Maybe that is because it is something that many people are very passionate about, yet can be discussed on this site with people remaining ,for the most part, polite and decent to each other.
little timmy's law: You know it's gone to complete shit when the thread leads to a heated discussion about obese black republican lesbian eel herders that want to get married, eliminate social security via WMD that Bush ABSOLUTELY DID OR DID NOT LIE ABOUT while pointing out how angry (and white) Howard Dean is and how pissed of the Esmay's are at everything when having joint nicotine fits.
Clinton's law # 1: Any reference to how bad Bush is will be meet by an equal and opposite attack on Clinton, and any praise of Bush will be meet by an equal and opposite praise of Clinton.
The law of Gore: Anyone named Al Gore will lose an election regardless of how many votes he gets. Anyone political figure supported by someone named Al Gore SUCKS.
I never ever use the word "gay" to describe homosexuals, their practices, their political preferences, what non-homosexuals think of them, or any related matters. Because I think that perverting the English language is a worse offense than using one's body for perverse purposes.
So if you do this stuff, homosexual you are, homosexual you shall remain. But "gay"? Never.
Any of you have any problems with this? Whine back at me about it.
300 years ago, the word "nice" meant simple-minded.
I bring this up just to poke fun at Arnold for clinging to an old definition for "gay" that society (and the dictionary) have moved on with.
Sure, you can call gay people "homosexuals" the same way you can call black folks "negroes" or Jews "Hebrews" but you'll sound like you stepped out of a daguerreotype.
What kind of horseless carriage do you fancy? I myself prefer to perambulate about the promenade.
I think homosexuals picked up the term "gay" as a euphemism to describe an activity they did not want others to know they practiced. That, of course, is hypocrisy.
For the same reason, I refer to the so-called United Nations as the United Nations Organization. So that nobody will ever confuse it with a government. Which it is not and which most of us will never allow it to become.
If you get your jollies by having sexual contact with another person of the same gender, I have no problem with that. But then you ought to do so in pride, not in self-hatred born of secret shame. As Edward Albee suggested in a line of monologue in his one-act play, The Zoo Story:
(Actor, slowly spelling out the word one letter at a time:)
"I was an H-O-M-O-S-E-X-U-A-L. QUEER! QUEER! QUEER! With flags waving and banners snapping in the breeze!"
Now that's the kind of talk that I can shake hands with, because it bespeaks perfect honesty and is devoid of all cant.
In any case, my Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines "gay" as:
"Merry. Bright. Lively. Brilliant in color. Given to social pleasures. (also) Licentious. (see Lively.)"
(Nothing in there about looking for love in all the wrong places.)
And the horseless carriages I have fancied over the years are Austin-Healey 100/4, Chevrolet Chevette, Ford Aerostar, and Harley Davidson 73.
But the bottom line is that I hope you don't get GRIDS, since you no doubt are a nice guy. And if that happens, no matter how gay you may think you are, you will be the saddest guy on your block.
A visitor in Austria had our blog translated into German the other day, with a most amusing result: "Young and gay" in the Cornelia Otis Skinner sense became "jung und homosexuell" in the gladiator-movie sense. We think automatischen Ubersetzung protests too much.
I agree with Arnold about the word itself. There is no real English equivelent to use instead. No, not "happy", "merry", "glad", etc., they all have a different connotation. So I still say "gay" when that's what I mean and to heck with anyone who doesn't like it.
I just figured out your problem---you're using the Merriam-Webster 7th, which is out of date. Merriam-Webster released the 11th edition last year.
The New Oxford American Dictionary (2001---available now wherever finer books are sold) lists 3 definitions of gay, including "homosexual" and "carefree."
Methinks thou doth protest too much, old man. Why don't you come over to my place, we'll open a bottle of wine, light some candles, and work it out.
BTW---languane changes over time, Arnie, and English changes faster than most. In order to keep up you really need to have a more current dictionary.
Call me anything, anything at all, except "Arnie". That makes me feel like my tomcat would if I twisted his tail. I hate diminuitives used on males. Like "Bobbie", "Billy", and the likes of that. Sort of like a kid wearing short pants, and I haven't had that indignity in 65 years.
Candles? Light wine? What the hell are you proposing, a wine & cheese League of Women Voters salon group? I prefer Point Special beer, Croatian slivovica, or sometimes, when I feel picaresque, white wine with a beer chaser.
And even if folks have re-engineered the standard dictionary definitions of gayness vs homosexuality or gayness AS homosexuality, what does being or practicing homosexual have to do with having a carefree disposition and demeanor? Some of these guys who write in to Dean's World sound like angry, spiteful and unforgiving hombres. (Which is okay, I suppose. Because in truth I sometimes get angry, spiteful and unforgiving. And bastardly on top of all that.
Rosemary,
Serve me the right food and drink, and I get mellow like Dean or anyone else.
Brilliant in color? What in hell do you want me to look like? Howard Dean in one of his apoplectic moments getting red in face and eye, after blowing his lead in the Iowa caucus?
Been thre/done that, McGehee, 45-50 years ago, until the late 50s, when guys actually talked and acted that way, at least in movies. Sometimes they would actually get a woman for a few wild and interesting hours. Usually, they just faked it. Even so, people thought they were assholes trying to mimic Marlon Brando playing a motocycle hotshot in "The Wild One".
But for the last 35 years or so, the hot babe in my life has been my wife, who combines the body of a 25-year-old and the brain of well educated woman.
I use "homosexual" for the same reason I call myself "heterosexual" (or "gynosexual", attracted to women). It's about sex (which is about everything: beauty, desire, love....). I'm not "straight" because if I were I'd be a man's man (androsexual). I'm attracted to curves, so I'm not straight.
For gynosexual women, "Lesbian" or "Sapphist" has noble historic associations. I've noticed that "Negro" is coming back into fashion among some black men. I like that word, too, precisely because it is old-fashioned and has a certain dignity. The Jews were "Hebrews" or the "children of Israel" until the Babylonian captivity, which is when Judaism as we know it today began to take shape.
I'm a reactionary. I stepped out of a daguerrotype.
That's not a fair criticism, Dean. In your post about curves, you made an assertion that was diametrically opposed to other assertions you have made in threads specifically devoted to the subject of homosexuality.
And you got nailed. Just like Paul Krugman. Just like Dowd. If you want to whine about it, that is your prerogative. This is your web log. I'm not setting up any Esmay watch, but you seem a little thin skinned.
You have very admirably set up a web log which unapologetically discusses controversial subjects. But participating in this web log is not like being a guest in your house. Its more like being a consumer in your store.
A weblog is just an on-line journal.The size of your following means that, like it or not, you have become a journalist. (Ever wonder about the roots of that word. Journal-ist. Weblog-ist.)
You can make fun of those who nailed you on your inconsistency. But how does that make you any different from the professional journalist being pilloried on line every day?
That'th funny! That'th justht how the Jewth were thtereotyped ath talking in the 19th and early 20th thenturies, as, e.g., when G. K. Chethterton wath writing. "There'th a lot of prejudith againth my rathe," thaid one of hith charachterth. Yes, there wath, and thtill ith. The parallelth are indeed ominouth.
A weblog is a lot more than just an on-line journal. At least if it's any good. And Dean's World is one of the best in modern online journalism.
Why? Because it is a wide-ranging more or less wide-open online discussion group that combines the best characteristics of some of the fine graduate seminars I have had the pleasure to attend at more than one university a generation ago.
We all cut our teeth around here on the strength or failure of our arguments. Or maybe its just the way some of use occasional wit to ward off the doom of someone else's truth that we didn't think about until some other bright guy or girl posted it. Even a curmudgeon like me gets a fresh education every day or so on this weblog. And that's good, because when I stop learning, that's when I'll begin to die. And I'm not ready for that by anyone's measure.
So cut the man some slack. He's got his inconsistencies, pet peeves, irrationalities just like you, me and all the rest of us. But hot damn, does he ever do a great job of keeping this beautiful and useful little world together.
I don't mind inconsistencies. And I thought I made it clear that Dean has done an admirable job with his weblog. The root word Journal makes me wonder if newspapers began with people like Dean just sharing their journals with others. So, my point would be that weblogs are a new form of journalism. Not exactly a controversial viewpoint in the blogosphere.
Dean, I'm not all upset. But you like straight talk most of the time. And that is why I jumped on the inconsistency in the "Curvy" post.
My bigger point is this. This week, apparently Rosemary has decided not to be a regular contributor because of some nasty comments and even some threats. Your weblog has grown to the point that perhaps you should reconsider your viewpoint that this forum is just a bunch of friends getting together to debate interesting topics. You are obviously gaining not only critics, but enemies. You have been "promoted" to the big leagues, so to speak.
A good analogy would be the candidacy of Howard Dean. Within the state of Vermont, and during the election preseason when playing to the relatively small extreme left crowd, Howie did well. But when the real games started being played, he imploded.
I think you are at that point now in your weblog. And it is up to you to make the decision if you want to play with the big boys, or if you want to keep this weblog as just an enjoyable hobby and outlet for your views.
I'm not being critical at all of what you have accomplished. I have considered starting a weblog, and have not done so because of the committment it would take, and because I didn't want to expose myself in the way that you have.
For example, your post wishing happy Birthday to your mother was quite touching, but it was also very exposing. If I were to write a similar post about my very private wife, we would be making a trip to the marriage counselor or the divorce lawyer.
The larger point is that your success has brought you to a place where you might want to give more consideration to what you post because you can no longer take for granted the "friendliness" of your visitors. And as you become even more well known, you might incur real life enemies who wish you harm - as apparently has happened. You will also be more closely scrutinized.
Its like running a sole proprietership and growing too fast. At some point, the way you run things when you're small just doesn't work when you get big. Just friendly food for thought.
1) This thread wasn't a poke at you. You shouldn't interpret it that way. It's just that countless threads have suddenly turned to the gay issue, and has happened so much that people are starting to notice. It's just kinda funny that that keeps happening--probably because so many people--gay, straight, left and right--want to argue with me about it, because my views of it match neither the left's nor the right's accepted wisdom.
2) So far, I've made about $300 in the last two years off this weblog, and probably spent half of it on hosting fees, and so I would imagine that I make about $0.02 per hour doing this. This isn't a business. If I knew how to turn it into a business, I might try. Probably not until I graduate from college, though.
Although if you know anyone who wants to hire a columnist, you just let me know, buddy and I'll be all over that.
3) I don't actually believe my position vis-a-vis what we find attractive is in any way contradictory with my view on homosexuality, because I do not believe that ALL human behavior can be described or bound by reproduction, and that generalizations only have validity when we remind ourselves that they are generalizations and cannot be applied to every individual.
To be crass, most men don't like very fat women. There are reasons for this, but there are also exceptions. I know men who find heavy women very, very desirable, or who just plain don't care. I have also met women who find men with large pot bellies VERY sexy.
Some people are born blind. Some are born with an extra toe or finger. Some are born with lower intelligence, or greater artistic ability. Some are born with eyes of two different colors. Some are born with their brains wired in such a way that their sexual attraction is opposite of the norm--or something else chemical in their brain makeup makes them more likely to develop that way by the time they hit puberty, anyway.
You may call it a birth defect or a biological error if you like. I used to work with a lady who had one brown eye and one blue eye, a clear biological error, and a little disturbing until you got used to it. Once you did, however (and it didn't take long), it was simply charming.
That being the case, continually insisting that gay people are somehow "violating natural law" is just silly. That's like saying that someone born missing a toe, or with natural artistic talent, is violating natural law.
And if homosexuality were destructive to society, it seems a little odd that two of the most enduring and advanced civilizations of human history, ancient Greece and Rome, managed to attain their pinnacles even though they always had a casual attitude about homosexuality.
Certainly, homosexuality is not conducive to reproduction. But not all human behavior is. Some people are born sterile. Some people choose not to have children. These are a minority, but they do not deserve to be harassed for it. Reproduction is not life's only purpose, nor the only way to contribute to humanity.
You cannot use generalizations--which is all my generalizations about what people find attractive in males or females--to universally apply those concepts to every single individual without exception.
I just don't see the conflict here, and I seem unlikely to. I've been hanging around gay people my whole life, and I'm sorry, these folks aren't just being perverse because they enjoy offending people or want to destroy society. A few of them (John Kusch comes to mind) are so utterly furious at the way they're viewed by some conservatives that they've come to practically hate their own country. That's sad to me, because I see no reason for it, especially when the last 30 years have seen so much progress in society learning to simply treat these folks as human. Which is what they deserve.
I didn't interpret as a poke against me. I interpreted it as diverting criticism.
I'm not sure how you would turn this into something profitable either.
On my other point, throughout the time I have been visiting here, you have occassionaly gone off on somebody. In the context of a small forum where people "know" you, and understand that you mean well, all is forgiven. But I think you are getting beyond that point. Now you are getting to the point where one of your rants can be perceived by all but your most loyal fans as the equivalent of Howard Dean's meltdown Monday night. YEEEEEEAAAAAAAGGHHH!!!
Maybe that is acceptable to you. But it seems to me that you are at a crossroads - especially with the temporary retirement of your wife. If you want to broaden your appeal, you're going to have to forego the personal attacks - even when you are unfairly attacked. And some, like me in this instance, are going to interpret your threads in a point/counterpoint way. You'll also have more eyes watching you.
I don't have any suggestions on what you should do. That depends on your personal goals and intentions. But I think you should consider what I am saying.
BTW, if I am correct, then congratulations are in order. Threats of physical violence may seem like a dubious reward, but then MOVIE STARS don't like some aspects of their fame, either.
You're certainly right about one thing, Scott: I am increasingly noticing that being a popular weblogger is a form of mini-celebrity. My wife has been approached by strangers in public on more than one occasion who hear her name and ask if she's heard of Dean's World. Kinda freaky.
Glenn Reynolds has told me that he's gotten numerous death threats. No surprise, he's got 20 times my readership, so probably gets 20 times the number of jerks writing to him.
It's like all the benefits of being semi-famous without any of the money. ;-)
Oh, by the way, My mom loved what I wrote, which I knew she would. That just comes with knowing my family. She's not a very private person, at all. ;-)
Neither am I, come to think of it. My life is an open book, on most issues anyway.
Just keep on doing what you've been doing, Dean. That why I'm reading you. Don't worry about what other people think. That was an excellent statement on homosexuality you just gave.
And -- please bring back Rosemary!
I figured you knew your mother would appreciate your tribute. That's why I didn't comment about it in that thread.
But I know many women that would consider such a revealing tribute to be very insensitive. All of the women in my wife's family would interpret it that way. And many women would take offense FOR your mother, even if she didn't. That's not fair, or even legitimate. But it is the way things are.
I learned soon after becoming engaged that what I MEANT had no real meaning. It is what the other person HEARD that counted.
Good point, especially where women are concerned. ;-)
Although there does come the flip side of that: the responsibility we all have not to assume that people mean to be as they sound. That one took me a while to learn myself.
Arnold Harris:
"I think homosexuals picked up the term 'gay' as a euphemism to describe an activity they did not want others to know they practiced. That, of course, is hypocrisy."
Maybe up to your era, they did. But by the time I was able to understand the news even rudimentarily, gay was being used to refer to out homosexuals. It isn't 1955 anymore, you know. When I announced to my parents (in pride, not in self-hatred born of secret shame) that I was gay, they did not respond, "Then why don't we see you smiling and capering around more?" You yourself mentioned GRID without fuming that it should be HRID or IRID or FRID, or whatever. If people want to use more time-honored definitions of gay, the way some of us like to hold the line for disinterested to mean "uninvolved" or enormity to mean "egregious action," why not just do so, without the see-me-score-points-for-uncensored-honesty routine? Earthy lack of pretension is a far more venerable practice in English than is pseudo-Académie française defense of words against organic shifts in usage.
And I hadn't noticed that even the Canada thread--CANADA?!--had turned gay. Don't you people have anything else to think about?
Threads seem to be turning into discussions of health insurance. Boring. (Unless you're in pain and needing a doctor, at which point it become a little more interesting, I guess.) The Canada* thread and the thread on fat people. I think fat women are sexy. I'm a deviated prevert.
*A whole country is reduced to its health insurance system??
"If you don't watch yourself, I'm going to sneak into your house in the middle of the night and tend to your plants! If you keep it up, I may even threaten to vacuum."
Heh. An hour ago my wife said the same thing! She howled with laughter when I read this to her.
I was totally thinking the same thing. How did you start on fat people and end up on gay marriage? The terrorists have won.
Maybe that is because it is something that many people are very passionate about, yet can be discussed on this site with people remaining ,for the most part, polite and decent to each other.
Just my thoughts ;)
Aaron Pohle
It's because your wife is secretly in love with me - it's subliminal.
"Not that there's anything wrong with that."
Someone should trademark that phrase. Really. I hear it just as much as I hear, "Bush lied."
What about gay midgets? What about the plight of black gay dwarves?!? Bunch of homophobic racists!!
Heh. Hehehehehehe. It's twue, it's twue!
Kinsell's Law: All threads on Dean's World eventually turn gay.
Anderson's Law: In any discussion of homosexuality, somebody on the anti side will bring up NAMBLA.
Rosemary and Michael Demmons -- me and Lesbians? Androsexuals and gynosexuals?
little timmy's law: You know it's gone to complete shit when the thread leads to a heated discussion about obese black republican lesbian eel herders that want to get married, eliminate social security via WMD that Bush ABSOLUTELY DID OR DID NOT LIE ABOUT while pointing out how angry (and white) Howard Dean is and how pissed of the Esmay's are at everything when having joint nicotine fits.
Clinton's law # 1: Any reference to how bad Bush is will be meet by an equal and opposite attack on Clinton, and any praise of Bush will be meet by an equal and opposite praise of Clinton.
The law of Gore: Anyone named Al Gore will lose an election regardless of how many votes he gets. Anyone political figure supported by someone named Al Gore SUCKS.
Yeesh.
That is so, well, such a gay thing to say.
I never ever use the word "gay" to describe homosexuals, their practices, their political preferences, what non-homosexuals think of them, or any related matters. Because I think that perverting the English language is a worse offense than using one's body for perverse purposes.
So if you do this stuff, homosexual you are, homosexual you shall remain. But "gay"? Never.
Any of you have any problems with this? Whine back at me about it.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
My secret alter-ego is the Goddess LaShonda X -- a lesbian person-of-color handicapped wiccan vegan womynist.
The Goddess is in da house!
Oh, I forogot, The Goddess is a Person of Size also!
double-snaps all around!
300 years ago, the word "nice" meant simple-minded.
I bring this up just to poke fun at Arnold for clinging to an old definition for "gay" that society (and the dictionary) have moved on with.
Sure, you can call gay people "homosexuals" the same way you can call black folks "negroes" or Jews "Hebrews" but you'll sound like you stepped out of a daguerreotype.
What kind of horseless carriage do you fancy? I myself prefer to perambulate about the promenade.
Mike,
I think homosexuals picked up the term "gay" as a euphemism to describe an activity they did not want others to know they practiced. That, of course, is hypocrisy.
For the same reason, I refer to the so-called United Nations as the United Nations Organization. So that nobody will ever confuse it with a government. Which it is not and which most of us will never allow it to become.
If you get your jollies by having sexual contact with another person of the same gender, I have no problem with that. But then you ought to do so in pride, not in self-hatred born of secret shame. As Edward Albee suggested in a line of monologue in his one-act play, The Zoo Story:
(Actor, slowly spelling out the word one letter at a time:)
"I was an H-O-M-O-S-E-X-U-A-L. QUEER! QUEER! QUEER! With flags waving and banners snapping in the breeze!"
Now that's the kind of talk that I can shake hands with, because it bespeaks perfect honesty and is devoid of all cant.
In any case, my Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines "gay" as:
"Merry. Bright. Lively. Brilliant in color. Given to social pleasures. (also) Licentious. (see Lively.)"
(Nothing in there about looking for love in all the wrong places.)
And the horseless carriages I have fancied over the years are Austin-Healey 100/4, Chevrolet Chevette, Ford Aerostar, and Harley Davidson 73.
But the bottom line is that I hope you don't get GRIDS, since you no doubt are a nice guy. And if that happens, no matter how gay you may think you are, you will be the saddest guy on your block.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
A visitor in Austria had our blog translated into German the other day, with a most amusing result: "Young and gay" in the Cornelia Otis Skinner sense became "jung und homosexuell" in the gladiator-movie sense. We think automatischen Ubersetzung protests too much.
http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2004/01/post_18.html
(I bet if someone called Arnold "gay" he'd be offended.)
I agree with Arnold about the word itself. There is no real English equivelent to use instead. No, not "happy", "merry", "glad", etc., they all have a different connotation. So I still say "gay" when that's what I mean and to heck with anyone who doesn't like it.
Arnie:
I just figured out your problem---you're using the Merriam-Webster 7th, which is out of date. Merriam-Webster released the 11th edition last year.
The New Oxford American Dictionary (2001---available now wherever finer books are sold) lists 3 definitions of gay, including "homosexual" and "carefree."
Methinks thou doth protest too much, old man. Why don't you come over to my place, we'll open a bottle of wine, light some candles, and work it out.
BTW---languane changes over time, Arnie, and English changes faster than most. In order to keep up you really need to have a more current dictionary.
(I bet if someone called Arnold "gay" he'd be offended.)
Maybe. But I think it's because he's too gruff to be merry, bright, lively and brilliant in color. ;-)
Thith whole dithcussion ith jutht preciouth!
Don,
Call me anything, anything at all, except "Arnie". That makes me feel like my tomcat would if I twisted his tail. I hate diminuitives used on males. Like "Bobbie", "Billy", and the likes of that. Sort of like a kid wearing short pants, and I haven't had that indignity in 65 years.
Candles? Light wine? What the hell are you proposing, a wine & cheese League of Women Voters salon group? I prefer Point Special beer, Croatian slivovica, or sometimes, when I feel picaresque, white wine with a beer chaser.
And even if folks have re-engineered the standard dictionary definitions of gayness vs homosexuality or gayness AS homosexuality, what does being or practicing homosexual have to do with having a carefree disposition and demeanor? Some of these guys who write in to Dean's World sound like angry, spiteful and unforgiving hombres. (Which is okay, I suppose. Because in truth I sometimes get angry, spiteful and unforgiving. And bastardly on top of all that.
Rosemary,
Serve me the right food and drink, and I get mellow like Dean or anyone else.
Brilliant in color? What in hell do you want me to look like? Howard Dean in one of his apoplectic moments getting red in face and eye, after blowing his lead in the Iowa caucus?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
<really, really deep voice>
So, who wants to go grab a few brewskis and see if we can bag some hot babes?
<trying to push throat back into shape>
So since I am happy, careefree, and glad. as well as homosexual, would I be a gay gay?
Been thre/done that, McGehee, 45-50 years ago, until the late 50s, when guys actually talked and acted that way, at least in movies. Sometimes they would actually get a woman for a few wild and interesting hours. Usually, they just faked it. Even so, people thought they were assholes trying to mimic Marlon Brando playing a motocycle hotshot in "The Wild One".
But for the last 35 years or so, the hot babe in my life has been my wife, who combines the body of a 25-year-old and the brain of well educated woman.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Mike:
I think it makes you gay2 (gay squared).
I use "homosexual" for the same reason I call myself "heterosexual" (or "gynosexual", attracted to women). It's about sex (which is about everything: beauty, desire, love....). I'm not "straight" because if I were I'd be a man's man (androsexual). I'm attracted to curves, so I'm not straight.
For gynosexual women, "Lesbian" or "Sapphist" has noble historic associations. I've noticed that "Negro" is coming back into fashion among some black men. I like that word, too, precisely because it is old-fashioned and has a certain dignity. The Jews were "Hebrews" or the "children of Israel" until the Babylonian captivity, which is when Judaism as we know it today began to take shape.
I'm a reactionary. I stepped out of a daguerrotype.
That's not a fair criticism, Dean. In your post about curves, you made an assertion that was diametrically opposed to other assertions you have made in threads specifically devoted to the subject of homosexuality.
And you got nailed. Just like Paul Krugman. Just like Dowd. If you want to whine about it, that is your prerogative. This is your web log. I'm not setting up any Esmay watch, but you seem a little thin skinned.
You have very admirably set up a web log which unapologetically discusses controversial subjects. But participating in this web log is not like being a guest in your house. Its more like being a consumer in your store.
A weblog is just an on-line journal.The size of your following means that, like it or not, you have become a journalist. (Ever wonder about the roots of that word. Journal-ist. Weblog-ist.)
You can make fun of those who nailed you on your inconsistency. But how does that make you any different from the professional journalist being pilloried on line every day?
"Thith whole dithcussion ith jutht preciouth!"
That'th funny! That'th justht how the Jewth were thtereotyped ath talking in the 19th and early 20th thenturies, as, e.g., when G. K. Chethterton wath writing. "There'th a lot of prejudith againth my rathe," thaid one of hith charachterth. Yes, there wath, and thtill ith. The parallelth are indeed ominouth.
Oh, lighten up Scott. ;-)
Ssssssssssssssssssss.... That's better.
No Scott,
A weblog is a lot more than just an on-line journal. At least if it's any good. And Dean's World is one of the best in modern online journalism.
Why? Because it is a wide-ranging more or less wide-open online discussion group that combines the best characteristics of some of the fine graduate seminars I have had the pleasure to attend at more than one university a generation ago.
We all cut our teeth around here on the strength or failure of our arguments. Or maybe its just the way some of use occasional wit to ward off the doom of someone else's truth that we didn't think about until some other bright guy or girl posted it. Even a curmudgeon like me gets a fresh education every day or so on this weblog. And that's good, because when I stop learning, that's when I'll begin to die. And I'm not ready for that by anyone's measure.
So cut the man some slack. He's got his inconsistencies, pet peeves, irrationalities just like you, me and all the rest of us. But hot damn, does he ever do a great job of keeping this beautiful and useful little world together.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Arnold,
I don't mind inconsistencies. And I thought I made it clear that Dean has done an admirable job with his weblog. The root word Journal makes me wonder if newspapers began with people like Dean just sharing their journals with others. So, my point would be that weblogs are a new form of journalism. Not exactly a controversial viewpoint in the blogosphere.
Dean, I'm not all upset. But you like straight talk most of the time. And that is why I jumped on the inconsistency in the "Curvy" post.
My bigger point is this. This week, apparently Rosemary has decided not to be a regular contributor because of some nasty comments and even some threats. Your weblog has grown to the point that perhaps you should reconsider your viewpoint that this forum is just a bunch of friends getting together to debate interesting topics. You are obviously gaining not only critics, but enemies. You have been "promoted" to the big leagues, so to speak.
A good analogy would be the candidacy of Howard Dean. Within the state of Vermont, and during the election preseason when playing to the relatively small extreme left crowd, Howie did well. But when the real games started being played, he imploded.
I think you are at that point now in your weblog. And it is up to you to make the decision if you want to play with the big boys, or if you want to keep this weblog as just an enjoyable hobby and outlet for your views.
I'm not being critical at all of what you have accomplished. I have considered starting a weblog, and have not done so because of the committment it would take, and because I didn't want to expose myself in the way that you have.
For example, your post wishing happy Birthday to your mother was quite touching, but it was also very exposing. If I were to write a similar post about my very private wife, we would be making a trip to the marriage counselor or the divorce lawyer.
The larger point is that your success has brought you to a place where you might want to give more consideration to what you post because you can no longer take for granted the "friendliness" of your visitors. And as you become even more well known, you might incur real life enemies who wish you harm - as apparently has happened. You will also be more closely scrutinized.
Its like running a sole proprietership and growing too fast. At some point, the way you run things when you're small just doesn't work when you get big. Just friendly food for thought.
Well Scott, a few things:
1) This thread wasn't a poke at you. You shouldn't interpret it that way. It's just that countless threads have suddenly turned to the gay issue, and has happened so much that people are starting to notice. It's just kinda funny that that keeps happening--probably because so many people--gay, straight, left and right--want to argue with me about it, because my views of it match neither the left's nor the right's accepted wisdom.
2) So far, I've made about $300 in the last two years off this weblog, and probably spent half of it on hosting fees, and so I would imagine that I make about $0.02 per hour doing this. This isn't a business. If I knew how to turn it into a business, I might try. Probably not until I graduate from college, though.
Although if you know anyone who wants to hire a columnist, you just let me know, buddy and I'll be all over that.
3) I don't actually believe my position vis-a-vis what we find attractive is in any way contradictory with my view on homosexuality, because I do not believe that ALL human behavior can be described or bound by reproduction, and that generalizations only have validity when we remind ourselves that they are generalizations and cannot be applied to every individual.
To be crass, most men don't like very fat women. There are reasons for this, but there are also exceptions. I know men who find heavy women very, very desirable, or who just plain don't care. I have also met women who find men with large pot bellies VERY sexy.
Some people are born blind. Some are born with an extra toe or finger. Some are born with lower intelligence, or greater artistic ability. Some are born with eyes of two different colors. Some are born with their brains wired in such a way that their sexual attraction is opposite of the norm--or something else chemical in their brain makeup makes them more likely to develop that way by the time they hit puberty, anyway.
You may call it a birth defect or a biological error if you like. I used to work with a lady who had one brown eye and one blue eye, a clear biological error, and a little disturbing until you got used to it. Once you did, however (and it didn't take long), it was simply charming.
That being the case, continually insisting that gay people are somehow "violating natural law" is just silly. That's like saying that someone born missing a toe, or with natural artistic talent, is violating natural law.
And if homosexuality were destructive to society, it seems a little odd that two of the most enduring and advanced civilizations of human history, ancient Greece and Rome, managed to attain their pinnacles even though they always had a casual attitude about homosexuality.
Certainly, homosexuality is not conducive to reproduction. But not all human behavior is. Some people are born sterile. Some people choose not to have children. These are a minority, but they do not deserve to be harassed for it. Reproduction is not life's only purpose, nor the only way to contribute to humanity.
You cannot use generalizations--which is all my generalizations about what people find attractive in males or females--to universally apply those concepts to every single individual without exception.
I just don't see the conflict here, and I seem unlikely to. I've been hanging around gay people my whole life, and I'm sorry, these folks aren't just being perverse because they enjoy offending people or want to destroy society. A few of them (John Kusch comes to mind) are so utterly furious at the way they're viewed by some conservatives that they've come to practically hate their own country. That's sad to me, because I see no reason for it, especially when the last 30 years have seen so much progress in society learning to simply treat these folks as human. Which is what they deserve.
Arnold: Damn, man. Don't even know what to say to that. Thank you.
Dean,
I didn't interpret as a poke against me. I interpreted it as diverting criticism.
I'm not sure how you would turn this into something profitable either.
On my other point, throughout the time I have been visiting here, you have occassionaly gone off on somebody. In the context of a small forum where people "know" you, and understand that you mean well, all is forgiven. But I think you are getting beyond that point. Now you are getting to the point where one of your rants can be perceived by all but your most loyal fans as the equivalent of Howard Dean's meltdown Monday night. YEEEEEEAAAAAAAGGHHH!!!
Maybe that is acceptable to you. But it seems to me that you are at a crossroads - especially with the temporary retirement of your wife. If you want to broaden your appeal, you're going to have to forego the personal attacks - even when you are unfairly attacked. And some, like me in this instance, are going to interpret your threads in a point/counterpoint way. You'll also have more eyes watching you.
I don't have any suggestions on what you should do. That depends on your personal goals and intentions. But I think you should consider what I am saying.
BTW, if I am correct, then congratulations are in order. Threats of physical violence may seem like a dubious reward, but then MOVIE STARS don't like some aspects of their fame, either.
Regards,
You're certainly right about one thing, Scott: I am increasingly noticing that being a popular weblogger is a form of mini-celebrity. My wife has been approached by strangers in public on more than one occasion who hear her name and ask if she's heard of Dean's World. Kinda freaky.
Glenn Reynolds has told me that he's gotten numerous death threats. No surprise, he's got 20 times my readership, so probably gets 20 times the number of jerks writing to him.
It's like all the benefits of being semi-famous without any of the money. ;-)
Oh, by the way, My mom loved what I wrote, which I knew she would. That just comes with knowing my family. She's not a very private person, at all. ;-)
Neither am I, come to think of it. My life is an open book, on most issues anyway.
But anyway, I'll keep all your advice in mind!
Just keep on doing what you've been doing, Dean. That why I'm reading you. Don't worry about what other people think. That was an excellent statement on homosexuality you just gave.
And -- please bring back Rosemary!
Dean,
I figured you knew your mother would appreciate your tribute. That's why I didn't comment about it in that thread.
But I know many women that would consider such a revealing tribute to be very insensitive. All of the women in my wife's family would interpret it that way. And many women would take offense FOR your mother, even if she didn't. That's not fair, or even legitimate. But it is the way things are.
I learned soon after becoming engaged that what I MEANT had no real meaning. It is what the other person HEARD that counted.
Good point, especially where women are concerned. ;-)
Although there does come the flip side of that: the responsibility we all have not to assume that people mean to be as they sound. That one took me a while to learn myself.
Arnold Harris:
"I think homosexuals picked up the term 'gay' as a euphemism to describe an activity they did not want others to know they practiced. That, of course, is hypocrisy."
Maybe up to your era, they did. But by the time I was able to understand the news even rudimentarily, gay was being used to refer to out homosexuals. It isn't 1955 anymore, you know. When I announced to my parents (in pride, not in self-hatred born of secret shame) that I was gay, they did not respond, "Then why don't we see you smiling and capering around more?" You yourself mentioned GRID without fuming that it should be HRID or IRID or FRID, or whatever. If people want to use more time-honored definitions of gay, the way some of us like to hold the line for disinterested to mean "uninvolved" or enormity to mean "egregious action," why not just do so, without the see-me-score-points-for-uncensored-honesty routine? Earthy lack of pretension is a far more venerable practice in English than is pseudo-Académie française defense of words against organic shifts in usage.
And I hadn't noticed that even the Canada thread--CANADA?!--had turned gay. Don't you people have anything else to think about?
Nope.
Then go out and play in the sunshine for a while. :)
It's raining.
If you just strove to be gay in its proper definition, you'd have enough levity to enjoy the rain anyway.
And I hadn't noticed that even the Canada thread--CANADA?!--had turned gay.
[covers face with hands]
Well, Dean, I did my part to inject a little machismo to this thread, but it didn't work.
I guess all that's left to do is order some ferns.
Threads seem to be turning into discussions of health insurance. Boring. (Unless you're in pain and needing a doctor, at which point it become a little more interesting, I guess.) The Canada* thread and the thread on fat people. I think fat women are sexy. I'm a deviated prevert.
*A whole country is reduced to its health insurance system??
What is the opposite of a death threat?
"If you don't watch yourself, I'm going to sneak into your house in the middle of the night and tend to your plants! If you keep it up, I may even threaten to vacuum."