I don’t actually support him, care about him, or vote for him. So this really isn’t my problem. My point is this: if people who disagree or even dislike him must fall to this level, it means they don’t have anything more substansive than bile and vinegar. I think several posters here prove that point admirably. When you fall solely to smear campaigns, then there’s no reason to listen to you. Yes, you hate somebody. We get it. You’ve also amply demonstrated you have nothing of interest to say, and deserve only contempt.
And of course, people defend the smear campaigns they like in the same breath they condemn those against “their” people. But the substance is the same. It’s hate mass-produced for the in-group. You want to see “your” people stomp all over the hated “other”. You want to high-five one another for all the face-stomping you did. It’s no different than tribal wars, gang brawls, or faculty faction feuds.
I knew a guy once who claimed that after the revolution, he’d happily kill the children of bankers, because they were parasites in training.
Guy was a motherfucking asshole. (see? bile and vinegar).
Even if his revolution happened–which is highly, highly unlikely, given the political makeup of the United States–his plan was extremely unethical. The children had not yet made a choice as to how they’d live their lives, and punishing them for the perceived sins of their parents would be the epitome of injustice. (see? more substantive)
In no way did my first comment mean I couldn’t make my second comment.
And if you’d ever read Dan Savage, or paid attention to his “It Gets Better” campaign, or listened to his essays about raising a family with his partner, you’d know that he has plenty substantive to say. It’s just he also likes to make dirty jokes that embarrass his opponents.
Again, the quoted part is a total non sequitur. If you look at it, you’re likely to realize that.
I consider Rick Santorum to be an evil scumbag of a politician.
I consider the Dan Savage “santorum” Google bombing to be a really sad, pathetic, childish response to Santorum. It fits the stereotype of gays as petty, snarky, intellectual lightweights who think they are a lot smarter than they actually are. I lost a lot of respect for Dan Savage because of it, and I have trouble respecting those who support it. Hasn’t changed my opinion of Santorum one way or the other.
I suspect a lot of the moderates who decide elections would feel the same way. Basically, it’s a loser move.
There is a difference between a specific judgement (He is bad because X, Y, and Z) and generic hatred (Person B just sucks. Fuck him.) The former is a result of events, and may be considered as such. In theory (though often not in practice) the former can change. The latter is an emotional reaction void of intellectual content, and actively opposed to thought.
Making dirty jokes doesn’t embarass your opponents. It just makes you look stupid, or maybe a comedian. You can’t make serious commentary and be a comedian at the same time.
That’s absolutely ridiculous. You’re basically trying to invalidate all satire or any social commentary that doesn’t get delivered with a big frowny face.
So, you’re suggesting the moderates would actually feel sympathy for Santorum and be more inclined to vote for him (or, since he’s likely to soon be eliminated from the primaries) another Republican?
If American moderates are that dumb, it’s no wonder someone like Santorum can get traction in the first place.
Wrong. “Quisling” evolved as a response to Vidkun Quisling’s collarboration with the Nazis. “Santorum” evolved as a response to Rick Santorum’s hate speech. The parallel is about as exact as anything in the real world of sociology and politics can be expected to be.
This is like arguing that because the Allies had to resort to shooting bullets and dropping bombs in response to Nazi aggression, then the Allies are just as bad as the Nazis.
Would you say Rick Santorum was engaged in a smear campaign? You’re also wrong about the “solely” part. Just because you’re mocking someone doesn’t mean you can’t also do other things. Savage started the “It Gets Better” project, and other supporters of gay rights have helped gain recognition for same-sex marriage in several states.
Blah blah blah. Santorum was a U.S. Senator with the power to make and influence national policy. His opponents made a joke out of his name. Let’s not go overboard with the comparisons to violence or hatred. It’s satire.
I wasn’t aware of that stereotype. Are you sure it exists?
Same-sex marriages are now recognized in more states than they were in 2004, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has ended, and the Obama administration has stopped defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court. So it seems to me that it probably hasn’t harmed the gay rights movement.
What many people fail to understand is that the main reason for coining new words is to save time and make communications more effective.
For example, when the love that dared not speak its name became the love that won’t shut up, “gay” replaced “homosexual” NOT because of a strategy in the hum’sexual agenda to make their deviancy more attractive (pace Rick Santorum) but simply because one syllable saves a lot of time compared to five.
If we are going to talk about anal sex, it is much easier to say “santorum” than to say “frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex”.
As a gay person who has practised anal sex over the past 40 years, I note that many of the comments on this thread betray the common belief of straight people that this form of sex necessarily covers its participants in shit. You may be interested to know that expressions like “fudge packing” and Hershey Highway" are rarely if ever used by gays, because they do not really match our experience.
(The following joke is beside the point but I can’t resist it: How do you make a JAP scream twice during sex? Poke her up the anus and then wipe it on the curtains.)
Anyway, back to my posting. I have probably done anal sex a few thousand times in my active sex life. I am almost exclusively a “top” btw. I can remember maybe two or three times (out of maybe 2000 or 3000) that I looked at my penis and went “yech” and rushed off to the shower.
Santorum is simply not that widespread a problem.
First of all, many straight people seem to assume that the human rectum is filled with fecal matter 24/7. Not true.
If yours is, you may be sick, because as any doctor can tell you, the rectum is empty 90% of the time.
That fact alone leads one to wonder if the rectum is not indeed meant to play a sexual role as an entrance as well as an exit. After all, straight people don’t seem too bothered by the two-way traffic in the vagina!
Secondly, there seems to be an unwritten courtesy rule that one does not offer one’s ass to be fucked when it is otherwise occupied. Many “bottoms” use a quick irrigation to clean themselves out before anal sex. It is kind of like penetrating a woman who is menstruating. It is neither impossible nor illegal, but many straight people simply would not do it by common consent.
Thirdly, if your anal sex makes the lube frothy, you must be going at it kind of hard. Anal sex is a cooperative thing that is meant to be done lovingly and gently, not rammed in like a minuteman loading a rifle at the Battle of Bunker Hill! (I added that last refrence to keep the DAR happy.:p"
