spread of the suicide contagion requires some initial suicides, which his organization had nothing to do with and then publicity about the suicides which his organization provided. Knowing how to cover something like youth suicides requires discretion and wisdom, neither of which Savage has. He should stick to telling people to use more lube and leave mental health counseling to those who know what they are doing.
Well, it kind of does. If a group of people were going to leave regardless of what Dan Savage said, then I think it is relevant because it makes the whole thing theater rather than ‘an opinion.’
He has around 20 years of experience in journalism and kids are more likely to be interested in him from “It Gets Better” and perhaps The Onion than a lot of other people who work in the industry.
Here’s the problem: the issue of suicide by gay teens was a known issue before Savage and his project came along. He did not publicize any suicides. He did start this initiative in response to nationally reported suicides people were already aware of (Tyler Clementi being the best known of those). It doesn’t glamorize suicide or draw undue attention to the issue. When you provide cites that his anti-suicide work is causing more suicides, I will take your comments seriously. Until then, I will not.
Why does it matter whether or not the school administration should have invited him in the first place? Even if you feel the school acted foolishly, that’s not Savage’s fault, and it doesn’t make the students’ action any less stupid.
I agree with Marley that Savage didn’t popularize the concept of gay suicide. The Clementi suicide was a huge deal in the media, and suicides among gay youths have been a problem in the community practically as long as there has been a community.
I will admit that I’ve wondered to myself in the past whether the increased visibility on certain gay suicides could have the effect of actually encouraging some further suicides, but I’ve seen zero actual evidence of this.
With the exception of the “pansy ass” comment (I wouldn’t know its exact meaning in American English, hence what level of insult we’re talking about here), I’m 100% supportive of what he said.
Regarding the fact that he should have toned it down because they’re high school students : sorry, high school students aren’t no snowflakes nowadays. They should be (and are) able to handle some blunt statements.
Regarding it being counter-productive : I don’t think it is. People (including high school students) need to be exposed to perfectly valid lines of reasonning. Despite some students acting all offended and leaving in protest, it will be food for thought for many, especially since this incident has apparently been widely reported. I think it might be very productive, in fact.
It’s still an opinion. But it would counter the idea that they were so offended by Savage’s comments that they walked out because it would appear they walked out because they disapproved of him in general.
Your cite says that certain types of news coverage increase the rate of suicide, not “all types.” What types of coverage are dangerous? Does the type of coverage engaged by Savage fall under that classification? My understanding (which could very well be wrong) is that the sort of suicide cluster you’re talking about happens at a very local level, where all the kids involved knew each other personally (if not closely), and the suicides came from seemingly random backgrounds, not just “at risk” groups.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
But that thief (Dismas, in the Catholic tradition, although never actually named in Scripture) had repented of his thievery. So I’d say it’s more accurate to characterize Dismas as a former thief.
[/QUOTE]
Kind of hard to be a good thief once you’re crucified. You could be a good spotter, perhaps, but getaway and stealth aren’t going to be your strong suit.
And actually he doesn’t repent so much as he admits his crime, which is sort of moot since he’s being crucified for it, and he asks Jesus in effect “take me with you”. Repentance would be to express sincere regret for it, which he does not do.
The polite way to say that? Heck, I dunno, I’m no expert in public speaking… but you might start by remembering that you are speaking to children, not adults.
I have every right to yell, “FUCKING SHIT!” when I smash my thumb with a hammer, and gleefully do so when alone or with adults; but I refrain when I’m around my nieces and nephews. For the kids…
it’s a high school extracurricular activity. This is exactly the place for youngsters to expand their minds, challenge themselves, and learn some critical thinking skills. Bravo to the organizers for bringing in some real speakers, rather than giving those kids some Mr. Rogers/Disney “If you believe in yourself your dreams will come true” crap. High school is more than old enough to realize that you live in a world where not everyone agrees with you, and people are going to want you to start being responsible for the wider implications of the things you do.
While I can see how the word was not a great choice, walking out was a pansy ass bullshit way to respond. Walk outs are exactly like sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “na na na I’m not listening.” Now, sometimes they can be done with great effect , but only when the stakes are high. If Mother Theresa walked out on the Pope, that would be pretty meaningful. But a bunch of kids walking out of a lecture? That’s no risk, and so there is no impact. If they had a position, they could have engaged him. Write a letter to the editor or something. But they chose the cheap, no effort response. It doesn’t show an engagement, it shows willful ignorance and cowardice.
I wonder what the reaction would be if he had encouraged young Muslims to focus on tolerance and to step away from the parts about oppressing women.