Pandagon

[brianwspencer]

It's funny.

The entire manufactured "anti-Catholic" bloggers "scandal" actually got me to check out this site, where one of the bloggers posts.

Surprisingly, I love it.

A nutty far right-wing freakout led me to a great progressive blogging community.

Thanks Donahue.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

You've already spent too much time there, if that is your take.

What was manufactured was the "resignation".

that was my take long before i ever ventured over there.

of course the resignation was manufactured, and they don't mean a thing about it, but they did the right thing. right-wing screeching can only hurt edwards, and their involvement would therefore hurt him too, so they did the right thing by leaving.

donahue is a ****ing idiot for what it's worth. if he's so worried about speech that goes after a group, i find it to be compelling evidence on his character that he has not yet spoken about tim hardaway's notion that gays "shouldn't be in the united states."

even marcotte hasn't advocated for catholics not being in the U.S.

Seems he is a champion of the victim when the "victim" is him. It goes back to what I've been saying all over the net for years, that the right-wing hates this society of 'victimhood,' except when it plays into their hands to act like victims. Hypocrite extraordinaire. Not that anyone expects anything less from a tool like him.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

S


I see. Sort of like how GLAD came to the Catholics defense here...?

It's a classic case of the chicken or the egg. I don't mean to avoid the rest of your post, just this stuck out at this time of night.

Of course GLAAD has nothing to say, when someone hates you enough for being who you were born to be, then there's little to stick up for.

On top of that, there was nothing to defend. This whole thing was blown out of proportion in the name of propaganda, so why on earth would anyone jump in, let alone those who are Donahue's favorite target and help him in making something out of nothing?

You're asking an irrelevant question. It's like asking a KKK member why he doesn't support equal rights the minute after he's done tying the rope to lynch a black person. There is no plane of reference here at all. You're asking why on earth the one group that Donahue has made a living spewing hateful remarks about, didn't jump to his defense?

It's pretty self-explanatory here, my friend.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Of course, she doesn't quite have the labia to say something offensive to muslims, as many more of those folks would do more than send her some nasty e-mails (see eg van Gogh).

Because of course, radical Christianists NEVER resort to violence
A) Doctors who perform abortions
B) Bosnia
C) Matthew Sheppard's killers (what religion do you think they claimed to be?)
D) That dude in upstate New York who torched a church because he didn't feel it was teaching the right kind of Christianity

B, the reason liberal bloggers don't tend to go after Muslims is because, frankly, radical Islamism is not the issue in THIS country that radical Christianism is (NOT Christianity, so don't start yellin' at me, Timm. These are a very special breed of people who claim to be Christian). We just don't have that many Arab Muslims compared to say, Southeast Asian Muslims, and they're just different (I should know, my stepbrothers are both Muslim and were born in Cambodia- NOT the same kind of Islam). Big "C" conservative bloggers don't want to offend their base, so they ignore how destructive radical religion is, no matter what religion it is. Christianity is the majority faith in this nation, and we just have more radical Christianists than we do any other faith here.

(Europe, on the other hand, has a bigger population of radical Islamists, and should be very concerned.)

Small "c" conservative blogger John Cole followed the Marcotte/Donohue thing. I'll post the link to most of the pertinent stuff (I think you'll like it; he hates both of them) but I think the money quote about the whole matter was this:

<<Meanwhile, the disgusting Catholic ******* Bill Donohue still retains the wide support of these folks, apparently, because they have done nothing to beat him down. And that is how the game is played, these days, I guess. Bill Donohue, who is more disgusting and has a bigger audience than either of these two women, will face no scrutiny, will not be held to task for the disgusting and truly stupid things he says, because he is on the “right” side. I mean, after all, the man attended Just Us Sunday and worked to keep Schiavo on life support and hates gays and Jews and Democrats and Hollywood- this is our kind of guy!

Color me unimpressed.

Dear Republicans- it is ok to despise nuts like Donohue and nuts like Marcotte. I do it every day. There is no contradiction. In fact, the party will be better off if you would throw aside our nuts- but you won’t, if for no other reason that the Republican party is now so insane itself that it can not recognize that Donohue is, in fact, nuts.>>

Here's the links to his comments. I like the guy's posts- I don't agree with it all, but he's smart and funny and a Steelers fan, so s'all good. And he was smart enough to pair himself with a very liberal blogger so the site isn't all one-sided and they seem to be great friends.

http://balloon-juice.com/index.php?s=marcotte
http://balloon-juice.com/index.php?s=donohue

And B, mad props for use of " doesn't quite have the labia." Virtual high-five to you!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Big "C" conservative bloggers don't want to offend their base, so they ignore how destructive radical religion is, no matter what religion it is.

I disagree here on this one, because I think that many of these bloggers/columnists/gasbags are the ones responsible for this utterly insane overhyped fear of Muslims, who they now endearingly refer to en masse as "Islamofascists."

If you're able to make one group the bogeyman, then it's easier to turn a blind eye to other religions.

Things like your examples. We don't have to address those because we can say, "LOOK! They fly planes into buildings." [read: LOOK! We bomb abortion clinics and fly planes loaded with bombs over innocent people in countries halfway around the world in the name of good] "LOOK! Their holy book says to kill homosexuals." [read: LOOK! Our holy book says to stone to death any number of people for any number of minor infractions, but we can explain that one away by circumventing it.] "LOOK! We elected one of them to Congress and he will try to institute Sharia in our country, grab your burqu'as ladies!" [read: LOOK! We are misogynists most of the time.]

Now, I don't believe that Christianity is bad by itself, but let's stop pretending that radical any-religion is any less dangerous than radicalism from another religion.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I disagree here on this one, because I think that many of these bloggers/columnists/gasbags are the ones responsible for this utterly insane overhyped fear of Muslims, who they now endearingly refer to en masse as "Islamofascists."

If you're able to make one group the bogeyman, then it's easier to turn a blind eye to other religions.

Things like your examples. We don't have to address those because we can say, "LOOK! They fly planes into buildings." [read: LOOK! We bomb abortion clinics and fly planes loaded with bombs over innocent people in countries halfway around the world in the name of good] "LOOK! Their holy book says to kill homosexuals." [read: LOOK! Our holy book says to stone to death any number of people for any number of minor infractions, but we can explain that one away by circumventing it.] "LOOK! We elected one of them to Congress and he will try to institute Sharia in our country, grab your burqu'as ladies!" [read: LOOK! We are misogynists most of the time.]

Now, I don't believe that Christianity is bad by itself, but let's stop pretending that radical any-religion is any less dangerous than radicalism from another religion.

I don't think we're actually in disagreement about this one, though- I agree that right-wing bloggers (with the exceptions of John Cole and a few others) are turning a blind-eye to Christianists. Why? Because they don't want to alienate their readers/listeners, who don't get the difference between Christianists and your average run-of-the-mill Christian. And said that I think the left-leaning bloggers regard radical Christianism as a bigger threat to the US than radical Islamism.

I agree that right-wing bloggers, media gasbags, etc. have happily turned Muslims into the boogey man, but I don't see what that has to do with why left-wing bloggers discuss radical Christianism.

I read an interesting article yesterday on fear and certainty- that the more we're afraid of something, the more we desperately want to be certain about it. Makes me look at gasbags like O'Reilly and think, "chicken."

[brianwspencer]

ps I still love Pandagon

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

ps I still love Pandagon

Hey Brian,
Excuse me for coming to this thread a bit confused.
I'd like a link to the Donahue "speak".
Is this the blog you are referencing?
http://pandagon.net/2007/02/20/bigot...undamentalist/

Thanks for your tolerence.
btw, I can only read what you and GR say. The other person is on my permanent ignore, for obvious reasons.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

ps I still love Pandagon

And no one is saying you shouldn't.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

I'm talking about Marcotte, specifically. Her critques, comments and writings go well beyond stuff happening only in the USA. For example, while she is very fond of wailing about the Catholic church being "misogynist", she is quite silent wrt similar or worse things in Islam. That, my friend, is borne from cowardice and/or bigotry.

As for Donahue. I don't know about him and could really care less. His involvement came long after Marcotte said what she did and long after her trying to cover it up. Simply because he got in front of the media on this doesn't make what she said any less offensive and doesn't make her any less of a coward or bigot.



For some reason, I just don't see it catching on...but I'll try.

B, Donohue has been in front of the media long before this mess- click on the mediamatters link and you'll see he's a regular on Scarborough, Hardball, etc. He reaches far, far more people than Marcotte and the other woman put together, and the stuff he spouts is pretty awful. Read the quotes. Just because you don't care to know about the guy doesn't mean you shouldn't- if you're going to discuss him, know what he's saying.

The Catholic Church has considerably more power in the US than any Islamic organization. Why is it cowardly for her to focus on the big gun and not the peashooter? If anything, it takes less courage to lambast (lambaste?) Islam here, since oodles of your average Americans are perfectly happy to fling around the term "towelhead." I've seen it on this forum. But they aren't so likely to yell "Papist" at a Catholic these days. (Though I have a Floridian friend who makes no bones about the fact that she thinks Catholics are going to Hell. She's Presbyterian, I think.)

(For the record, I think both the Catholic Church and Islam are pretty backward in their views on women and am perfectly happy to see either one taken to task for it.)

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

He is merely tangential to my point. See above.



I said she is a coward and/or a bigot. Maybe she isn't a coward. Just a bigot. And as I said before, she is interested in topics far more reaching that what is going on in the US.

Right, but B, you're essentially defending his position and I'm saying, just look at who you're defending. He's a lackey for the GOP, and seized on things the woman posted BEFORE she started working for Edwards as an opportunity to put the Edwards campaign at a disadvantage (and all his claims that Edwards is a good man doesn't disguise what his real agenda was- to cause trouble for the campaign of a Democrat). Yes, she's responsible for what she's written, but then I guess one has to say, should that affect the job she does for Edwards? If she started posting inflammatory rhetoric under the auspices of his campaign, fine, but these things were posted separately from her job for Edwards.

Clearly conservative Christians had no problem letting go of the fact that Reagan was a divorcé when they voted for him, despite divorce being a sin in their religion. I think the question is, how much should a person's actions or words separate from or prior to a job be allowed to affect whether they keep that job?

And I cannot figure out why a blogger that (rightly, in many cases) points out hypocricies in right-wing church organizations is automatically obligated to do the same with Islam. Why is she required to do that?

Look, ultimately we're all bigots about something ("Bigot" being someone intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from one's own). I have no understanding for the Muslim hajib (headscarf) because I consider it a symbol of a culture that believe men aren't responsible for controlling their sexual desires (I'm just as bigoted about people who say a raped woman was "asking for it" because she was in a short skirt). I think we all have something we're intolerant about. But to say that she's a bigot, and choose to completely ignore and in fact, expressly avoid reading, bigoted comments by the man you are in essence defending, seems a wee bit disingenuous, wouldn't you say? What is it you're afraid to learn about Donohue?

As John Cole said, there's room to hate them both. Learning what a complete a*shole he is doesn't mean you'll automatically start reading Pandagon.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

You want to discredit this guy, in part, because he is not really "worried about speech that goes after a group" regardless of (a) who the "target" is (ie within your "special interest" group or not); and (b) who said it (ie washed-up jock, staff/employee of a presidential candidate, etc. ).

Yet, you apply a totally different standard to GLAAD. Certainly, GLAAD is worried about speech that goes after a group. And certainly one can argue that some of the things that GLAAD raises a stink about are being "blown out of proportion" as well.

Further, Marcotte's comments were getting tons of play well before Donahue got involved. I mean, I only recognize his name because it was in an article about the comments in the paper about 2 days after I had read what she said. So, GLAAD could have spoke out against the comments without throwing in with Donahue per se. If the target was Donahue, that's one thing, but the comments were much more far-reaching than that.

You say I'm applying a different standard, but I don't think I am. GLAAD, as a group, hasn't made a name for itself going after Catholics, they made a name for themselves defending homosexuals.

Donahue, on the other hand, has made a living going after homosexuals (Media Matters has a pretty good short list on some of his finer moments). This issue was not getting play in the mainstream media until Donahue stepped in, because it wasn't a big deal. It may have been mentioned (as you said you heard about it before you heard about Donahue), but it was obviously not the kind of thing that was going to blow up, or it would have without his help. If it was that offensive and that out of line, it would have created its own national stir without some ******* stepping in for some time to mug for the cameras. It didn't. It took hatemonger extraordinaire to get it on the front pages. If it were actually something, it would have been there to begin with.

That's not a different standard, but if you insist that it is, then it is rightfully. You cannot honestly say that A personally attacks B, B speaks out on attacks against B's people, but must come to the defense of A for the sake of being nice. Doesn't work that way. There was no reason to address the issue before Donahue came into it, because it wasn't an issue to begin with, I will still contend.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

That's exactly my point, but you seem(ed) to think that Donahue should have said something about Hardaway's comments if he was "worried about speech that goes after a group" (regardless of the group).

No. You're missing what I'm saying. I don't reasonably expect Donahue to care about what Hardaway said (except for possibly loving it so much that he has elevated Hardaway to #2 on his People I Love list, comfortably sandwiched between Jesus and the Virgin Mary.).

Of course he doesn't care, he has said just as many hateful, disgusting things. You asked why a group like GLAAD wouldn't condemn the statements. I said, because it wasn't a big deal -- it was something out of nothing.

The big point, is that Donahue is a ****head extraordinaire. He is so angry about someone using trashy language to attack Catholic positions on different issues, but he attacks people in the same way, and we're supposed to care what he says? Like he should hold weight in any public discourse about comments targeted at anything?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

And I'm saying they are a bigger deal than you think.

Also, if someone came out and said "The Virgin Mary is a c*nt", are you trying to tell me GLAAD would have said somethign in defense of the Catholic church!?!? IOW, if it was a "big deal".

And I'm saying it's not as big a deal as you, Donahue, or any other person who has been deeply offended by these comments thinks.

Difference in tastes, I suppose.

I can't speak for what GLAAD would do if that happened, because that would be a big deal. Who knows. If you find me a rollicking big deal that happened, we can check into what GLAAD did. You can google that one yourself. But thus far, we're playing hypotheticals because this whole thing was not, in fact, a big deal.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

To some people is was. That is what you and Mercotte fail, or care, to see. Just as Hardaway's comments "aren't, in fact, a big deal"...to some folks.

I didn't say that Hardaway should lose his job and place pressure on him until he quit.

So, what exactly is the point? He said what he said. Sure I think it's a big deal, but I have not advocated for any negative consequences in his life as a result of it.

That's the difference.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

This is nonsensical in context of what you're quoting from me. AFAIK, no one here advocted her getting fired, etc.

The point is, just because it is not a big deal to you, doesn't mean it is not a big deal to someone else.

Well, arguing over whether to buy regular eggs or jumbo eggs is a big deal to some people too. Calling a female dog a bitch is offensive to some people. They're not big deals.

Point is, that I don't care if it's a big deal to some people. I don't care about that or them either. If people were really outrageously offended by this stupid 'incident,' then I would venture that I would find most of the rest of what they think to be foolish and ignorant rubbish as well.....which would mean that I don't care about them. But I wouldn't advocate forcing them out of a job they were offered, which is exactly what happened here. Someone cries wolf, someone loses a job. That's bullshit, if I may say so.

[GenuineRisk]

Ohmigawd, you guys HAVE to click on that mediamatters link and read some of Donohue's comments. Why am I not surprised he's buddy-buddy with Dinesh D'Souza?

Thanks for posting it, Brian. And here I thought no one, but no one, could come across worse than Ann Coulter...

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Ohmigawd, you guys HAVE to click on that mediamatters link and read some of Donohue's comments. Why am I not surprised he's buddy-buddy with Dinesh D'Souza?

Thanks for posting it, Brian. And here I thought no one, but no one, could come across worse than Ann Coulter...

It'd be a hoot if it weren't real. The Hollywood one is my favorite, slightly edging out the one where "the community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage they have done."

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

It'd be a hoot if it weren't real. The Hollywood one is my favorite, slightly edging out the one where "the community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage they have done."

Well, I would like an apology. My life has been irrevocably damaged by all the hours I spent watching "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and listening to the Indigo Girls. What do I have to show for it, other than learning how to broil fish and knowing all the lyrics to "Closer to Fine?"

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Well, I would like an apology. My life has been irrevocably damaged by all the hours I spent watching "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and listening to the Indigo Girls. What do I have to show for it, other than learning how to broil fish and knowing all the lyrics to "Closer to Fine?"

Well my partner would like an apology from your people for the six hours a day I spent in front of the television every Sunday for the past six months drinking beer because of your macho football indoctrination system.

So there. I have football and beer, and you have broiled fish and fabulous music. No apologies necessary, they cancel one another out.