March 25, 2014


…Just might be the absolute gayest bit of academic bullshit I’ve heard in quite some time.

Look: You’re here, you’re queer, and by definition, you engage in sexual relations with members of the same sex, making you homo- rather than hetero- sexual. That is an accurate descriptor.

I don’t give a flip into whose slot you drop your mail. Honestly. And if your state votes to allow you to wed, I’m cool with that, so long as you accept that my state has other opinions about what constitutes a valid “marriage,” and that we, too, are entitled to vote on our own state’s policies.

But what I won’t put up with is your insistence that I celebrate the you that you and you alone claim jurisdiction over, using your preferred terms and your approved belief sets as a barometer for my relative level of hateyness or phobia.

I don’t care what you do (or don’t do) with dicks. Just stop acting like one, and we’ll all be happier that way.

(h/t JohnInFirestone)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 1:47pm

Comments (24)

  1. Spinoza: “It is far from possible to impose uniformity of speech, for the more rulers strive to curtail freedom of speech, the more obstinately are they resisted; not indeed by the avaricious, the flatterers, and other numskulls, who think supreme salvation consists in filling their stomachs and gloating over their money-bags, but by those whom good education, sound morality, and virtue have rendered more free. Men, as generally constituted, are most prone to resent the branding as criminal of opinions which they believe to be true, and the proscription as wicked of that which inspires them with piety towards God and man; hence they are ready to forswear the laws and conspire against the authorities, thinking it not shameful but honourable to stir up seditions and perpetuate any sort of crime with this end in view. Such being the constitution of human nature, we see that laws directed against opinions affect the generous-minded rather than the wicked, and are adapted less for coercing criminals than for irritating the upright; so that they cannot be maintained without great peril to the state.”

  2. That article is really gay.

  3. It is like people who get hung up on their names. “James” who hates it when people call him “Jimmy” or “Jim”. Who the hell cares along as it is not said in malice or condescending.

    As a side note, I was listening to live band playing for a friend’s birthday and they played “Money for Nothing” and substituted “maggot” for the other “f” word.

    -roger, rog, rajah, roje, roger dodger, etc a.ka. BG, beeg, etc.

  4. Lakoff’s behind it. Any surprises?

  5. gay homosexuals have more better things to worry about than what some new york times propaganda whore named jeremy w. peters thinks I think

    for example global warming and childhood obesity and food deserts and income inequality are all way more pressing issues according to the other new york times propaganda sluts

  6. They also need to expose themselves to children.

    Do explain why that’s appropriate in a Gay Pride parade.

  7. No better way to tell the world that you are like everyone else than to march naked down the street.

  8. Right out of 1984. Have to keep changing the meanings to keep the prols unsure and cowed.

  9. They want to ban “homosexuality”? How bossy of them.

  10. “established by a state” under Section 1311 of the law news:


  11. Homosexuality is, strictly by-the-book (SCIENCE!) biologically speaking, a genetic analomaly accident that serves absolutely no evolutionary purpose whatsoever (unless a homosexual is genetically triggered to brake population growth). If ever the human race evolves further, perhaps after a radical normalization of our somewhat overly-swelled population, the homosexual contingent will note a markedly reduced number of members. Because, naturally, nothing reproducing and moving forward genetically will select them.

    There might be enough homosexuals left for a queeorum. But not enough to come out in the lobby.

    And with that, I am now Desperately Seeking Denouncement.. )

  12. Greetings:

    Me, I’m sticking with “sexually dysfunctional”.

  13. it is a queer argument no?

  14. Biology is the story of life and the living. A beautiful thing, really. Learning about those sorts of things is a great pleasure for those who care about them. And perhaps boring to those who don’t.

  15. homos aren’t into life darwinian/evolutionary wise. sum kinda political thing perhaps?

  16. Heh, sdferr. Why learn it when we, by merely living, are it? Each human an equation solved, a proof of earlier humans’ successful lives.

    Thankfully we are blessed with souls, or we’d be just as other animals, hoping and struggling to live another day without knowing why.

  17. We might suspect that learning is what souls do by nature, if souls there are. Merely living like beasts simply isn’t enough for people. And, y’know, thank god for that.

  18. Oh, fuck me. I already used my 10 complimentary articles and now I am DENIED! the New York Times butt fuckery analysis.

    This is how I know God loves me and sends his angels to watch over me.

  19. Goldstein Johnson is right about not takin’ no gumph offa side-winding hornshwaggling bushwhackin cracker-croakers!


  20. The problem with playing “just the tip” with those guys is that, of course, it’s never, ever just the tip.

  21. sdferr, for souls to be valid, must there be a god? Perhaps only in our decendent’s minds.

    In this work, we have taken seriously the possibility that our universe is a numerical simulation. In particular, we have explored a number of observables that may reveal the underlying structure of a simulation performed with a rigid hyper-cubic space-time grid. This is motivated by the progress in performing lattice QCD calculations involving the fundamentalfields and interactions of nature in femto-sized volumes of space-time, and by the simulation hypothesis of Bostrom [1]. A number of elements required for a simulation of our universe directly from the fundamental laws of physics have not yet been established, and we have assumed that they will, in fact, be developed at some point in the future; two important elements being an algorithm for simulating chiral gauge theories, and quantum gravity. It is interesting to note that in the simulation scenario, the fundamental energy scale defined by the lattice spacing can be orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck scale, in which case the conflict between quantum mechanics and gravity should be absent.

  22. Soul seems useful (I’ve got no idea about valid) so long as it remains just out of reach. Which, odd, right? On the other hand, whether useful or not, soul stands as an unbelievably important subject of thought. Aristotle makes a nice description to that effect in the first paragraph of his book dedicated to it, and I think, gets as close as anyone to a complete (yet still insufficient) portrait of the sweet ghostly butterfly. I suspect that he would have answered your question in the affirmative, though I also suspect he would not do that in de Anima, but in his book about First Science.

  23. Oh, fuck me. I already used my 10 complimentary articles and now I am DENIED! the New York Times butt fuckery analysis.

    bour3, if you set your browser to Private, the NYT, WaPo and Daily Telegraph seem to be fooled into thinking it’s Groundhog Day with every article you read.

  24. I heard Rush discussing this a bit yesterday. Some thoughts:

    Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The mechanism by which this is achieved is to prematurely truncate the train of logic so that the inevitable conclusions are never reached.

    There is a need to discuss “gayness,” but the public finds the actual practices of gayness distasteful. How to get around this? By changing the terms of reference. The word “gay” includes no implication of the acts involved, while “homosexual” implies both 1) sex and 2) attraction to the same sex.

    Banishment of the word “homosexual” is essentially a call for the establishment of doublethink.