Looks like they cropped it now...
God alone knows what rotund gobshite Rush Limbaugh will make of it, but we suspect CNN editors will be wishing they'd never been born after they get the Excellence in Broadcasting treatment for this outrage: CNN website grab showing gay campaigning badges, one with male member A shaken Bootnotes department has added a handy …
Almost all members of homo sapiens sapiens have the /ability/ to thing for ourselves. That many of us /choose/ not to do so is where the contention lies. I suspect that the number of individuals* within our species actually /incapable/ of independent thought is fairly small.
*Pun not intended. If a person is biologically incapable of independent thought are they an individual? What then is the proper term? Node (as in hive-mind?) Similarly, if you willingly subsume your own individuality to that of the hive-mind, are you then still an individual? Willingly subsuming your individual identity means you are still /capable/ of independent though, simply not exercising it. Hmm...we need the grammar police on this one.
"And the words "gay todger" aren't sufficient?"
Todger is not exactly a common word over here on this side of the pond, so maybe he didn't know what it meant. It seems to be a British word. We Americans don't get much exposure (no pun intended) to British-isms like "todger" unless we're long-time readers of sites like this :)
Do you wear a magnifying loupe throughout your daily occasions, or are you perhaps just an over-sensitive whiner awaiting only the excuse of a half-dozen square pixels' naughtiness to cough up rancid milk all over your security blanket and go toddling off to tattle to Teacher? Inquiring minds want to know!
Please tell me it's not a Sarah Bee in your bot net. The last thing she needs is millions of nodes under (popcorn-hating) control.
Also: "how long the reg will persist with the reprisals aimed at Rush?"
Either one or two more articles, or functionally forever. You either get mocked until we lose interest in you, or we adopt you like we have Paris Hilton. Just as Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan have been adopted as shining examples of (respectively) promiscuity and “dizzy ditz,” I suspect RL will be adopted as the shining example of “everything that’s wrong with the USofA.”
Now that doesn’t make the mascots adopted around here the best examples. I suspect Paris isn’t nearly as promiscuous as she is often made out to be. As dizzy a ditz as Lohan might or might not be…she’s made a whack-tonne of money having just a whale of a good time…so I am still processing how much of a mascot for fail she truly is.
RL is…well…listen to his show and you tell me. Still, he does manage to make a fine living doing what he does…so to me he represents more a symptom than the root cause of the disease. That’s all philosophical semantics, however. The point isn’t actually who the individuals themselves are, but what they have come to represent. Each of these individuals have become living representatives of a sort of new world archetype.
These individuals to not simply fulfill a role as a stereotype. Stereotypes are pre-existing beliefs and prejudices into which you slot people or groups. These individuals are in a sense responsible for setting the standard for new and unique roles into which we can slot others. They are the human equivalent of Microsoft’s “embrace, extend and extinguish” philosophy. There were stereotypes that existed before them occupying the same general category these individuals now claim…but they have taken these stereotypes to new extremes. They have embraced a previous social Archetype, extended it with their own unique flavour crystals and extinguished the relevance of previous versions.
They (along with several other prominent personalities in their various fields of professional “fail”) set the bar in their own unique ways for generations to come. From a sociological perspective, it’s fascinating.
From the perspective of “holy shit these people have stupendously more power, money and influence than me and yet look at what buffoonery they get up to” it’s ****ing terrifying.
Worth thinking on.
He was a pro gay rights politician who fought for us to have equal protection under the law and was murdered for it.
His name was Harvey Milk, so that explains the badges.
And the crossed out 8s are no to Prop 8, the California proposal to ban gay marriage unconstitutionally, which then passed thanks to Mormons from other states funding the Proposition 8 campaign and Religious zealots comparing homosexuality with paedophilia when collecting signatures (a subject the catholic church priests are constantly associated with).
Homosexuality is "against the religion" of Christianity as well as some others, so religious do-gooders protesting against such isn't "zealotry." I'm sure they'd protest a law allowing theft or the banning of certain religious practices just a hard. Doesn't mean they're not WRONG for doing so; just pointing out the should-be-obvious.
And yes, I'm aware that my two top-of-the-mind examples are of things that affect the "zealots" whereas same-sex marriage should/should not, but that's the root of the "wrong" part, isn't it? :)
/tiptoes off the would-be flame war for anyone pro OR against
You're gonna get flamed and rightly so if in the 21st century you don't believe gay people dseserve equal rights, when they pay the same tax as you and get less back from it.
Catholics should clean up their own house before they try to deny anyone equal rights, especially since they benefit from special treatment under the law with charitable tax breaks for churches and harbour paedophiles from justice.
Did you also support the church when they fought against giving black people and women equal rights?
And as for your quote "Homosexuality is "against the religion" of Christianity"
That's down to how you interpret the bible as it never specifically says anything like that so your argument is sunk AC.
"I wonder how long the reg will persist with the reprisals aimed at Rush... it is most amusing."
I imagine for as long as he'll keep asking for it. If I know one thing about the hacks at El Reg (and I probably don't), it's that they'll write whatever they can at least tenuously link to IT for as long as it keeps paying. (I believe the insider quote I'm looking for here is "We'd cover your mum for a fiver.")
There's no guarantee that the gentleman whose wedding tackle is deployed in that photo is necessarily gay.
A. Because the object of his lust is of undetermined sex and may be a woman.
B. Because lots of gentlemen fond of the occasional sodomistical outing with another gentleman are quite definite that they are not gay. Just check relevant sections of Craigslist for proof.
For that matter, there's no guarantee that that isn't a photo of a shop window mannequin - though I must admit I've never seen or heard of one like that.
Big Brother has spoken.
I would totally not notice that, except for the flaming red arrow and legend. I would be glad if I hadn't.
On the other hand, I saw it in an open space office, and nobody noticed it either. Neither red arrow, nor pool cue, nor anything else. It is a win.
I know it doesn't help, but I'm going to wash my eyes.
"How come it says NSFW, but there is nothin'... oh, crap!" was pretty much my reaction.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019