I think puddleglum left out a link to the resource he was referring to because anyone reading it would be able to see the acrobatics he’s going through to flip the issue on it’s head and to blame Dan Savage for poor journalism.
The ‘It get better campaigns’ form and design are so in line with Dart’s findings I would find it hard to believe Savage didn’t consult experts in the field when creating it. If you compare their guild-lines you’ll find they line up point for point with Dart’s recommendations.
If the school was looking for a journalistic expert in how to report on suicide cases Dan Savage would be an exemplary professional to go to, on that particular issue.
That said I don’t like Dan Savage or his methods and probably wouldn’t hire him to speak unless very clear limitations were agreed on.
However puddleglum’s criticism falls in the realm of ridiculous and I felt compelled to point it out.
If he had said “the Koran is full of shit”, that probably wouldn’t have gotten the reaction he was hoping for.
We can all say, “well, they’re bigots, they deserve it! Why should we be civil? We need to be loud and proud and in your face!” That’s all very well…but does it WORK in this particular case? Children – even high school kids, aren’t special snowflakes, no, but they’re also not miniature adults. It’s not about sheltering them – it’s about what fucking works, or gets them to take it seriously.
And another thing – are kids bashing each other for being gay because of what the Bible says, or simply because being gay is “different”, or “gross”? Kids don’t need religion to be bullies.
And finally, if this walk-out was planned in advance, they were going to do so whether he mentioned the Bible or not.
Probably not original but I don’t have time to read the whole thread: I agree with him completely, and what he said is no more offensive than what Christians preach every week about how anyone who doesn’t agree with them is going to hell.
One of the main arguments against atheism is that it has no absolute morality, but as Savage correctly notes, neither does Christianity. Christians pick and choose the parts of the Bible they accept or reject, or else they interpret it to agree with what they want to do anyway, like Paul Ryan saying the way to help the poor is to not help them, or some such bullshit.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
And another thing – are kids bashing each other for being gay because of what the Bible says, or simply because being gay is “different”, or “gross”? Kids don’t need religion to be bullies.
[/QUOTE]
This is a major and valid point. I’ve actually never really known a bully to have an excuse other than “I don’t like Tommy- I’m bigger than Tommy- I’m going to hit Tommy- Fag’s a bad word and I suspect Tommy probably is one so I’ll do that while I’m bullying him”. (I’ve not only known several straight guys who were bullied and “fag” was usually what they were called even if there was nothing to remotely imply they were actually homosexual- it’s largely a word kids say that means ‘really nasty things’.)
Religion is more often used to justify voting against gay marriage, or denying gays anti-discrimination rights, or refusing to allow Teh Gay to be taught in school perhaps, but it’s not usually used by bullies as an excuse for bullying. Once in a while you’ll have somebody use it justify violence against an adult. (This week a minister used it to advocate beating kids who seemed gay but he is catching hell from many Christians as well (he claims it’s a joke) and even Savage would have to admit anything that blatant is very rare.)
Those might be Dart’s recommendations, but they do not form a general mandate in journalistic ethics. Journalists often disagree on decisions in which one might be withholding information. There are many considered arguments that result in different opinions and different decisions on the proper way to proceed. But rejecting the recommendations of an organization like Dart does not mean you are not a true journalist.
Right. There are situations in which a publication might decide not to cover a suicide for ethical reasons, but journalists can’t refuse to cover all suicides purely because an organization (even a reputable one) says suicide coverage is linked to copycat suicides. It’s something to keep in mind and it might set a very high bar for coverage of suicides, but you’d be hard-pressed to get journalists to agree that something simply should not be covered. The public’s interest and its right to know what is happening also have to be considered. Even if Savage’s work violated the Dart Center recommendations, that doesn’t make it inherently unethical from a journalistic standpoint- or any other, really.
Why should I or any atheist “embrace the cafeteria”? I’m trying to take down religion, move us toward a more progressive future where people don’t subscribe to that bullshit, not help make it more palatable so it will last longer. So for my purposes, highlighting rather than downplaying the “odious passages” is where it’s at.
So, we’ve established then that even ignoring queries about translations, there are a whole range of forms of behaviour that the bible states are as bad as homosexuality.
And yet I’ve never seen a preacher calling for fornicators to be beaten, or the greedy to have it kicked out of them. But for homosexuality:
Don’t you see this as a double standard? I mean, if you like I can dig out other such stories, but I’d hope you’re not going to pretend this is a one off. There’s something about gay that seems to upset christians to a far greater degree than greed, or drunkenness, or whatever. Why is that?
You’ve been going step by step on this, which is all to the good. I’ll jump ahead and give my view: You can make a Christian case against homosexuality, but it’s harder than it looks. Surprisingly. You can make a Christian case for tolerance of homosexuals but it’s harder than it looks. Much less surprisingly. Now I haven’t substantiated that yet. To really get a hold of this, we’d have to drill into the 7 clobber passages, plus the evident themes in the gospel of not being a sanctimonious prick, plus Matthew 19:12. The evidence is mixed and must be weighed and combined with care. Too bad nobody here is familiar with Greek.
Then again, the stuff on divorce and heck being rich is pretty clear. It’s not all murk.
So Clothahump, you’re a right winger, but not a Christian Conservative and not a Libertarian per se, right? Or no?
I mean all 3 groups are in the same bed, but I sort of thought that self-identified right wingers were either Christian Conservative (loons-IMnsHO), Libertarian (fringies- IMnsHO) or Anti-Communists (less relevant today). I hadn’t thought much about the generic types. That’s my failing: there are plenty of Americans with severe conservatism who support neither Ron Paul nor Rick Santorum. [/hijack]
Worth pointing out that Dan Savage and his husband Terry started off their campaign as an attempt to talk people out of suicides, just a non-reciprocal way. As he put it, “You are ours to torture until you’re 18; when you’re 18, you will not be able to help those who are tortured.”. Nobody criticises the Samaritans for publicising their suicide helpline.
Also, he points out a large difference between being bullied for perceived gayness and perceived nerdiness. He says the latter is on the receiving end of more bullying (at least in the case of his brother) - but they can go home to sympathetic and possibly nerdy parents. Very unlikely to be the case in the former situation. In fact, if the parents harbour bigoted views perpetuated by their hardline pastor, they may even sanction or partake in it.
I don’t know how severe I am, but that otherwise describes me. Paul’s dedication is perhaps admirable, but his vision is totally unworkable. And Santorum’s fidelity to Catholic principles is perhaps admirable, but same problem: totally unworkable as a leader of a secular country.
“And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers”
Seems to be a pretty sweeping condemnation of lawyers.
That is a very divisive topic which has recently seen a number of pertinent rulings. I’d recommend bringing in specialist counsel for this issue. Unfortunately, that sort of expertise does not come cheap.
I’m a native English speaker who’s been around a while (I’m 50), and when I heard Savage refer to them as “pansy-assed,” it didn’t occur to me that the word can sometimes be used as an insult to gays. In my experience, the word means “weak” but in a decidedly insulting way, and because of that meaning, it had sometimes been used as an insult to more effeminate boys/men.
It was only after I read about it as a news story that I heard someone criticize him for using a word that itself can be used for bullying. OK, maybe he could have used a different word, one that doesn’t have such an ambiguous pedigree, but it’s a far cry from using a word as blatantly offensive as “fag” for example.
The guidelines make clear that suicide should be talked about as a mental health issue. “It gets better” is doing the exact opposite, it is trying to blame the suicides on a single cause, bullying. Their use of celebrities in the videos is especially dangerous because it sends the message that these kids can affect the world by commiting suicide.
DARTS is not nearly the only organization to caution journalists against contributing to suicide contagion. Here is alinkto an article by the CDC that has guidelines similar to DARTS.
And just so no one can accuse me of twisting what the article says here is the CDC are ASPECTS OF NEWS COVERAGE THAT CAN PROMOTE SUICIDE CONTAGION
[ul]
[li]Presenting simplistic explanations for suicide. - “It gets better” does this by blaming the suicides solely on bullying.[/li][li]Engaging in repetitive, ongoing, or excessive reporting of suicide in the news. - They do this by uploading thousands of videos to youtube many of which are repetitive and cumulatively they are excessive.[/li][li]Providing sensational coverage of suicide. - Their coverage is very sensational and emotional.[/li][li]Reporting “how-to” descriptions of suicide. - Don’t know if they do this or not[/li][li]Presenting suicide as a tool for accomplishing certain ends. - By presenting themselves as inspired by the suicides, they send the message that suicide can help end bullying and achieve special rights for gays.[/li][li]Glorifying suicide or persons who commit suicide. - The public displays of grief that are in these videos are doing this.[/li][li]Focusing on the suicide completer’s positive characteristics. - These videos are about how tragic it was that these great kids were driven to suicide by bullying.[/li][/ul]
There is information at the link about 12 different studies about how media coverage affects suicides rates. Most of them are 20 years old or more. There is no excuse for Savage and his group not to know about them.
Truly through the looking glass.
People who point out the high number of kids who kill themselves because of homophobic bullying and try to give those kids help are doing some real harm and are “inspired” by suicide and are putting out “the message that suicide can help end bullying and achieve special rights for gays”.