Multiple Post sources independently confirmed to POLITICO that Roig-Franzia got hit while defending colleague Monica Hesse from harsh criticism leveled by her editor, Allen.
Allen, according to the Washingtonian, had told Hesse that a piece she had written was “the second worst story I have seen in Style in 43 years.”
Roig-Franzia, also working a story with Hesse that ran Saturday, told Allen not to be such a “c—sucker.”
Allen swung twice, with one punch hitting Roig-Franzi, according to sources. Next, staffers on the 4th floor —including Brauchli, who’s office is temporarily across from the Style section — jumped in to break up the altercation.
Presumably the piece in question was the paean to anti-gay activist Brian Brown that Hesse wrote.
Update. Apparently, the “second worst piece” was the one Hesse and the punchee wrote together:
One of the headlining incidents in the charticle was how a Confederate solider had lost some military plans of Robert E. Lee in a field that later found their way into Union hands. The original story reportedly said that the offense occurred in Virginia. Wrong–Maryland.
There were other errors as well.
Allen made clear his displeasure with the integrity of the piece, proclaiming that it was the “second-worst piece I’ve ever had handed to me in 43 years,” according to a source. The first-worst was a mistake-ridden profile of Paul Robeson that never saw the printed page. Those 43 years include Allen’s 39 years of service at the Post along with a tenure at the New Haven Register.
The veteran editor gave pretty much the same sharp-elbowed spiel to both Hesse and Roig-Franzia. Hesse responded by asking for the story back so that she could iron out some of the wrinkles.
Roig-Franzia responded by saying, “Henry, don’t be such a cocksucker.”
MikeJ
Now we know who at the test prep daily works on the oral section of the exam.
Pender
Violence is indefensible, especially in the work place. That should go without saying.
Still, while not justified, it’s at least somewhat more understandable in a cause-and-effect way as a response to a vicious anti-gay slur like “cocksucker.” Temperatures flare when you use epithets against a minority, and it’s not surprising that some will (unfortunately) end in physical altercations.
IndieTarheel
@MikeJ:
Annnnnd out of the park it goes!
gil mann
Now Roig-Franzi knows what it feels like to watch Mouthpiece Theater.
Ash Can
Am I a bad person for laughing out loud at this?
Mark S.
This might have had something to do with it:
EdTheRed
Trenchant as hell…
Tom Betz
What’s even more entertaining are the homophobic and racist comments.
Politico’s target market never ceases to disgust.
Fwiffo
LOL, at first I thought it was an Onion article.
ppcli
“Presumably the piece in question was the paean to anti-gay activist Brian Brown that Hesse wrote.”
Naw. Allen said it was the *second* worst story in 43 years. I don’t see how there could have been a worse one than Hesse’s credulous stream of drivel. (Maybe there was a piece explaining the softer, gentler side of Bull Connor, for “balance”.)
SpotWeld
The time has come.
We must now erect a pundit thunderdome.
Just Some Fuckhead
You can write a bad article and not be a bad journalist. You can defend a co-worker without being labeled defensive. But you suck one cock..
Don
Nope, the piece in question was Saturday’s fluff bit about past embarrassing political reveals, if Washingtonian online is to be believed. I’m too lazy to find it a second time; it’s linked in my We Love DC article about the incident – just scroll down about 4-5 stories in the right hand “daily feed” items.
Keith G
Pasted?
Ash Can
So who’s scheduled for the next WaPo chat? I’d pay decent money to see that transcript. It could break the all-time Alberto Gonzalez record for mentions of the phrase “I don’t recall.” And set a new record for repetition of the question “Can we please discuss something else?”
freelancer
@SpotWeld:
I used to do back up vocals for Pundit Thunderdome.
Zifnab
@SpotWeld: THIS!
I just want to see Paul Krugman laying into George Will with a calculator tied to a pair of suspenders. Also, anything that results in a swift, painful death for Richard Cohen.
Makewi
I think it’s sweet how you label Brian Brown as an “anti-gay activist”, because those who wish to keep the definition of marriage as one man, one woman must necessarily be anti-gay. He probably kills puppies in his spare time, the cad.
ellaesther
Now you see? This is the reason that freelance writing in my wee little home office sucks so hard.
No one to hit!
plus: @Just Some Fuckhead: HA!
Zifnab
@Makewi:
Or bombs abortion clinics.
SpotWeld
Listen all! This is the truth of it. Fighting leads to killing, and killing gets to warring. And that was damn near the death of us all. Look at us now! Busted up, and everyone talking about hard rain! But we’ve learned, by the dust of them all… Bartertown learned. Now, when men get to fighting, it happens here! And it finishes here! Two men enter; one man leaves.
malraux
If they want the government’s definition to stay that way, yes, they are inherently anti-gay.
Maxwel
Since when did cocksucker become an anti-gay slur?
geg6
@malraux:
This.
Mark S.
Here’s the article in question. It ain’t great, but it’s hardly worth punching someone over.
Persia
@Mark S.: I don’t know, I might punch someone who used “Ruh-roh!” in a professional article.
kay
@Tom Betz:
It’s true. Politico draws the vilest of the right wing commenters.
That place is a freaking sewer. I love when people call Politico “right-leaning”. Judging from the comments, it fell over a long time ago.
WereBear
@SpotWeld: I know adore the phrase “pundit thunderdome” and will use it at every opportunity.
Rosali
@Maxwel:
Since when did cocksucker become an anti-gay slur?
That’s what I was wondering. I know plenty of cocksuckers who aren’t gay.
Omnes Omnibus
@Rosali: In some people’s minds, women don’t count.
MattR
@Maxwel: I was trying to figure that out too. I thought it was a general curse that did not have different meanings depending on the gender of the target. Next thing, someone is gonna tell me that using mother-f’er is a commentary on incest.
BTW – you have a tough user name. I took multiple glances to realize you were not Makewi.
slag
With all the boxing and WWF metaphors infusing our political discourse, I had to read this excerpt a couple of times to verify that we were, in fact, talking about actual physical violence here.
I don’t know if that’s funny or sad.
Makewi
@malraux:
As long as it’s you who gets to make that determination for the rest of us, I’m sure that will work out fine. Good to be king eh?
Darkrose
@Maxwel:
When applied specifically to men? At least since the Romans.
licensed to kill time
Cripes. Bong Water Bill on one thread and Makewank on another. I feel like throwing punches, or getting pasted, anyway.
Nellcote
The editor that threw the punch is 70 years old and a Pulitzer winner. I just wonder what took him so long.
GReynoldsCT00
@licensed to kill time:
have some pie!
El Cid
I too am curious as to which is the worst story in the Style section if this was the second worst.
Any ideas?
slag
@licensed to kill time: Just consider yourself lucky that the Balloon Juice irony meter goes to eleven.
MattR
@Nellcote: Reminds me of Buzz Aldrin finally letting loose and hitting a Moon landing denialist a few years ago. I think the judge ended up ruling that Buzz’s was a reasonable reaction to the hassling the other guy was giving him.
Jim C
@Mark S.:
from that article:
I hadn’t heard of this before, but I’m impressed he was able to get cell service wherever he was.
What I don’t get, though, is how this is in any way comparable to leaking ethics reports, erroneously mailing thermonuclear fuses, or releasing maps with precise locations of enriched uranium stockpiles. What was he giving away? The enemy already knew where he was – he was in a firefight!
I also don’t get the phrase, “don’t be such a c–ksucker.” It’s new to me. I’ve heard, even said, “don’t be such an a–hole.”
Cerberus
@Rosali:
Like with all slurs, bigots jumped on it to use against the group to which it’s now a slur of.
Doesn’t help that the arguments against gay rights usually end up being along the lines of “gay men have sex we don’t like”, which sadly to say to bigoted trolls like Makewi, aren’t really reasons for denying equal protection under the law.
jibeaux
@malraux:
Thirded. What’s up with the vaguely Cajun-inspired handles bringin’ the truth? We rock. Also thirded on cocksucker. It’s one of those words that yes, if you make me think about it literally, I can see why it would be seen that way, but it’s not actually used literally any more than MF or asshole or douchebag are. It’s, well, it’s just a synonym for asshole or douchebag, innit?
Nellcote
The story for non-Politico link clickers:
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/people/capitalcomment/14004.html
malraux
@Makewi: What determination? Wanting to deprive gays and lesbians from civil rights is an objective criteria. If you want to government to only issue marriage licenses for hetero-couples, that is exactly the same as saying that you want the government to deny rights to gay/lesbian couples. The two statements say exactly the same thing.
Just Some Fuckhead
I didn’t think “cocksucker” was an anti-gay term. I thought it was just a word for an unpleasant person, much the same way as “douchebag”, “dick”, “asshole” or “jerk”.
Napoleon
@freelancer:
Even a fake one, like the claymation version they use to do on MTV (which I loved).
MattR
Hmm, have a comment stuck in moderation. Could it have been inc$%st that did the trick?
Zifnab
@Makewi:
Makewi’s got his ball and he’s going home. And if you go out and buy your own ball, you’re a pack of totalitarian anti-religious monsters.
Extending civil rights of contract to two people of the same gender is blasphemy. And blasphemy is anti-religious.
Also, stop wearing poly-blend pants and eating shelfish, dammit! You’re infringing on my religion.
SiubhanDuinne
@El Cid: I started to say, This would be so easy if we were talking about the WaPo’s editorial pages. Then I realised, Heywaitahalfasecondhere, if it were the Ed pages it would be hard to choose the worst. Now I haz a big sad becaws I cant chooz.
Nellcote
@El Cid:
Hilary’s cleavage from last year?
Crazy Kale Lady
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Max
This story reminds me of that movie The Paper, where Michael Keaton and Glenn Close duke it out over stopping the presses to get a story right. Good movie.
Papers don’t care about getting stories right anymore.
GReynoldsCT00
@jibeaux:
plus it would be an equal opportunity activity, even if you think about it literally… this thread is going straight into the gutter, wait til John comes home
licensed to kill time
@GReynoldsCT00: I think I’ll have a pasted pie…
@slag: The only redeeming virtue of the BoB/Makewanker trollery is the often excruciatingly funny riffs of the commentariat here. I actually was kind of missing BoB a bit, ’til he showed up today.
“Set the irony meter to eleventy, Scotty! Warp speed!”
Just Some Fuckhead
@Crazy Kale Lady: Cunt, don’t forget that one.
Omnes Omnibus
@Zifnab: I’m with you on the poly-blend, but as for the rest… meh. So stone me.
Makewi
@malraux:
The government makes the determination to limit who qualifies as legally able to marry in a number of different ways. It limits by age, and number for example, so your argument that this limitation by differentiation of gender is a civil rights violation is not an “objective criteria” as you claim, but is rather a societal determination. Which makes the argument that those who don’t wish to expand the definition of marriage necessarily “anti-gay” as a weak rhetorical device intended to silence opposition by labeling them as bigots. It’s cheap, it’s childish, and it isn’t working.
Cerberus
@Zifnab:
Luckily Unitarians, many episcopalians, many jewish faiths, wiccans, pagans, buddhists, and atheists don’t count as religions otherwise having the civil non-religious government recognition of marriage known as marriage completely taken over for one particular faith’s religious meaning would be highly offensive and not only against the 14th amendment but also the 1st amendment against both establishment of religion but also priding one religion over another for purposes of civil law.
Luckily, their very existence is blasphemy thus anti-religious, avoiding that messy trap.
Martin
@Makewi:
Ah yes, damn King Earl Warren and his 8 princes for determining for the rest of us that miscegenation was illegal. Damn them to hell. Everything was just peachy back when the niggers could only marry niggers, but since then, well my God!
Makewi
@Zifnab:
I didn’t even mention religion. That was you.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
Hesse hosts a regular one. It might be a good time to flood the chat producer with questions relating to this and see if any of them get thru. More importantly, to see if she sticks her foot in her mouth.
Hesse is like a slew of other WaPo “journalists”: young and doesn’t know her ass from a hole in the ground. She’s supposed to be the internet/online “culture” beat person trying to tell us what’s hip and what ain’t. She’s Ana Marie Cox without the “fucks”, ie., a complete incompetent who’s addition to the comPost’s lineup of reporters is just one more reason why they’ll never get a fucking dime out of me.
Cerberus
@Makewi: That would be true if they had a sane secular reason for the restriction of civil marriage by gender, but instead, the anti-gay forces decided to be religion-driven bigots.
Midnight Marauder
@Makewi:
As opposed to letting bigots like you get away with discrimination dressed up as religious obfuscation, right? You’re a regular Ross Douthat there, Makewank.
Makewi
@Martin:
Again, cheap shot intended to label different opinion as bigoted. I suspect you lack the capability to argue your position any other way. Way to drop the n bomb though, see its ok because you are a liberal and you mean well. Or something.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
That sums up the comPost for the last dozen years or so. Guys like him are from another age in journalism. It’s got to kill them to see hacks like Hesse get hired to cover things that a generation ago, wouldn’t be a topic worth glancing at much less writing a feature-length article about. And this happens because the Post’s bigwigs are shitting because of dropping circulation and this is there desperate attempt to reach out to people in the vain hopes they’ll grab them.
They. Just. Don’t. Get. It.
Well, the old editors do but they’ve gotten their retirement and are getting out while they can still expect to recieve something from the Post before it cuts them off.
geg6
@Makewi:
Dude, without religion, the argument against allowing GLBTs the same rights and responsibilities that come from the civil marriage statutes really become moot.
Brick Oven Bill
In my opinion, the word ‘cocksucker’ alludes to one who sucks cocks. Not like there is anything wrong with that.
But I really find it hard to believe that Barney Frank has an active love life. He should stop bragging about it.
Now I have to go to town, as Glenn Beck is on in half-an-hour, and Chad wants the grocery-store tabloid reporting Obama’s hissy-fit. I also have a boxing lesson. There seems to be more and more fights going on.
malraux
You don’t understand the word objective, do you? Clearly the law is objectively biased against nambla type marriages, and people who oppose expanding marriage to nambla situations are objectively anti-nambla. That’s an objective determination. The subjective determination is if its a good or bad thing. You subjectively believe that denying rights to homosexuals is a good thing. I think that makes you a monster instead of kind person. Those are subjective statements.
Nonetheless, those who oppose legalizing gay marriage are objectively opposed to rights for gays and lesbians.
jenniebee
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Yeah, just like bitch, p-ssy and c-nt just mean, respectively, an unpleasant person, a coward and Cindy McCain without any denigration of women in general being meant by them at all. Really. Absolutely gender-neutral.
What?
whetstone
@El Cid:
Via the Washington City Paper, which has a full rundown on the fisticuffs. Sounds like Allen’s beef wasn’t so much with the concept of the charticle as the execution.
malraux
@Makewi: Dude, you are a bigot. Objectively. You might think that you are justified in that bigotry, but that doesn’t change the end result.
MattR
@Makewi: Do you believe that someone who fought against changes to allow interracial marraige were racist? Or were they just defending marriage as it had always been?
Makewi
@Cerberus:
There is, actually. The argument is usually coached in terms of marriage being a protected institution whose chief purpose is the fostering of families. I’ve also seen it argued that it had the added benefit of protecting the interests of women, which worked more when women were less often the co or chief breadwinners.
Zifnab
@Makewi:
We have laws against having sex with farm animals. We also have laws against adults having sex with children. Are you suggested that said laws are not, respectively, “anti-bestiality” and “anti-pedophile”?
I’m not sure how you’ve come to the conclusion that a legislative distinction that deliberately disadvantages one collection of people is not “anti-” that group of people. No need to be bashful about it. No one is suggesting that laws against murder aren’t “anti-murderer”.
You just have to come to terms with what you are suggesting when you have laws that restrict marriage to only the Right Wing Evangelical definition. Get out there, Makewi. Don’t be shy. Join your fellow ideologues – Tony Perkins and Rick Santorum – in denouncing gay marriage as the hurtful, destructive, family ruining institution that you feel it is. Talk about how it’s the next step on the slippery slope to communism and turtle sex.
Be loud. Be proud.
You’re here. You’re not queer. You don’t want anymore bears.
Cerberus
Wasn’t BOB banned? Hmm, deliberately obtuse Makewi and psychotic BOB in the same thread, does anyone have some spare arsenic?
freelancer
@Cerberus:
You say that like there’s some non-nebulous, secular, fact-driven and sane reason for discrimination that the Right just chose to let wither and die in favor of “My (closeted) pastor never shuts up about how ebil teh gheys err, so I’m agin’ it!”
Chaz
@39 One a sidenote, anyone who hasn’t seen the video of Buzz Aldrin nailing that guy in the mouth should do themselves a service and look go to youtube right now. I replayed that thing about 10 times in a row, giggling like a schoolgirl the whole time.
inkadu
The year is 2020… ink supplies have run dry all over the world… reporters have long ago become extinct leaving only pundits to struggle and fight over the remaining supplies of what is known as black gold…
BEYOND THE PUNDIT THUNDERDOME: BATTLE FOR HP TONER CARTRIDGE C4844A (BLACK)
gwangung
@Cerberus: Hm, our friend may feel she was a little attention-starved over the weekend.
That said, I think the original story is hilarious, though puzzling as to ultimate meaning.
Cerberus
@Makewi: I said sane. Many queer couples have children and we have no laws banning non-fertile couples from marrying, nor do we ban couples from marrying if they have no intention of reproducing.
As I said, we call them bigots, because they got nothing but deliberate hate of gays. This is especially demonstrated when the same damn fuckers turn out to vote against gay marriage also turn out to vote and work against any queer rights whatsoever (domestic partnerships, hate crimes, ENDA, etc…).
Zifnab
@Makewi:
So you’re opposed to gay marriage on secular grounds? Funny how the secular defense of “one man, one woman” marriage never seems to come up in any of your posts. How strange.
inkadu
“Battl”e and “black” are in larger fonts? Really. WordPress never ceases to fascinate. (on xubuntu on firefox anyway)
Zifnab
@Makewi:
Indeed. You’re really sticking up for all those lesbians when you defend their rights to not marry each other. I’m sure the L-part of LGBT really appreciates all your hard work.
ruemara
I just can’t see much wrong with this.
Cerberus
@freelancer: Well I was directly addressing a fantasy. If there was a world where pink flying unicorns were commonly guiding the invisible hand of the marketplace with extra Jesus, then Makewi wouldn’t be a nutter, sadly it is not this world.
Cerberus
@Zifnab:
Not to mention that the actual secular argument against marriage that has all the bigots in a tizzy is that gay marriage provides visible examples of egalitarian marriages thus reducing cultural weight towards unequal anti-woman “traditional marriages” where gender roles are heavily enforced.
The anti-gay movement should really use as their slogan: “Stop givin’ our women-folk idears!”
malraux
@Cerberus: Moreover, if want to argue that the “traditional” view of marriage is important, then you must argue how also allowing others to marry will harm that institution. I have yet to see any argument about how homosexual marriage will cause harm to heterosexuals currently in a marriage.
inkadu
A lot of conservatives are conservatives to hide / control their homosexual urges.
Any step towards normalization of homosexuality makes it that much harder to keep their homosexual trysts to parking lots and public restrooms … which really does endanger their marriages.
So have some sympathy, liberals. Opponents of gay marriage are just trying to stay off their knees.
jibeaux
@Makewi:
Well, as Nate Silver says, the arguments range from the literally incoherent to the sublimely unpersuasive. Yours is both. Gay people have families. Prohibiting the heads of those families from marrying each other does not help the children in those families. Allowing men who are interested in men to marry those men instead of women that they are not interested in does not help those women.
jibeaux
Edit, does not HURT those women. Duh.
Omnes Omnibus
@Cerberus:
Yuh-huh. Makewi would still manage to be a nutter. Haven’t you learned that the defining characteristic of a nutter is acting like a nutter? Makewi would simply be upset about something different, like the way liberals tie their shoes or the fact that President Jenna Bush hasn’t yet bombed Goa. It’s always something.
jenniebee
@Zifnab:
That chant is really catchy, were you at the moustache parade too?
Just Some Fuckhead
@inkadu: This.
jibeaux
@malraux:
Somewhere there was a judge who responded to this argument by saying that when they next met in court, he wanted some documentation. As in, meet Ms. X, heterosexual female whose marriage to Mr. X was harmed by the gay marriage of Mr. A-B and Mr. A-B. Affidavit of Ms. X attached.
And that is what we need more of. My third grader doesn’t get away with not showing your work, why should you get away with it in court? I wish I could remember where I read it so I could find a linky.
malraux
In Michigan, the passage of an anti-gay marriage amendment led to a lot of those kids losing their health insurance. That’s clearly anti-family.
Makewi
@Cerberus:
So you just redefine anything you don’t agree with as not sane. Further, you decide that the exceptions should dictate the rules. The fact that some gay couples have children and some heterosexual couples do not is not in and of itself make for grounds for a claim to civil rights violation.
Some men father children with many women, based on that should we change societal rules to legalize polygamy?
@Zifnab:
By that logic, you should accept that a pro-choice position must be anti-child. Put another way, it isn’t logic. It’s shutting your brain off and just yelling hater. Lot of that sort of argument in this thread. It’s why I called Doug on it in the first place.
Ash Can
@Cerberus: I’d lay even odds that BOB and Makewi are the direct result of John, DougJ, Anne Laurie, and/or Laura W IM’ing each other and saying, “Hey, let’s have a little fun…”
wolfetone
@Makewi:
You are in fact anti-gay if you want to prevent gay people from getting married. It’s pretty simple if you think about it.
MattR
@malraux: Sure he was talking about homosexuality in general and not gay marriage, but what Jon Stewart said 10 years ago still holds true.
“How can you expect anyone to solve the problems of the world when they are constantly being distracted by the gentle rhythms of one man’s balls thumping against another man’s ass?”
Anne Laurie
@ellaesther:
Mandatory RW response: “Don’t you have kids at home, lady?”
The Moar You Know
Why are all of you slagging on pie? Pie is awesome.
Anne Laurie
@Zifnab: You get a one-time-only pass on my “Please Don’t Feed the Trolls” dictum.
Zifnab
@Anne Laurie: But they do tricks!
Omnes Omnibus
@Makewi:
No, the equal rights violation comes from the fact that some people get rights that others do not. Such a violation can be justified, in some circumstances, by other arguments. In this case, Cerberus demolished the argument that heterosexual-only marriage is necessary because of the children. Thus leaving only the fact that it is a civil rights violation.
Also, I really need someone to explain to me how my marriage to my wife is harmed in any way by the lesbian couple down the street getting married. I mean, I might get invited to the wedding and need to buy a gift, but I would think they will have an open bar so it should all even out.
Cerberus
@The Moar You Know:
Pie killed my mother.
Omnes Omnibus
@Cerberus: Pie are square.
johnb
am i supposed to know (or care?) who these people are?
geg6
@Makewi:
No, but it blows a gigantic hole in that specious argument you were expounding on as some sort of valid argument for the continued denial of civil rights for LBGTs. You really think we’re gonna accept the whole “women as property” argument as better than the “religion says teh ghey are icky” argument?
Steeplejack
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Seconded.
Cerberus
What is also interesting is this reality: trans people.
Why is my marriage holy and good today even with hormone therapy and even if I got bottom surgery, but an abomination against nature the day I fill out a legal sex change form, despite the fact it’s a very gay marriage?
But yeah, I think I’m done with the robot. Beep, standard phrase, beep, standard phrase. It’s like communicating with Joe Lieberman.
martha
@Omnes Omnibus: Have you been there? Pies are Square is a wonderful cafe in Wilton Wisconsin…right on the bike trail.
GReynoldsCT00
true that, whether it be a filter or a la mode…
chuck
Golly, another computer where I needed to put Makewi’s name into the pie filter. I ought to start using a portable firefox instead and not have to worry about synching anymore.
I think BOB is a funny spoof. Makewi is just a malignant, hateful, spiteful douchebag. Kind of the difference between Sully and Malkin.
Midnight Marauder
@Makewi:
I suppose that this is the moment that a far more patient soul that I enlighten you as to the difference between having an affair (an intense amorous relationship, usually of short duration) and polygamy (the practice or condition of having more than one spouse, esp. wife, at one time).
As you were saying, Makewank…
licensed to kill time
@Anne Laurie: Is it ok if we just talk about them? That’s my new policy – never talk to the trolls, just point and mock but otherwise ignore.
Omnes Omnibus
@martha: Where is Wilton? I am in Mad-town, so I could go.
MikeJ
@Omnes Omnibus: Pie are round. Cornbread are square.
jibeaux
@malraux:
I realize it’s not your point and it’s a great point, but a system of health care delivery that makes whether or not children have health insurance dependent on the income, jobs, and marital status of their parents is anti-family. Also too.
jenniebee
@Makewi:
Only if you understand a fetus to have the same standing as a child (most people don’t, precisely because they aren’t) ignoring the fact that a fetus is unable to physically survive outside of a host human’s body. In the purest sense, abortion rights are about not forcing women to put their bodies at the disposal of another person against their will and better judgment.
Omnes Omnibus
@MikeJ: Cornbread are generally a pile of crumbs if I am involved in the making and/or cutting process.
Anne Laurie
@Cerberus:
I’m wishing there was an internet version of borax, cause our internet brand of cockroaches is creeping me out.
Zifnab
@Makewi:
If you consider a collection of stem cells that could fit on the head of a pin a “child” you definitely have a point. “Anti-baby” or “Baby-killer” is the exact epithet that most abortion opponents cling to. But setting aside the rather massive difference between a medical procedure and a legal contract, you’re exactly right on the money. It isn’t logical to make arbitrary vice crimes based on what makes a certain collection of people say “Ew!”
Anti-marriage laws that target specific groups don’t benefit society at large. They don’t make logical sense. Now that people have begun to recognize this fact, we’re seeing the laws get repealed.
@Anne Laurie:
Look at this stuff! Comedy gold!
Steeplejack
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Touché.
malraux
@Makewi:
I would be willing to entertain the idea of polygamy being legalized. Certainly it wouldn’t cause my marriage to change. That said, from a legal standpoint, I have never seen a coherent definition of how polygamy would work w.r.t. issues of joint ownership of property, inheretence, etc. So if those who want to legalize polygamy can present deal with those issues, I don’t see why the debate would be out of bounds.
That said, there are legitimate reasons why polygamy is illegal. Those most interested in it use it as part of a rather problematic power relationship and a cover for even worse behavior like child abuse.
martha
@Omnes Omnibus: Me too! Down in the Sparta-Elroy area. Tiny cute town. Great pies–and they are square… Gorgeous drives through Amish country if you’re so inclined to get off the beaten path.
malraux
@jibeaux:
Indeed.
Omnes Omnibus
@martha: Cool, I will have to check it out.
Zifnab
@Midnight Marauder: In all seriousness, I never saw anything wrong with polygamy (or polyamory) at face value. What’s wrong with more than one man living with more than one woman on a long term basis while raising a family? Now what’s wrong with the relationship being codified in a legal contract?
Lee from NC
Is it time for another blogger ethics panel?
Anne Laurie
@Ash Can:
If we were sharing the same newsroom, Ash Can, I would hereby be forced to punch you in the face.
Can’t speak for the others you insult, but damn, if I were going to invent a spooftroll I’d do a better job than that or just slit my wrists for extreme environmental pollution.
Zifnab
@malraux:
You could probably just use the same rules that partnerships and corporations make use of.
Martin
@Makewi:
Why is it a cheap shot? Every argument being raised in opposition to gay marriage was raised in opposition to interracial marriage – from traditionalism to religion to the effect on society and children.
And you speak as though the current definition of marriage was pre-ordained, is carved in stone somewhere which is the same attitude that was presented with respect to interracial marriage. But explain to me how your statement “As long as it’s you who gets to make that determination for the rest of us, I’m sure that will work out fine.” doesn’t apply equally to the Warren court? Do you disagree with their determination for the nation that miscegenation was illegal?
How is the argument against gay marriage fundamentally different from the argument against interracial marriage?
The Moar You Know
Pro-choice = anti-parasitism.
Until the little fucker can earn its own paycheck and drive to the grocery store, it’s a leech on everyone around it.
Svensker
@malraux:
I’m pretty sure this is the, er, bottom line, really.
jibeaux
@malraux:
In many of the Muslim countries where polygamy is legal, it also functions to lessen the pool of wives available to young men of modest means, which many people view as a factor in making said young men amenable to terrorism — given that these are societies where you have to be married to have children and you have to have children to be considered a valuable member of society.
I would personally argue that the idea behind marriage is that is a partnership of equals, and that a relationship involving more than two people is inherently unequal and should not be given the societal stampy of approval.
See, the difference is that you can mount arguments against polygamy (and dog marrying and all the other absurd “slippery slope” arguments) that actually make some damn sense…
Omnes Omnibus
@Martin:
I know! I know! Pick me!
Because… Shut up, that’s why.
Ash Can
@martha: Southwestern Wisconsin is one of the best-kept travel secrets in the whole country as far as I’m concerned. Gorgeous scenery in any season, cute little old towns, shops, food, the works. I love it.
Damn it, now I’m getting hungry for fresh cheese curds and a fish fry…
Anne Laurie
@Lee from NC:
Only if that vulgar bitch Anne Laurie tries to actually punch one of the commentors. And she’s way lazy, so probly na ga happin.
Cerberus
@malraux: Well in the polyamory community there’s been some debate. One idea would be to arrange splits like corporations handle splits tacking on strategies for handling multiple interested parties into the standard framework, but yeah, there should be stronger consent laws to avoid some of the problems with polygamy (being a front for child abuse, etc…) just as a general thing.
Odd side note, but there are a few Polyamory Legal Societies that have popped up basically so triad and the like poly families can figure out how to piecemeal legally protect themselves much like same-sex couples now so I imagine something akin to how they draw up their contracts for legal protection is very similar to how the law could change to accommodate those families.
I imagine eventually we’ll see that change (and it would come to a head even if gays never existed and gay marriage was a dream) to accommodate those families, but for now, it’s not really on too many radars and even the advocacy groups are focusing more on acceptance and visibility rather than too many big rights pushes.
Interestingly enough, many poly people (being saintedly straight) are lawfully wedded while monogamous queers are left begging.
Omnes Omnibus
@malraux: “Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one.” [Al-Qur’an 4:3]
One religion’s take on the situation.
Makewi
@MattR:
Those who fought against interracial marriage did so for their own reasons, although it is hard to argue convincingly that it wasn’t about race, since the definition of marriage has never even alluded to race.
martha
@Ash Can: Yes it is…you left out the beer though :) Some of our small microbrews are just incredible. Potosi, New Glarus, Forevermore, Capital (not so little)…
Cerberus
@jibeaux: Which is one of many reasons that in some future society, such partnerships would have to be polyamorous (open to all sexes, rather than specifically multiple wives), but yeah, that debate is probably a good few decades off at the very least.
Ash Can
@licensed to kill time: It’s my new policy too. Direct engagement just isn’t worth the trouble.
@Anne Laurie: LOL! OK, you’re right. You’re way funnier. Makewi drops a beauty now and then, but, like with BOB, it gets to be awfully hard work wading through the drek the rest of the time. You, on the other hand, just aim, fire, and hit the bullseye.
Makewi
@geg6:
Once again, so long as its YOU who gets to determine what is specious, then everything is fine. Once you open that determination up to a larger pool it gets a bit dicier.
inkadu
@jibeaux: You’re making the assumption that polygamy means one man with multiple wives; but it could also mean one woman with multiple husbands. That would balance out the single young men problem.
Polygamy gets a bad rap because it’s a terrible idea, usually enforced by an oppressive patriarchal system. But I’m not sure that it’s correlation with abusive societies is enough grounds to make it illegal. If it works for maybe 2-3% of the people to structure their lives that way, and they do it as equal partners, I don’t see the government interest in not taking part in granting legal recognition.
Plus one could argue that anti-polygamy rules have actually driven polygamous societies underground. If polygamy were legal, polygamous families would not feel the need to live in the hills and homeschool their children, and eventually their daughters would have a chance of being married at 22 instead of at 13 because they’d be part of the larger community.
Midnight Marauder
@Zifnab:
Yeah, I’ve had numerous conversations about this subject where the polygamy tangent came up, and I’ve never seen why it was thoroughly demonized. I understand the numerous areas where polygamy can be incredibly problematic (evidenced quite nicely by malraux here. But whenever the “Well, what about polygamy card” comes up from people like Makewank, it’s best to just respond “Okay, well what about polygamy?”
Makewi
@jenniebee:
Ah, but in many cases the law does consider the fetus to be a person. For example, in the murder of a pregnant woman.
Science still hasn’t found the answer on that one, and that is an argument for another day in any case.
Ranger 3
Sigh… more gay abortion. It never ends. I’m not a big fan of the puritan culture warriors and people should be able to do what they want in their private lives blah blah blah… but goddamn aren’t the gay activist types turning out to be some serious fucking drama queens.
It’s all how dare you not write a story about how totally evil this guy we don’t like is, cause he tries to frustrate our agenda and is having some success doing it. And if you call me something people call each other all the time, but could be reasonably thought to be directed solely at me and all about my sexuality (and with the gays, it is ALWAYS about them) then I’m just gonna reach down into my infinite reservoir of rage and slug you. And alot of blogfolks are apparently cool with that.
It was a dick move to go off on the girl like that. And he didn’t have to just assume the cocksucker remark was meant to mean anything other than he was being one at that particular moment. I really don’t think stuff like this does much to win people over, but they keep doing it. I knew this movement was going off the rails when they starting comparing themselves to the civil rights movement… cause you know that being shut out of the marriage racket is just like slavery. It’s exactly the same thing.
These are folks who thought Hillary Clinton would be more effective at achieving social change and advancing their cause. They currently make a sport of attacking the most gay friendly President in US history. They are on the verge of seeing most of their big policy goals actually happen, such as DADT going away and gay marriage becoming legal in at least a few states, within a few years. This seemed unlikely just a few years ago. And they’re pissed as hell about it.
It’s not exactly rational behavior.
Chad N Freude
@SpotWeld:
That would be some erection! Probably the only one that members of the punditocracy will ever have.
inkadu
@Makewi: On interracial marriage: There are biblical injuctions against the Children of Ham, who are supposed to be marked by darker skin. Some biblical scholars believe it was fear of the Children of Ham that inspired the early Hebrews to condemn the consumption of pork. Other scholars speculate that one of the “lost tribes” actually made a nearly-successful play to seize control of the religious apparatus of the tribes. The name of that tribe, predictably, was The Children of Bacon.
Joel
@Mark S.:
It reads like a hybrid between a bad gossip piece and a bad Bill Simmons column.
Martin
The bigger problem with polygamy is that currently its biggest champions are less-than-noble groups that routinely treat women as property and use the marriage to trap them and the children in abusive situations. That’s not true of all cases, but it’s a large enough percentage of the existing known cases that the more mainstream polyamory groups will likely never get over that hurdle for quite a long time.
It doesn’t take many David Koresh’s to poison a concept, and polyamory has zero visibility as anything other than horny, controlling men wanting to have their own little harem. Acceptance and visibility are definitely the problems to tackle first.
We have a local congregation where polyamory is accepted, and if they were seen as representative of the community it’d be a much more mainstream discussion, but they lay VERY low, and understandably so.
Ash Can
@martha: Damn it, now I’m thirsty too. :D
Back in the days before Bottle Rocket came along, when M-80 and I were footloose and fancy free, we’d take off to the Wisconsin back roads every so often for the weekend. One of our favorite Friday night stopping-off places was a decent little motel in Janesville that was right next to a saloon that featured a yummy fish fry and every kind of beer that Gray’s and New Glarus brewed. I’m gaining weight just thinking about it.
scav
I just love how all the sudden people having second thoughts about Obama are front page, top of the page news and people having second (third, fourth, ad infinitum) thoughts about Our Former Plague were ignored or DFHs and no longer patriots. OK, just a minor attack of being confounded by the obvious but my mentally throwing a punch at the NYT seemed somehow on-topic, so there. Consider it thrown.
inkadu
Here’s a Balloon Juice assignment:
1. Go to work tomorrow.
2. Call your boss a cock sucker.
3. Come here and tell us what happened.
Midnight Marauder
@Makewi:
Except for the centuries upon centuries that it did.
You are the most dishonest human being on the Internet. That is all.
Joel
@jibeaux: I see cocksucker as more of a toadie, squealer type. Someone like Ari Fleischer is a cocksucker.
Douchebag is more of a preening, raging moron. Roger Clemens comes to mind, but in keeping with the theme, I’ll go with George W.
Asshole is just a contemptuous dickwad. Dick Cheney, natch (to borrow a word from the delightful Monica Hesse!).
Zifnab
@Joel:
You know, in the age of the multi-national corporations that constantly rival each other for titles Most Incompetent and Most Evil, I would normally appreciate some good old school government fuck-ups. But then I lived through the Bush Administration.
“Oops my bad” was how Bush started half the press conferences in his second term. Were we half so lucky as a nation, he would have just been a government drone.
Makewi
@Martin:
The argument over interracial marriage never hinged on the current definition of the word marriage, because there would have been no argument. As to my supposedly acting in one way or another, I am not, I am merely pointing out that there are secular reasons for keeping marriage as it is, and opposition to changing it is not de facto bigotry.
Were I king, I would change the way it works in an even broader way than is being proposed now, but would likely allow the word to transform naturally. As in, all tissues are kleenex whether they are in actual fact or not.
Chad N Freude
In the matter of BOB: A brief conversation with a reference to Woody Allen in another thread led to this: Brick Orgasmatron Bill. I think we should make it official.
freelancer
Between all the anti-gay, anti-misegenation, polygamy in this thread, I’m surprised no one has made a magic underwear joke.
inkadu
@Midnight Marauder: Caucasian or COCKasian?
Cockasian? Gay asians?
God, please deliver me from boredom.
malraux
Arguably polygamy is already part of traditional marriage. Lots of examples of polygamy in the bible, for example.
freelancer
@inkadu:
too late.
I can haz ice-pakz?
Midnight Marauder
@inkadu:
I can haz open thread?
Chad N Freude
@inkadu: I believe the definition is Chinese roosters.
Zifnab
@Midnight Marauder:
:-p When he releases a book called “Liberal Facism” and spends an entire chapter talking about how Whole Foods is the next Hitler, maybe we can talk.
When several years later he passionately defends the Whole Foods CEO (who I suppose I could classify as the Hitler of Hitler or Hilter squared) against the angry government health care hordes who he has also already repeatedly called Nazis and Hitlers, then we can engage in some serious debate.
When he takes over editorship of the NRO, I’ll cede the point.
Chad N Freude
@malraux: This is true. But it’s only to make up for the fact that you mustn’t covet your neighbor’s ass.
Laura W
@Ash Can:
I can understand why you thought of me.
Cerberus
@Martin:
Yup, hence the focus on visibility for a movement with a whole new name to separate itself from the child-abusing religious crazies. And also why it’ll take a generation or two of sane polyamorists to change public perception.
Makewi
@Midnight Marauder:
So you show me a non linked quote in which pre-United States had laws on the books against interracial marriage and another no linked passage about an attempted change to the Constitution which we all know failed. Yet, you call me dishonest.
It does not surprise me that you fail to see the problem with your argument. Here’s what you do, you find me a dictionary definition from the time in question that states unequivocally that a marriage is between a man and woman of the same race.
Violet
@Midnight Marauder:
Seconded. Time for open thread.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Laura W:
I don’t think he meant it that way. Everyone loves you and misses you when you aren’t here, and then begins to imagine you are here but speaking to us through a freaky persona because, uh, we miss you?
Martin
@Midnight Marauder:
Not to mention that in many states and for the federal government, marriage/civil unions didn’t even make reference to gender until things like DOMA sprung up.
One reason why some states have been ruling in favor of gay marriage is that their constitutions never addressed gender. So, to restate Makewi:
That’s not true in all cases, but it is true in quite a few – and it’s certainly true for those that pushed for DOMA since the federal government simply referenced marriage.
Xanthipas
I just spent ten minutes trying to figure out why any of this is important. Thanks.
Martin
@Cerberus:
I think it’ll take longer than that, actually. The David Koresh’s don’t seem to be going away anytime soon, and that’s the part that really needs to change. Every time one pops up, it’ll poison the discussion for another decade, name change or not.
Chad N Freude
@Cerberus: There’ve been a lot of references to polygamy in this thread, but not one reference to polyandry. It would appear that inclusiveness and gender neutrality require the use of “polyamory”.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
If polygamy, properly so-called, were legal, this would create a host of legal issues to be dealt with. Polygamy of course, includes polygyny and polyandry. In this country, however, it has been used for the former alone, and especially for a small number of men engrossing all the nubile women and creating an underclass of rootless male proles for exploitation as laborers. This actually simplifies things enormously. It reduces the legal population by half automatically, since women have no rights, and makes a large percentage of the male population irrelevant from a legal and political point of view. Only a very small number of patriarchs actually count in the legal calculus.
If we really wanted to start talking about polygamy tout court, you’d see a lot of exploding heads. Never mind if we opened up the discussion to non-one-to-many arrangements, like Heinlein’s line marriage in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
All these tags are going to screw up big-time, I just know it. FY in advance, WP!
inkadu
@Chad N Freude: Can a Chinese rooster also be sticky rice?
Ash Can
@Laura W: LOL! In all seriousness, I do think your posts are enjoyable, and delightfully written. And in the event you actually were to be a spoof as well, I can say from 15 years of editing experience that writing drek does not make one a bad person. (Believing in drek, on the other hand…)
Midnight Marauder
@Makewi:
Wrong. I showed you a statement which clearly indicated that issues of race were central to the definition of marriage since the time this country was founded. It further supplemented the point made to you earlier that the same rhetoric being used against gay marriage today was once used consistently and prominently in the past against interracial marriage. It was furthering the link between the two, a point which is obvious to anyone with the most basic of critical thinking/reading skills. And I call you dishonest because that is what you are every time your name appears in a discussion on this site.
Said everyone who has ever responded to a comment made by Makewank, or watched as Makewank drowned amongst the logic being fired back in response to Makewank’s inanity.
Right. Because the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster’s are the end-all, be-all when it comes to the law in this country. Motherfuck the Constitution.
Not to mention why you need a dictionary to prove your point when, during the time period you are referring to, the definition of everything in the world pretty much applied to white men only.
Except for being slaves, that is.
inkadu
@Midnight Marauder: Yeah… after around my fifth pointless comment on a topic I have no interest in I knew something was wrong, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it.
Tunch demands an open thread.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
@ Chad N Freude:
(So the little return arrows don’t work in Firefox?)
“Polygamy” is gender-neutral. And “polyamory” doesn’t refer to marriage, just sex.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Just Some Fuckhead: Oops, SHE. Sorry about that Trash Can.
inkadu
@Midnight Marauder: At some point the fish you’ve been shooting are going to asphyxiate after the water runs out from the holes you’ve shot in the barrel.
Have a beer.
Cerberus
@The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge:
And trigger the explosions because polyamorists are definitely of the Heinlein line marriage form more often than not though there are also triads, vees and the like. Hence why the term because it isn’t centered on one-to-many dynamics though those can exist, but rather the diversity of human relationships beyond the binary.
And echo everyone up above that in general, regardless of anything, simply for the better of women in general, we need better consent laws on the books and better notions of consent in our culture. The fact that the right wing hasn’t yet noticed the difference between polyamory and homosexuality versus bestiality and child molestation is proof that an entire movement in our country has no concept of and no respect for consent as a critical part of any relationship and that is a troubling sign of a critical deficiency in our culture.
Mutual enthusiastic consent should be paramount and better cultural and legal enforcement of that would roll back most cases of abuse and child rape not just those endemic to the Mormon cults (say like the entire institution of mormonism, zing).
Chad N Freude
@The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge: I stand (or slouch) corrected. You’re right, but “polygamy” has apparently morphed into one husband-multiple wives in the US. Blame it on Utah.
And the return arrows do work in Firefox; I’m using it now.
inkadu
@The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge: I wouldn’t assume “polyamory” refers to JUST sexual relations, even though that might be the definition of it. Polyamory might be “we’d like to have sex with a stable group of partners and maybe get married to them but we don’t want to use the word polygamy because we think prairie dresses make us look fat.”
Ash Can
@Just Some Fuckhead: LOL! Not to worry; I’m quite fond of boys and do not consider “he” to be an insult. (Just don’t call me late for dinner, etc.)
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
@Chad N Freude:
I blame Utah for a lot of things, so you’re not alone.
And my bad: I forgot I had Javascript disabled from this other site that crashes my browser every goddamn time.
Just Some Fuckhead
If polygamy was legal, I’d marry every one of you lovely ladies. And every day would be as romantic as the ending scene in Casablanca with me doing the noble – but extremely painful – thing of letting each of you go to your rightful husband to fight in the resistance.
Chad N Freude
@Ash Can: We are so-o-o gender-neutral here.
Cerberus
@inkadu: Awesome. I should steal that.
Chad N Freude
@inkadu: At the moment, I’d settle for one.
Midnight Marauder
@inkadu:
You are absolutely right.
+1
Chad N Freude
@Chad N Freude: Clarification: as opposed to “a group”.
Laura W
@Just Some Fuckhead: I can not WAIT to start calling Mrs. Fuckhead my “Sister Wife”.
Yes!
Betsy
@jenniebee:
Ding ding ding ding. Just because it never occurred to some people that it’s an anti-gay slur, doesn’t mean that it isn’t one. That’s its original meaning, and is frequently how it’s still used. This is admittedly anecdotal, but I’ve never actually heard a woman called “cocksucker;” in practice, it’s reserved exclusively for men. Which should tell you something about its meaning.
@Ranger 3:
Little history lesson for you: the civil rights movement was not about slavery. It was about civil rights. Both the formal political rights, and the right not to be physically harmed while exercising said rights. Marriage is the platonic ideal of a civil right. Hence, the comparison.
And while I certainly think it’s a dick move to punch someone, I also think it’s a dick move to equate that incident with all gay activists and proceed to call them drama queens. In general, I think anyone tempted to scoff at another group’s passion for fighting to be treated like 1st class citizens should check themselves. Sure, disagree with their methods and tactics. I do, often. But to get mad because they’re mad is to minimize the injustice that they live with every damn day.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
Anyway, all of these legal arguments boil down to: “If we change anything, we’ll have to think about shit! Oh, no! My head hurts already! Death before thought!!”
binzinerator
@martha
@Omnes Omnibus
Martha and omni are full of shit. This place they talk about is shit. The people are fucking ugly and ignorant and hicks and pathetic in their backwoods farmer ways and there’s nuthin’ to do except eat brats and cheese and get fat. And everyone’s fat. Fat fat fat. And ugly. A great ass on a woman there practically constitutes positive id.
And remember Jeffery Dahmer? There’s more where that came from, that’s for damn sure, fucking farms must breed serial killers as easy as dairy cows. (Maybe it’s due to all that mercury they found in the water. Or maybe ’cause there’s always some killin’ you gotta do around the farm.)
Plus it’s fucking cold all the time, often colder than fucking Anchorage, and it snows in May and the mosquitoes are swear-to-jeebus even worse than Alaska.
So best stay the fuck away from that place. Don’t even think about comin’ here. Goes double for asshole bigots like certain unnamed trolls here.
Sheesh, martha and omni. Don’t be dense!
Martin
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Except ‘the resistance’ today just consists of teabag parties. Kinda changes the whole flavor, doesn’t it?
Cerberus
@The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge: Freedom from thought is the most important right in the Constitution, followed only by the right of America, fuck yeah! /ConservativeCivicsClass
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
@binzinerator:
In the same vein, I would like to remind everybody that it rains in Seattle 375 days a year, and everybody here is a dirty Commie.
inkadu
@binzinerator: I love cheese. And have you heard what they’re doing to the soil around Des Moines?
@Betsy: I saw the word “agenda” in Ranger3’s post and imagined the commenter trying to think objectively about an issue but not being able to get away from the political paranoia instilled by a right-wing environment.
I find the word “agenda” betrays more stubbornly anti-gay sentiment than “buggering cock-sucking faggot drama queens.”
Chad N Freude
@Cerberus: You left out the right to wave big foam fingers and shout “We’re Number One!”
Ash Can
@binzinerator: Uh…hey, yeah. Yeah, dammit! Binzinerator is right! Everybody stay away! Scram!
Ours! Ours! Hands off!Yuck! Icky poo! Stay away!geg6
Makewank is a well-known and well documented liar. And this troll’s magical logic experiments aren’t even funny like BoB’s (though shoot me for saying so about that racist misogynist). And now it’s on to homophobia isn’t homophobia cuz I said so, that’s why! It’s truly tedious.
Keith G
@Ranger 3:
I want to thank you for painting us all with the same brush, dude.
Why didn’t you go whole hog and and call us all cocksuckers?
Oh, wait….
Cerberus
@Chad N Freude:
That’s a State’s (Football) Rights issue. It’s only federalized when a republican is in charge.
Chad N Freude
@Cerberus: Yeah, but I was thinking of the “US is Number One” subtext, which on occasion isn’t so sub.
inkadu
@Keith G: Why didn’t you go whole hog and and call us all cocksuckers?
I find your language offensive to gay jews keeping kosher.
inkadu
Two new threads. Praise the Lord.
General Winfield Stuck
@Ranger 3:
You shore got a purdy mouth.
Keith G
@inkadu: Oy vey
Splitting Image
A quibble, but I’ve always thought of it as an anti-Republican slur, particularly in the sense that it refers to someone who would be publicly anti-gay, but perfectly willing to suck someone’s cock if would give him a leg up in business.
Noted cocksuckers include David Frum, who famously published a hagiography of George W. Bush called “The Right Man”, then said that he would have preferred to see John McCain win in 2000 the moment McCain won the candidacy in 2008.
The force of the word comes from the fact that toadying is far more common than homosexuality, and a large percentage of the world’s toadies (i.e. Republicans) can be counted on to be severely homophobic.
I guess as gays become more accepted the word will seem more and more antediluvian. Which is a shame, because I love the word almost as much as I love the word “antediluvian”.
Betsy
@inkadu:
The homosexual agenda
Xenos
@Makewi:
I can think of other words than anti-gay. Such as Bigot, Arsehole, Closet Case, Puritanical Panty-Sniffer, Jerkoff, God-Botherer, Ignorant Backwoods Sister-Fucking Hillbilly, Snot-Nosed Adolescent Squick-Kid, Privileged Pink-Assed Punk, Smegma-Sucking Taint-Nuzzler, and so on. All of which apply to you, Makewi.
Xenos +3 (It does not take much these days).
Deschanel
@Nellcote: Also an ex-Marine.
Sorry, you call someone that vile epithet, expect to get punched in the face. It’s a vile word, and a deliberately provocative one. That’s how the world is, not condoning “workplace violence” bla bla.
You call another guy a cocksucker, you better look out for a sock in the jaw.
It really has nothing to do literalism or being gay, the person who said it knew he was being demeaning in a very nasty way.
LD50
@Makewi: Sure, just because he wants to keep civil rights from gays CAN’T POSSIBLY mean he’s anti-gay!
And in other news, some of Makewank’s best friends are black.
LD50
@Makewi:
It’s ‘not working’ ‘cuz Makewank has decreed it’s not working. Should we get all our reality from her from now on?
LD50
@Makewi:
So you’d be cool with preventing the marriage of any two people who can’t have children? Don’t you Republicans like to babble about getting the government OUT of people’s lives?
Oh, whoops, that only applies to people you approve of.
LD50
You want to base law on what DICTIONARIES say?
Cerberus
@LD50:
This actually intrigues me since I believe the dictionary definition of marriage changed a few years ago to include same sex marriage, so apparently by the dictionary is law rule, same sex marriage has been legal here for a couple of years.
I really don’t understand dictionary fetishism in general. The dictionary is a reference guide to try and help you understand a term. It’s deliberately truncated in nuance so that the definition fits a single line, hence why there is a second reference guide called an encyclopedia which is a truncated and only semi-nuanced account of a term and is a poor substitute for a scholarly book, article, or class.
People would actually have stronger arguments linking to wikipedia than the dictionary, yet a certain class of wannabe smart guy always seems to think the dictionary has magical properties that nothing else can ever match or do better than.
TenguPhule
Someone hasn’t studied the history of marriage very well.
Let’s put it this way, multi-partner marriages would be much less worse then most of the shit that’s already been done.
TenguPhule
I didn’t know we were discussing Pisspot and the Teabaggers now.
racetoinfinity
Everyone keeps saying that anti-gay marriange is discriminating by gender, but it’s really discrimination by sexual orientation (although I suppose if gay marriage becomes legal in your state, a straight man or woman could marry another straight man or woman, but why?)
Joel
@Ranger 3:Stop being such a cocksucker.
licensed to kill time
Wow, the Makewankery got thick on this thread.