| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Brian Webber on 7/4/2002; 11:19 PM Just in case you don't know, GLAAD stands for Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. It's an organization I used to be in major support of, but lately, the leadership there as me very, very worried. It seems that, according to some the more hardline gay rights actvists (like those Act Up losers, whom even the gayest of my gay friends call 'freaky and scary'), my Free Speech Absolutist attitude is 'homophobic.' The fact is, GLAAD has been playing fast and lose with the 1st Amendment in recent years, and this bothers me. A lot. For examples the whole situation with Dr. Laura. Yeah, she's a homophobic, hippocritical bitch, but was the rather violent reaction to her comments about gays being 'perverted' really neccesary? For that matter, wasn't the boycott of her show and it's sponsors rather redundant? We always knew she was a pain in the ass. Why was this occasion where she bashed gays any worse than all the OTHER times she bashed gays? Because she was getting a TV show? Seems to me the GLAAD hierarchy was just media obssessed, not fighting bigotry. Besides, did ANYONE in their right mind really think her show would last? Liek I said, the boycott was redundant, becuase I knew from day one her show wouldn't last! And I was right. I knew she would be shitcanned after the ratings were disapointing. And that was BEFORE the controversy. Face it, the GLAAD people were reading too much into the companies that sponsored her show. Did they really think the companies gave a dman about her stance on anything? Coors would've advertised on her show even if she called beer drinkers 'sub-human.' They only care about the bottom line. Money. How else can you explain the fact that many companies who advertise on PAx TV, a Christian network, also pay for product placement in Sex and the City and Queer As Folk? Of course I mentioned this during a gay rights discussion where the topic of banning Dr. Laura from the air came up. I alos suggested thta the best way to 'censor' someone is to simply ignore them. "If you hate her bile so much than don't tune into her show. Duh! You'll never ctach me listening to her BS, why do you put up with it? Masochism?" Boy did I wind up regretting that last word I said. I got painted with the homophobic brush so fast, I'm surprised Falwell didn't mistake me for one of his people. And many of those self-righteous annoyances were paying members of GLAAD! But that's just the beginning of the end of my relationship with GLAAD. It got worse. Next came the whole Eminem thing. Now, I like Eminem. Yeah he's an asshole but he's funny and he says things just to annoy people. Kinda like me in that respect. :-) Anyway, most gay people I know, including my sister, not only find him harmless but also enjoy his style. In fact I know of one gay man, a movie theatre projectionist, who was fan of Eminem BEFORE he hit it big! The protest outside the Grammys, the backlash against Elton John, and the more militant wing of the Gay Rights movement (people that even Rosie O'Donnel and Ellen DeGeneres can't stand) burning and destroying Eminem products (was I the ONLY one who was reminded of the Nazi Book Burnings when that footage was shown?) were WAY out of line! Frankly I amdire Elton John for performing with Eminem that day. And I also admire that man whose name I'll probably never know, who stodd in front of all the protestors with a sign that said 'Censorship is WORSE [Emphasis mine] Than Homophobia!' Thank you brave sir, thank you very much indeed! This brave young gay man dared to defy the people at GLAAD, and was more than likely emotionally reemed for it. He probably got death threats I would imagine although I have no way of proving it. I defending that man at another website, and was promptly verbally assaulted by many gay rights activists, incluidng people I THOUGHT were my friends! How dare I say that the 1st amendment protects homophobic assholes, they say. Well I didn't even dignify that crap with a response. Next came a small, but still annoying, incident. When did criticizing a gay individual who happens to be a moron become a slant against the entire gay community? Most gay people I know are cool decent people but there are one or two who are just Fuck Ups by ANYONE's set of standards. And I publically made fun of these jerks (both of them) at yet another website I frequent. And subsequently, as with those other occasions, I was put on the verbal chopping block, by everyone but my closest friends, who lent me their support, but not on that site, but by way of private e-mails. And all becuase I called 'Ryan the Ticket Taker' a homewrecker, which he was (gay or straight, stealing someone else's significant other is WRONG!). :-( Then came Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back in the summer of 2000. Now I am a fan of Kevin Smith and the View Askew stuff in general, and of the Jay & Silent Bob characters in particular. Anyone whose seen Clerks, Mallrats, Chasing Amy, and Dogma knows that Jay is essentially trapped in a state of perputual childhoos ignorance. Anyone familiar with the character knows he's not REALLY homophobic or racist. He's just a dumbass. Henlen's Razor: Never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by stupidity. But GLAAD threatened to boycott the movie for some dumbass comments made by the aforemetnioned Jay! Frankly the moive was kind of gay friendly because it contained a very funny, and very relevant scene where Dawson' Creek star James Van Der Beek rips into American Pie star Jason Biggs for homophobic comments he made. "Man you are such a homophobe," were his exact words. Eventually they didn't boycott, but only becuase they 'talked' Kevin Smith into giving $10,000 dollars to the Matthew Shepard Foundation. Now, it is a good organziation, and I'm sure Kevin supports them anyway. But what this comes down to is that the creator of two pop cultural icons was beaten up for his lunch money! This was the final straw for me really. I mean, the same director had been attacked by the anti-gay Catholic League for his last feature, Dogma. I agree with Kev who, on Politcally Incorrect suggested he should get a Nobel Prize for bringing these two organizations together under a common banner. :-) For me, and my 'sister', although she's not a fan of Mr. Smith, this was the final straw. We just stopped supporting GLAAD, stopped attending rallys they sponsored, etcetera. Naturally I was accused of being a homophobe for doing all of this. Then it hit me. This was an almost incident for incident redo of my falling out with the NAACP! And for that matter, with NOW! Of course with the national Organization for Women, part of my problem was theyy were alwasy focusing on some abstract cause and not acknowledging the problems of WORKING clas women, or Blue Collar Babes as a thoughtles chauvenist might call them. Anymore NOW sems more like your typical hand-greasing lobbyist group, lik big tobaco or the NRA, than an ACTUAL outlet for feminism. At what point did these organizations that were founded to give minorities a fair shot at the big piece of the pie become run by a bunch of stupid dingbats who seem to think that just getting in the door isn't enough? Why is the leader of the NAACP anti-semitic? Why is the head of GLAAD apparently anti-Free Speech? WHY are all the staples of the liberalism of my youth going farther to the Right than an errant Greg Norman tee-shot?
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Richard Davidson on 7/7/2002; 6:29 PM Why are you using this website for the same kind of political rants I can read all over the web? I've always enjoyed people using this as a place for CREATIVITY, and there was nothing creative contained above. I don't know why these organizations don't act exactly how you'd like them to, but I don't understand the bad mouthing of them. You ask "why is the leader of the NAACP anti-semitic?" and yet you don't give us a clue as to what made you decide this person WAS anti-semitic. As for Jay and Silent Bob movies, although I enjoy them, they are stupid comedies with WAY too many wee wee jokes for anybody who doesn't think like a 17 year old male. Jay never stops making homosexual references, and it doesn't add anything to the movies. Smith could have easily told GLAAD to go screw themselves, but he didn't because he could at least see their point. In what way does it hurt YOU? Those boycotts on Dr. Laura, just like the boycotts Right Wingers bring, are within the scope of the laws of this country. It's called using capitalism as a political force. It's legal, it's encouraged, and I recommend it to anyone who doesn't like the message of an idiot being played to the general population. Anti free speech means making laws that stifle free speech, pure and simple. Boycotting is the act of trying to kick the podium out from under the idiot speaker. It's a proud American tradition, and is simply citizens exercising their legal rights. I'm sorry, but I think a rant like this doesn't belong on this forum, and if my response is seen as a flame, I will gladly and proudly go to the bleachers with it, but really, why not post it over at Free Republic or something?
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Brian Carnell on 7/7/2002; 6:59 PM At 06:45 PM 7/7/2002 -0400, Richard Davidson wrote: >Those boycotts on Dr. Laura, just like the boycotts Right Wingers bring, >are within the scope of the laws of this country. It's called using >capitalism as a political force. It's legal, it's encouraged, and I >recommend it to anyone who doesn't like the message of an idiot being >played to the general population. Anti free speech means making laws that >stifle free speech, pure and simple. Boycotting is the act of trying to >kick the podium out from under the idiot speaker. It's a proud American >tradition, and is simply citizens exercising their legal rights. I have no problem at all with such protests (the scarier thing is who thought Dr. Laura's show would ever fly on television). However, gay groups like GLAAD tend to scream "censorship" when economics protests are directed at them but then fall back onto free speech on their own boycotts. For example, when Christian groups started a campaign to get PBS to drop the documentary "Scout's Honor", GLAAD was there to say that this was an attempted act of censorship (http://www.glaad.org/org/news/pop/?record=2788). It's interesting that when GLAAD organizes a protest of Eminem, it "issues a statement criticizing NARAS for exploiting the controversy" whereas when right wing Christians issue statements criticizing PBS, that is "the far right's attempt to censor Scout's Honor." Using GLAAD's own operating definitions, it tried to censor both Eminem and Dr. Laura.
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Richard Davidson on 7/7/2002; 9:02 PM Well, I don't wish to get much further into this, but from what I could see, the director of GLAAD was differentiating between boycotting advertisers, and pressuring public TV stations. I don't know if I agree, but that's where they're claiming there's a distinction. Is there? I don't know.
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Brian Carnell on 7/7/2002; 9:24 PM At 09:18 PM 7/7/2002 -0400, Richard wrote: >Well, I don't wish to get much further into this, but from what I could >see, the director of GLAAD was differentiating between boycotting >advertisers, and pressuring public TV stations. I don't know if I agree, >but that's where they're claiming there's a distinction. > >Is there? I don't know. There is a distinction, but I think it's all in the mind of the GLAAD director.
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Richard Davidson on 7/7/2002; 10:54 PM Mr. Carnell, your point is well taken, however I stand by my original assertion that Voices of Unreason is a website for creative writing, and hardly the place for political rants. I'm so damn sick and tired of reading people's disillusionment with this or that all over the web. How often do you see any posts, cut and pastes, etc. at any forum that accentuate something positive? It's always somebody bashing somebody else, and what are we, the reader, supposed to do about it? Boycott GLAAD? I don't support them now! But I certainly don't plan on not supporting them any more vehemently than I already did! You know what I'm sick of? Rosie O'Donnel's choice of toothbrushes. It really makes me sick that Colgate treated her so well over the years, resulting in a slightly below normal amount of cavities, and then when she hit the big time, she switched to Stearns and Foster, toothbrushier to the stars. I mean, Colgate could have made a fortune, but this sick, degenerate freak of a communist/fascist Brady Bunch junky had to turn her mottled back on the company, leaving the stockbrokers holding a bag of three week old tuna, and some of the Slim Jims that fell to the back of the drawer. Let's see any good American feed their kids with THAT! And another thing: Why don't people pay me to write this crap? I invest valuable time that could be spent eating that pudding, making up adjectives and other parts of speech like there's a portly Russian double agent holding a cigarette lighter to my ankle, all the while neglecting my important studies of dead languages and defunct punk bands. And what about Matthew Broderick? Do you think it's a coincidence that he left the successful Broadway run of "The Producers" the same exact decade when fur went out of style? Not on your life, folks. This sick, monolithic conspiracy began back in 1312 with the Normans, who were all card carrying Nazis, not that anybody checked. They practically INVENTED jackbooted thuggery, and several other hard to execute dances, all of which contained clues that would lead to the discovery of human DNA, Nuclear Fission, and the Thermos. It's time we all ended this madness, got back on our horses, and galloped hellbent for leather back to the Dark Ages. Back then a man was a man, and a leper was sent back to his lonely cave, never to get a part on a last, desperate attempt to bring back "Gilligan's Island," which was the best written show to ever be scripted on the back of a burnt hot dog.
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Brian Webber on 7/8/2002; 2:13 AM I don't know why these organizations don't act exactly how you'd like them to, but I don't understand the bad mouthing of them. You ask "why is the leader of the NAACP anti-semitic?" and yet you don't give us a clue as to what made you decide this person WAS anti-semitic. Oh, how about when, in Texas, he blamed the Jews for the problems Black people faced (never mind the fact that it was mostly Jews who helped open the Undergorund Railroad during antebellum days)? It's on public record, and he resigned afterwards. As for you Carnell, THANK YOU! Thank you for saying what you said. Your point was even better than mine. GLAAD is just as hippocritical as the Right Wing christians they and other gorups like them fight to protect us from!
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Brian Webber on 7/8/2002; 2:15 AM BTW I think your first post definately counts as Flamish. Couldn';t you think fo anything more Creative than attacking my post? I mean, VoU is NO place for Uncreative crap to use your own words against you.
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Richard Davidson on 7/8/2002; 2:58 PM Brian, if he resigned, then he's not the head of the NAACP, is he? And I seriously want to know: Is this a forum for political rants? Can we not use this forum for the purpose of CREATIVE WRITING? Or are we going to be just like every forum on the internet?
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Aradia on 7/8/2002; 6:05 PM Richard, technically, Brian's political essay is just that. An essay. Essays are posted here, irregardless of the nature, so long as they don't violate the rules of the site. Administration, however, prefers to push creative writing over essays. It doesn't take too much creativity to call Dr Laura a hypocrite, after all. It takes a lot of creativity to produce a piece of poetry or fiction.
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Matthew Patterson on 7/8/2002; 6:31 PM I would actually dispute that. Writing a well-developed essay that sufficiently explains some point takes a tremendous amount of skill. It's something most people don't like to work on; they would prefer to work in a less formal mode. However, that doesn't make the craft of essay-writing any less worthy of consideration than writing poetry or fiction. (It's also easier to workshop essays, since there's less subjectivity about it. "This argument doesn't quite get you where you need to go; you might try this" and "This clause needs to be moved here" are a lot more helpful to a writer than "Show more of this character's motivations" or "Include more symbolism about the rose." At least, I think so.)
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Brian Carnell on 7/8/2002; 9:50 PM At 06:47 PM 7/8/2002 -0400, Matthew wrote: >I would actually dispute that. Writing a well-developed essay that >sufficiently explains some point takes a tremendous amount of skill. What I took from Aradia's comments was that it doesn't take a lot of work to produce a run-of-the-mill "Dr. Laura's a hypocrite"-style essay. Frankly, there's a difference between the kind of writing I put on my weblog and the sort of essay that runs in Atlantic Monthly.
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Matthew Patterson on 7/8/2002; 11:34 PM What I took from Aradia's comments was that it doesn't take a lot of work to produce a run-of-the-mill "Dr. Laura's a hypocrite"-style essay. Frankly, there's a difference between the kind of writing I put on my weblog and the sort of essay that runs in Atlantic Monthly. There is merit in what you say. I just don't see how you get that from, "Administration, however, prefers to push creative writing over essays." It ought to be our business here to push all serious forms of writing, not favor one over another. Given that that should be our business... you really should put some work into your essays, Brian. (Webber, not Carnell.) And this means documentation, and it means cutting out the profanity and yelling, and it means writing in a dignified enough tone that people will take you seriously. I tend to agree with the thesis - I think that GLAAD, and really any ultra-activist group, winds up causing a lot of its own problems - but the way this is written, I'd prefer to take the opposite side so I'm not associated with an argument with so little support. Now then. You say that the leader of the NAACP is an anti-Semite. You further say that you've seen a speech of his in which he criticizes Jews for causing problems for black people. Instead of saying that he said this, quote his words, cite the source from which you got them, and let the man speak for himself. Your writing will be taken more seriously if people can see that you're not just making things up. The same goes for pretty much everything you write that isn't original thought and isn't common knowledge. ("George Washington was the first President" doesn't need a citation. "George Washington liked to wear bloomers and dance the can-can" does.) I can go through and provide specific examples in the text of where you probably need to cite some outside references, if you would like. That is, if you're interested in actually turning this into something good. (PS: Proofread your stuff, please. Or at least paste it into Word and use spellcheck. Not doing that really shows how little you care about what you wrote. And if you don't really care, then why should we? If you don't really care, why should you write it at all?)
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Richard Davidson on 7/8/2002; 11:33 PM Well, I don't know how right I am about any of this, which is why I went for "silly" on one of the posts. I'm definately sick of reading rants about this person or that person, probably because I read one too many, "Did you see Hillary roll her eyes during Bush's speech" type of comments, with four hundred other people piling on and guessing the person's motives. I come to Voices to read things that truly inspire me, so maybe I'm a bit of a snob, after all. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Webber. Sometimes I read your stuff, and really enjoy it. I just wasn't in the mood for this type of rant. I am merely stating my opinion, and don't claim to be any expert on what should or shouldn't be on a website. Let's just change my whole critique to "Do you have to be so negative?" and leave it at that. Sorry if I stepped on your toes. You're always welcome to trash one of my pieces, by the way. I've been inviting people to do so forever, and believe me, there's just SOOOOOOO much one could find. I doubt I've acheived anything like continuity in my entire life. (Stories benefit by having that, you know.) I cannot, however, apologize for being a grouchy curmudgeon. I'm afraid it's who I am, and only my wife has to actually live with it. She is not to be trifled with though, so I guess she gets to see my kinder, gentler self most of the time. Just don't wake me up early on a Saturday. I really hate that.
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Aradia on 7/9/2002; 2:42 PM I should clarify, then, for MattPatt's sake. Brian had the right of what I was trying to say. Let me put it this way, and then I shall find something else to do at work. Administration prefers well thought out, original, provocative, thoughtful pieces of writing. Anything that a monkey on speed could write isn't usually requested. And don't any of you dare to get uppity with me and say that I'm calling your writings "monkey on speed"! (Now, if you say that about my writings...I won't argue.)
RE: Monkeys on Speed By: ScottN on 7/9/2002; 6:24 PM Actually, Aradia, I use lemurs. I found them to be easier to train than monkeys. The speed does help, though.
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Brian Webber on 7/10/2002; 3:14 AM I was just venting really. Is venting allowed? Doing it at NitCentral can get you banned after all.
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Brian Webber on 7/10/2002; 3:15 AM Richard: Well thanks. BTW, if you don't mind my asking, which of my pieces did you most enjoy?
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Richard Davidson on 7/10/2002; 12:41 PM Brian, my favorite was always "Love Your Wife? Must Be Gay," which is a fine piece of work. I like others too, but that's my favorite.
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Brian Webber on 7/10/2002; 2:20 PM Aw, thanks. Although I honestly think of all my well received articles that's the one I put the LEAST amount of work into (even less than I did for this one beleive it or not). :-)
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 7/12/2002; 1:03 AM I'm so right wing, I fly in circles! HAHAHA Isn't it a shame that all groups seem to be led by hypocritical idiots? Why don't we just boycott them yeeheheheeeeeeeeee! ok i should sleep.
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Luigi Novi on 9/14/2002; 2:43 PM Brian Webber: "the best way to 'censor' someone is to simply ignore them." Luigi Novi: Not necessarily, Brian. Sometimes, when a dangerous or libelous view or idea may become accepted by a considerable amount of the public, it is NECESSARY to combat it. Brian Webber: "Next came a small, but still annoying, incident. When did criticizing a gay individual who happens to be a moron become a slant against the entire gay community?" Luigi Novi: Agreed. There does seem to be a bit of that attitude. About eight years ago, I read an issue of The Advocate, an issue that featured some annual run-down of people who had said or did homophobic things. One of the items was a slam against David "Puck" Rainey of MTV's The Real World San Francisco, who, when asked if he attended the funeral of castmate Pedro Zamora, an AIDS activist who died of AIDS the day after the final episode of that season aired, replied that he and Pedro were not friends, and that Pedro had plenty of people who were his friends. This was considered by the article's writers to be homophobic, but that's crap. While Puck WAS a total creep, and a childish, narcisistic hypocrite who treated his roommates like dirt (they threw him out because of it), his treatment of Pedro was no more steeped in homophobia than his treatment of any of his other roommates, and he was merely being honest about not being Pedro's friend. Why should he attend services for the guy? Because The Advocate says he should? According to what Puck said on the show, he has many gay friends (how can you NOT, living in San Francisco?). Why does not getting along with one gay person in particular make you a homophobe?
RE: What's wrong with GLAAD. By: Brian Carnell on 9/14/2002; 3:12 PM At 02:59 PM 9/14/2002 -0400, Luigi wrote: >Brian Webber: "the best way to 'censor' someone is to simply ignore them." > >Luigi Novi: Not necessarily, Brian. Sometimes, when a dangerous or >libelous view or idea may become accepted by a considerable amount of the >public, it is NECESSARY to combat it. And in fact with some ideas, efforts to ignore them actually reinforce the view that they are legitimate. For example, I regularly see people say something like "we shouldn't even bother refuting creationists -- they're so off-the-wall that debating them just gives them the recognition they crave without resolving anything." But ducking them leaves an even worse impression.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|