Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Republican Presidential Primary News & Discussion Center 2012 (Page 25)

  This topic comprises 53 pages: 1  2  3  ...  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  ...  51  52  53   
Author Topic: Republican Presidential Primary News & Discussion Center 2012
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm reposting this because it got lost in the religious debate and I'd like to hear peoples response.
quote:
An amusing assessment of the Republican candidates from Der Spiegel (English edition)

And for those who are intererested, here is the German Version.


Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rabbit: It didn't seem that amusing to me. Just looks like a nakedly biased rant about how terrible Republicans are. Not sure what else to say about it. [Frown]

Lyr: Which gay bashing statement? Saw his dig about gays being allowed to serve openly (a bloo bloo bloo it's such a tragedy those terrible gays are gaying up our servicemen with their gay antics), but that was the only one. Linky?

Posts: 3578 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
For the sake of getting back on message, did anyone see perrys gay bashing statement? Apparently, wanting to live is now a special privilege for gays.

We've all heard the arguments that hate crimes legislation creates some sort of special privlege for gays or other minority groups. On several occasions I've pointed out that the language of the hate crimes laws does not specify which "sexual orientation" or "race" its protecting. If someone were assaulted or murdered because they were heterosexual or white or Christian, the hate crimes laws would apply.

This is usually followed by some comment about how that's irrelevant because people aren't assaulted or murdered because they are heterosexual or Christian.

No one but me seems to see the irony in this line of reasoning.

Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Rabbit: It didn't seem that amusing to me. Just looks like a nakedly biased rant about how terrible Republicans are. Not sure what else to say about it. [Frown]

I guess I always find it somewhat amusing to hear how American politics appear to outsiders. American politics often have a major impact on Europe and the rest of the Americas so its very common for people in these regions to follow it and be frustrated by it.
Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh was it about hate crimes? Bleh. Lyr, you can probably guess how I feel about hate crime laws, too!

Jeez, it's like I don't even need to be here! Lyr, I'm going to get back to work, I want you to handle my arguments for the rest of the day, okay?

Posts: 3578 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Rabbit: It didn't seem that amusing to me. Just looks like a nakedly biased rant about how terrible Republicans are. Not sure what else to say about it. [Frown]

I guess I always find it somewhat amusing to hear how American politics appear to outsiders. American politics often have a major impact on Europe and the rest of the Americas so its very common for people in these regions to follow it and be frustrated by it.
That's fair. I'm sure if the politics of other countries mattered to America many of us would be frustrated by those, too. [Wink]
Posts: 3578 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rabbit: It seemed like a very biased, albeit amusingly worded (translations often amuse unintentionally) rant against the Republican party.

I agree they are a bunch of boobs, but it's not like the article tried for objectivity.

Posts: 14135 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BB, this is not directed at you particularly but your use of the word "objectivity" brought it to mind.

I think that the idea of objectivity has been corrupted by journalists. Instead of it meaning a clear, unaltered chronicle of facts, it now seems to mean a situation where for every statement on one side of an issue, you need to make a "balancing" statement on the other side whatever the relative merits of either side.

Posts: 10604 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree, Boots. But by any metric that article wasn't remotely objective. There was a lot more editorializing and commentary than there was a chronicle of facts.
Posts: 3578 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kmbboots: Objectivity can't really be quantified, and I don't believe every issue has two equal sides. But I prefer less Bill Maher in my reading, rather than more.
Posts: 14135 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
For the sake of getting back on message, did anyone see perrys gay bashing statement? Apparently, wanting to live is now a special privilege for gays.

We've all heard the arguments that hate crimes legislation creates some sort of special privlege for gays or other minority groups. On several occasions I've pointed out that the language of the hate crimes laws does not specify which "sexual orientation" or "race" its protecting. If someone were assaulted or murdered because they were heterosexual or white or Christian, the hate crimes laws would apply.

This is usually followed by some comment about how that's irrelevant because people aren't assaulted or murdered because they are heterosexual or Christian.

No one but me seems to see the irony in this line of reasoning.

It *is* delicious...
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Rabbit: It seemed like a very biased, albeit amusingly worded (translations often amuse unintentionally) rant against the Republican party.

I agree they are a bunch of boobs, but it's not like the article tried for objectivity.

Typically my experience of European's "understanding" of American politics is frustrating. First, they are often convinced that they are more knowledgable about American politics than Americans are, which is laughable, and second, they labor under the incorrect assumption that Americans reject common European views of the proper role of government because they are stupid, and not because they have lived their lives in a political landscape that defines their roles in society in a radically different way.

Actually, it's not much different from the way Americans view European politics, except that Americans don't have the conceit of pretending more knowledge of people's life experiences than they actually possess. At least, not the same kind of knowledge. Essentially Europeans and Americans have a lot in common: we buy our own hype, and we lack empathy, but think that we are wise and caring.

Posts: 9538 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
First, they are often convinced that they are more knowledgable about American politics than Americans are
It's often really amusing; the only way to make an even worse situation out of the brokenness of american politics is to presume to understand it through remote caricature, to the extent that it looks worse than the european countries whose political situations are extremely worse than ours. Places like Italy or Belgium (soon to be multiple post-Belgiums) make us look downright sane and functional.
Posts: 13964 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
BB, this is not directed at you particularly but your use of the word "objectivity" brought it to mind.

I think that the idea of objectivity has been corrupted by journalists. Instead of it meaning a clear, unaltered chronicle of facts, it now seems to mean a situation where for every statement on one side of an issue, you need to make a "balancing" statement on the other side whatever the relative merits of either side.

I see this as more a symptom of corruption than a development of philosophy. Today, the media is often too frightened that revealing the facts as they best understand them leaves them open to attack for being *partisan*, as if reality was little more than how one chooses to see things. And for this, frankly, I blame conservatives, and after them, the gutless cowards in the media who allow themselves to be ntimidated and bought by parties who care not for facts, and lastly the public, which swallows the whole mess. But I try to keep in mind: ignorance is not evil. Lying is the true evil.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It wasn't hate crimes legislation.

Obama recently released a statement:

quote:
"directing all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that US diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons."
Perry said:

quote:
Just when you thought Barack Obama couldn’t get any more out of touch with America’s values, AP reports his administration wants to make foreign aid decisions based on gay rights. This administration’s war on traditional American values must stop... Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money
So, trying to secure human rights and making sure gays aren't killed or maligned abroad is promoting "special rights." Given some polling data on gay rights in America, he's not just spouting hate, he's actually spouting minority views.
Posts: 21397 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow! Yeah, that's repugnant.

Heck, every pro-War on Terror conservative pundit I know of loved to trot out gay rights as another example of why liberals should support the war. But then, most conservative pundits I follow are internet pundits, and I think they are statistically much more pro-gay than traditional conservative figures. That's just my gut feeling, not based on any real data.

Either way, though. Wow. Good job, Perry. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. You might like it.

Posts: 3578 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well if they'd just freakin' pray themselves straight, their friends, family, and neighbors wouldn't have to lynch 'em so darned much!
Posts: 16345 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
It wasn't hate crimes legislation.

No it wasn't, but the same illogic seems to be being used. Offering extra protection to a group that is under special dangers some how gets twisting in to giving them a "privilege".
Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
For the sake of getting back on message, did anyone see perrys gay bashing statement? Apparently, wanting to live is now a special privilege for gays.

My favourite comment on that video was that it looks like Perry is wearing the exact same tan jacket as Heath Ledger wore on the posters for Brokeback Mountain. It really does.
Posts: 1510 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
It wasn't hate crimes legislation.

No it wasn't, but the same illogic seems to be being used. Offering extra protection to a group that is under special dangers some how gets twisting in to giving them a "privilege".
Are hate crime laws actual "extra protection?" They don't really take effect until after the protection is needed, right?

Can someone comment on the deterrent value of these laws?

Posts: 14495 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Can someone comment on the deterrent value of these laws?
Why do you believe it would be different from the deterrent value of other laws?

At a very minimum, being in jail is a pretty significant deterrent to committing further crimes.

Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My understanding of the rational behind hate crimes is that, in addition to that crime of assault or vandalism, there is also the crime of intimidation. Certainly, one can see the difference between painting random graffiti on the garage of a Jewish person and the threat implied by painting a swastika.
Posts: 10604 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
My understanding of the rational behind hate crimes is that, in addition to that crime of assault or vandalism, there is also the crime of intimidation. Certainly, one can see the difference between painting random graffiti on the garage of a Jewish person and the threat implied by painting a swastika.

I think this is important but I'd also add that hate crimes legislation recognizes that a crime that is motivated by hatred of a particular group, victimizes the whole group not just a particular individual. If someone were spray painting anti-Mormon graffitti on Garages (or assaulting people coming out of a Mormon Churches, or beating up Mormon Missionaries), it would be an attack on me even if I wasn't a direct victim. In our legal system it is generally agreed that more severe punishment is justified for crimes have more victims.

Hate crimes also affect society as a whole in a different way by creating barriers for some people to openly participate in the community.

Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
hate crimes legislation recognizes that a crime that is motivated by hatred of a particular group, victimizes the whole group not just a particular individual.
I'm not sure I buy this. If it's also an attack on a group, and the attacker is brought up in a civil suit, do members of the group also share in the compensation?

Thorny.

I'm still not sure how hate crimes legislation protects at-risk groups MORE than normal penalties for crimes.

Worse, I see hate crime legislation as an inroad to thought crime legislation.

Jack Chick gets brought up on a number of noise pollution violations for using a bullhorn in a no-bullhorn zone, preaching against Judaism. He used a number of flammatory statements during his presentation-- does his hate speech incur greater penalty to the noise pollution fine?

Hate crime legislation has good intentions, but I'm not sure that the actual execution is worth the threat.

Posts: 14495 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a criminal statute, Scott, civil law has different statutes- you can't criticize them on their civil law implications, because they don't have any.

quote:
Jack Chick gets brought up on a number of noise pollution violations for using a bullhorn in a no-bullhorn zone, preaching against Judaism. He used a number of flammatory statements during his presentation-- does his hate speech incur greater penalty to the noise pollution fine?

Well, IANAL, but my understanding of the law, in general, is that an individual cannot be punished for a lesser crime, if it is contained within the scope of a greater crime which is under the purview of the prosecuting authority. Meaning, I can't convict you and punish you for two crimes: one being noise violation, and the other being assault (hate speech). I would have to convict you of one or the other, with the lesser crime being an aggravating circumstance, which adds to the weight of the other.

So actually, in my limited understanding, in order to be punished for this as a hate crime, the crime would have to be aggravated assault, it could *not* be the lesser charge of noise disturbance, beefed up by hate speech (since hate speech is not an aggravating condition that could be applied to noise violation). Does that make some amount of sense? You prosecute the crime of assault with aggravation, not the crime of noise disturbance in furtherance of assault.

This is done as much to protect the defendant as to ensure the prosecution of a criminal to the fullest extent of the law: it would be easier to secure a conviction for noise disturbance, but the prosecution is forced to seek the higher charge, if it wishes to make a case for a hate crime.

[ December 09, 2011, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]

Posts: 9538 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's a criminal statute, Scott, civil law has different statutes- you can't criticize them on their civil law implications, because they don't have any.
From wikipedia:

quote:
Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of hate crimes. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action in addition to the criminal penalty for similar acts.

Posts: 14495 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fair enough. I did not know that.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be honest, neither did I until I looked it up. You had a good point that I didn't consider.

Beyond the idea of the legal semantics of civil/criminal charges is my discomfort with the idea of taking on offense where no wrong was done directly to me. If someone runs over a Southerner, because he's a Southerner...I have a hard time translating his offense against one individual to an offense against me.

Posts: 14495 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think you would need to explore the legal precedents involved before you assumed that a class action was actually possible. Civil action apparently is, in some states, but that does not necessarily enable class action, particularly concerning a singular offense. And it's likely this precedent has either never been established, or has been clearly defined already as non-actionable.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scott, if you were one of only six Southerner in a small, northern town and someone runs over two Southerners, yelling "All Southerners must die!" can you see how that might cause you harm? How it might impact your freedom to go about your business?
Posts: 10604 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I get that, kmboots.

But intimidation is already a crime, and so is assault.

Posts: 14495 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That assault wasn't against you, but the intimidation was against all six of the Southerners.
Posts: 10604 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DDDaysh
Member
Member # 9499

 - posted      Profile for DDDaysh   Email DDDaysh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, so I've been out of this thread for a bit, but.... OMG Perry's new add!!!

Has anyone seen this youtube parody?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbrI3F7p6-o

I warn you, it's pretty highly offensive, but REALLY funny!

Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rick Perry's video is all but entirely a validation of my principles when it comes to fighting homophobic activism and homophobic politics.

OH WAIT I'm sure it's unfair of me to call perry a homophobe, why must I use such derogatory language, all he's saying is that gays being allowed to serve openly means that there's something wrong with the country~~

Posts: 13964 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Both of these videos are by Karl Rove's PAC.

See if you can spot the disconnect:

http://youtu.be/tNxez4ddpa0

http://youtu.be/78NZk1o8nr0

Posts: 13964 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Setting aside how truthful the ads are, what do you see as the disconnect, Sam?

My assumption is because OWS is mad about the bailouts too. Is that what you're referring to, or did I miss something?

Posts: 3578 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
That assault wasn't against you, but the intimidation was against all six of the Southerners.

If that can be proven, fine. But we already have a law against intimidation; is another law necessary? Does hate crime legislation really exist to make intimidation charges stick?
Posts: 14495 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do we have laws against intimidation? We have laws against threatening, sure, but those aren't always one and the same.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But we already have a law against intimidation
We have laws against direct intimidation, but this is a new class of behavior that is being criminalized. The effect of spray painting something mean on someone's garage door because you think they are a tool can be substantially different from spray painting something on their garage door because they are black. The former is infuriating to the individual that it happens to but the latter can be terrorizing both to the direct victim and other blacks in the area that see it or are aware of it.

It's this difference in the quality of the experience by the victim and the breadth of affect that hate crime laws are crafted to address. They are crimes that are effectively committed simultaneously against multiple people and we are accustomed to punishing more harshly the person that steals from/hurts/kills ten people than one.

Posts: 3254 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Brokeback
Perry

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heh, he's even dressed specifically as the intensely repressed self-loathing gay cowboy.
Posts: 3578 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aspectre:
Brokeback
Perry

[ROFL]
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Heh, he's even dressed specifically as the intensely repressed self-loathing gay cowboy.

Is that how self-loathing gay cowboys dress?
Posts: 536 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They're pointing out the similarity between Perry's outfit, and the outfit of Heath ledger's character in Brokeback Mountain. Heath ledger played a self-loathing gay cowboy, and Perry smiles vacantly into the camera and mentions what a shame it is that gays are able to serve their country openly. The odd sensation of listening to a grown man speak such utter rubbish is enhanced by the association with the film about what happens to those individuals who grow up in societies that refuse to accept them as equals.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pretty sure both of them are bi-sexual, but clearly they would be happiest together than with the women they marry. Not that that makes much of a difference on how it makes Perry look. [Razz]
Posts: 14135 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be fair, Perry's outfit is a pretty stereotypical rancher look, which is why they dressed Heath Ledger that way. I'd hate to think that people are so homophobic -- or were so scarred by the idea of gay cowboys -- that no one can wear a beige coat without snickering.
Posts: 36923 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
To be fair, Perry's outfit is a pretty stereotypical rancher look, which is why they dressed Heath Ledger that way. I'd hate to think that people are so homophobic -- or were so scarred by the idea of gay cowboys -- that no one can wear a beige coat without snickering.

QFT!! In Montana, Carhart jackets and pants are what ranchers, farmers, horsemen, construction workers and handymen typically wear. It's a very common look in the rural west. Possibly even more common than jeans. It's the rancher equivalent of the wall street pinstripe suit.
Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No argument here. But I don't think that has any particular effect on the image as it appears to many viewers, especially with Perry openly criticizing gay rights. The fact that he appears on television in a suit to do political debates and interviews highlights the image of the jacket as a costume, already designed to draw attention to, and appeal to, his supposed roots in rural Texas. And with the outfit already highlighted as a bit of stagecraft, the mental association with the film is only made easier.

Had this simply been a shot of perry at home in his normal dress, not shooting a slick manipulative campaign add, I would dismiss the connection myself. But given that it is a carefully calculated piece of theater, the imagery is open season for dissection.

Posts: 9538 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
And with the outfit already highlighted as a bit of stagecraft, the mental association with the film is only made easier.

Only people horribly out of touch with rural America and manual laborers would think of this as a western costume rather normal working clothes.

Yes he's clearly dressed down and emphasizing his rural ranch connections, but if he actually were doing manual labor on his family ranch -- that's very likely what he'd wear.

That jacket is extremely common clothing in rural communities. If you visited any working farm or ranch in Montana, Wyoming or Idaho, I bet you 10 to 1 that you could find a similar looking jacket in every single one of them. To someone who is familiar with that culture, there is absolutely nothing distinctive about this jacket that would make the fact that it was worn by a gay cowboy in a movie any more noteworthy than the fact that both men have on socks.


Based on what I've read, the characters in Brokeback mountain were portrayed as regular cowboys in all respects except their love for each other and so they weren't dressed as "gay cowboys" or "repressed gay cowboys". (I admit that I've never seen Brokeback Mountain. I very very rarely go to movies anymore. So feel free to correct me I'm wrong).

Unless you have some strong evidence that homosexuality is dramatically more common among rural conservatives than the 10% that's accepted for the population as a whole, I have a hard time seeing this association as anything more than Big City Liberal bigotry about rural Americans.

[ December 12, 2011, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]

Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gingrich... Sigh.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 53 pages: 1  2  3  ...  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  ...  51  52  53   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2