Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Connelly: Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

1

What about the "editors at the Capitol Hill newspaper"

Kinda belittling. Your operation is based out of Capitol Hill...but is it a (I think he implied that its THE) Capitol Hill newspaper?

Is Seattle Times a fucking Eastlake newspaper?


sheesh.

Posted by Lake | September 10, 2007 12:36 PM
2

Hard to believe Connelly still has a job over there.

Posted by Sean | September 10, 2007 12:37 PM
3

While i agree with most all of your defense of the articles written in The Stranger and do not believe you have been in violation of the 1st amendment, I do take issue w/ your issue regarding the:
"The Stranger’s view of Seattle as a ‘blue’ enclave united by secularism and hostility to ‘values voters.'".
This is a very true statement and you are not ignorant enough to try to state otherwise. The Stranger is run by and written for Urban Hipsters that have a very definate opinion of politics, morals, etc. And you (the collective you) will take issue against anyone who speaks otherwise with your platform of the paper.

ddv

Posted by ddv | September 10, 2007 12:40 PM
4

you basically said "he's got it wrong, and if he had called me before writing that hit piece I could have given him the real story", which is really funny coming from you.

Posted by jigga what? | September 10, 2007 12:42 PM
5

"Joel didn’t call me (and never has) to verify this statement, which he presents as fact. If he had, he’d have discovered that it simply isn’t true;"

Gah. I'm torn between scoffing at Connelly's whiny doucheitude and failure to understand what the First Amendment actually is, and snarking about ECB being on the receiving end of sloppy journalism for once.

Posted by tsm | September 10, 2007 12:43 PM
6

um, as much as i hate to say it, that connelly has a point. to a degree. you guys have been smaking that poor burgess for some time now with your rants and raves. you still can't believe that a christian republican can have "progressive" views on gay marriage. let it go. he's not going to do that much harm to you. when he has a solid platform to run for governor or mayor, then you can start worrying. for now, let the man rectify his past biz involvements.

Posted by merko is the one | September 10, 2007 12:44 PM
7

Joel Connelly should be working for SEAT.

Posted by Mr. Poe | September 10, 2007 12:45 PM
8

I can't believe this isn't already obvious to you, but here goes: You're not always objective. Your publication has a very definitive viewpoint. Forget about the whole Burgess thing; you are not just another newspaper. You're a youth-oriented, intensely urban, loony-liberal, gay-friendly freakly. You're not the fucking New York Times.

But really, that's OK. In fact, it's great. It's why people read it, for the love of Pete...you fill a niche. The Stranger isn't (and shouldn't be) as objective as any other media outlet. There is such a thing as "The Stranger's View," and thank God for that.

Posted by Matthew | September 10, 2007 12:50 PM
9

Why does Connelly have it in for ECB? Did you guys not invite him to HUMP last year or something?

I think the Burgess coverage has left out some important questions, but not for the lame reasons laid out by Connelly, who doesn't seem to get that the First Amendment PROTECTS The Stranger's right to ask these questions. Duh. Read it. I think (as ECB seems to have acknowledged) that questions about gay marriage, etc, preclude the asking of more germane questions about, say, the Viaduct (on which Burgess is spot-on) or density.

Posted by lorax | September 10, 2007 12:50 PM
10

boy you can just smell it.

Old Fart Alert!

Posted by terry miller | September 10, 2007 12:56 PM
11

I believe that Joel Connelly is off base on everything, as you pointed out, EXCEPT there being a "Stranger view". The Stranger, in everything except its name, is really called "The Savage Times". Your outrageous claim of editorial diversity at the Stranger is laughable.

I have an affinty for your views at the paper, but c'mon, no one is going to remotely take you seriously with that attitude.

Posted by grizzly bear | September 10, 2007 12:59 PM
12

Maybe The Stranger editors could all pitch in and purchase Joel Connelly a plaque with the relevant portions of the First Amendment engraved on it: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . ." It has also been interpreted to apply to state governments through adoption of the post-Civil War Fourteenth Amendment, but I've never heard of it applying to any private media outlet. If The Stranger wants to "shout down" a local politician with ink or bytes it sure doesn't do damage to the First Amendment. Sheesh. And this from a Hearst newspaper!

Posted by kk | September 10, 2007 1:00 PM
13

You really have to sit and let the asininity of this sentence settle in:

"Our Founding Fathers designed the First Amendment to provide an alternative to boorish, repressive and authoritarian behavior."

Just when you think you've absorbed all the idiocy and presumption represented by those few words, another wave comes crashing over you. Try it again:

"Our Founding Fathers designed the First Amendment to provide an alternative to boorish, repressive and authoritarian behavior."

Amazing.

Posted by Levislade | September 10, 2007 1:01 PM
14

Any column that begins by suggesting that life ought to look like a Norman [fucking] Rockwell painting is probably doomed to incoherence.

Posted by elenchos | September 10, 2007 1:05 PM
15

Sounds to me like a lot of Stranger readers are forgetting what makes the Stranger more entertaining than actual news.

Posted by Mr. Poe | September 10, 2007 1:12 PM
16

You're just happy you got noticed.

Posted by Viva Angel Dust | September 10, 2007 1:21 PM
17

Why is Joel Connelly criticizing you? Doesn't he realize we have a first amendment that protects people from speech? This man is guilty of treason.

Posted by connelly school of law | September 10, 2007 1:21 PM
18

The Stranger SCOOPED the PI on the story, via Slog or print edition.

Joel of the bruised ego is unforgiving of the scoop. Asking Burgess the hard questions is something they could have done a week ago. They didn't. Too late, the rest is blather.

Too bad. So sad. Cry elsewhere, Joel.

Posted by fred | September 10, 2007 1:25 PM
19

Yeah, and you know that a minute after that guy in the workman's jacket finished speaking his mind in that Rockwell painting, the other people in the background dragged him out and hung his ass from a snow-covered maple tree.

Posted by --MC | September 10, 2007 1:30 PM
20

Freedom of speech does not mean the right to speak your mind but not to be challenged or questioned.

I'm sorry, I just thought that bears repeating. Maybe a thousand times or so.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | September 10, 2007 1:34 PM
21

Connelly is a blowhard. I do however find it ironic that ECB is crying her little eyes out that he didn't call her first to get her input. Anyone remember her handling of the l'affiare Sharkansky?? I think Sharkansky is an ass and got what he had coming to him, but ECB did exactly what she is now whining about, which is hilarious. The Stranger is truly a Capitol Hill paper, although if it was your only source of info you would be left with the impression that Capitol Hill really is all there is to Seattle. Certainly West Seattle isn't part of the city, right ECB?

As for the Burgess coverage, I think it has been ok -- convinced me even more that on balance he would be better than Della for a city council position (but keep him out of the judicial branch!) Then again, I don't live on Capitol Hill, so I guess I don't get to vote...

Posted by GoodGrief | September 10, 2007 1:39 PM
22

GoodGrief: 1) I contacted Sharkansky, as I have said repeatedly. He refused to talk to me. His wife did talk to me, and I quoted her. So, not the same thing at all.

2) The West Seattle thing was, obviously, a joke.

Posted by ECB | September 10, 2007 1:43 PM
23

Yeah, obviously.

Posted by GoodGrief | September 10, 2007 1:48 PM
24

ECB -- btw, here is Sharkansky's comment to your original SLOG (or someone pretending to be him?):
"Erica -- why didn't you bother to contact my wife or me for a comment before posting this? [You know how to reach me, you've contacted me in the past]."

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/sharkansky_shitty_tipper_vindictive_jerk

That was where I drew the inference that the situation you complain about here was in fact similar to how you reported on Stephan. If he was lying, then I stand corrected.

Posted by GoodGrief | September 10, 2007 1:56 PM
25

Hey, is this Good Grief Sr, or Good Grief Jr. ??

FYI, in Seattle we elect the city council on an all city basis. The term is city wide.

Good Grief, where have you been ? You don't have to be on C. Hill to vote for Burgess, just have impaired/bad politics ... yes there are R' in the city. (see Broadmoor, they live in gated clusters)

Posted by fred | September 10, 2007 2:04 PM
26

Fred -- No shit they are city-wide elections (I assume that was what you meant rather than "term"??).

I live in Belltown -- the point was that if you live on Capitol Hill and/or work for The Stranger, you think that living somewhere other than Capitol Hill will/should disqualify you from voting in Seattle elections.

Burgess is not a great choice. I've posted before that I wish someone better had run against Della, but he is an idiot and he deserves to be a one-term councilmember...

Posted by GoodGrief | September 10, 2007 2:12 PM
27

Connelly gets a lot wrong, but he's right about at least two things. The comments here about uniformity of opinion at the Stranger are absolutely correct: you'd have to be some kind of fucking shut-in to mistake the spectrum of opinion at the Stranger for anything other than a cloistered intellectual monoculture. So, ECB, if you actually believe what you're saying about the stranger not being an intellectual monolith -- and I suspect you actually know better -- I recommend moving your yoga-ized ass out to Spokane for a period of not less than nine (9) calendar months, getting a job at Dairy Queen, and strictly avoiding any eating establishment with an espresso machine or any grocery store with an organic produce section. That might, if you're very lucky, give you some perspective on how narrow the attitudes at the Stranger and in Seattle generally actually are.

That's one.

Two is:

As high priests of anti-religious prejudice in Seattle, editors at the Capitol Hill newspaper summoned Burgess for a grilling last week.

This is actually true as well. You may feel it's justified, but that's not the same thing as having it not be true. Dan is a raging bigot when it comes to religion and most of the rest of you aren't much better.

Posted by Judah | September 10, 2007 2:29 PM
28

BAM!

Posted by Carollani | September 10, 2007 2:34 PM
29

When people talk about partisan politics and how all sides need to get togethor and simply discus the issues. I put on this sheepish childish smile and say, "well they started it!" And it's instances like this that just make it so true. If you aren't with us, then you are obviosly against us attitude when you can't pick and choose and what you will and will NOT support.

Posted by OR Matt | September 10, 2007 2:37 PM
30

Would "anti-religious prejudice" make you the High Priests fighting to end prejudice against religion?

Posted by Dougsf | September 10, 2007 2:42 PM
31

Freedom of speech does not mean the right to speak your mind but not to be challenged or questioned.

Righteous.

Posted by Greg | September 10, 2007 2:44 PM
32

Spokane, eh, JUDAH - you are so, so full of it.

Lisa Brown is one of the best Dems in the state - from - guess, where, Spokane. She runs the Senate, and is bucking for Gov after Christine.

Spokane DEFEATED an attempt to take away legal protections for Gay people years ago.

Where is Erica supposed to go to become a starchy Republican?


Posted by GUEST | September 10, 2007 2:45 PM
33

As someone who sits on the fence about religion, someone has to make some statement that religion DOES NOT HAVE COMPLETE AND TOTAL MORAL AUTHORITY. Why can't it be the Stranger. Anyone who is gay feels this way, and feels quite angrily about it. They feel religion gave them a big fuck you when they needed love, support and inclussion in a desperate confusing time of their development. Why should they have to be sympathetic? Maybe those who can't even RESPECT that, obviously don't have the cerebral capacity to understand other people's life experiences. If on the other hand religious folk took the initiative to at least understand what it's like have the nature of their existence nullified and made evil by god? Maybe there would be some bridges that could be made, some mutual compassion. I guess I have no issue with people keeping their faith, but ... they always seem to ignore the true Christian stuff, "He who has not sinned shall cast the first stone ... .judge not lest ye be judged ... the good samaritan." It's not difficult for gay people to imagine what it's like to not be gay, it's next to fucking impossible to go the other way around. Maybe then ... .... who knows.

Posted by OR Matt | September 10, 2007 2:48 PM
34

Since when have electeds had the right to have their insane views unchallenged by either two-thirds or four-fifths of the public?

Yeah, we're mad that they're spending our US tax dollars and killing our US soldiers for a War for Lies in Iraq.

And you think we should be ... polite?

I'm surprised there aren't riots.

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 10, 2007 2:50 PM
35

Dan is an ex alter boy - seminary bound - Catholic.

They are bitter their whole lives, it follows. And the present Pope is pushing back to the 19 th century.

Pity all around. I like Dan's candid scorn for anti gay religion.

Dan never says anything bad about the Church of Christ or the Unitarians, for good reason.

Judah, tell us all why we are supposed to be cozy with our oppressors?

Posted by Essex | September 10, 2007 2:51 PM
36

Guest:

Show me where I said Spokane was Red or that living there would turn Erica into one. Show me where I even implied it.

One chronic failure of imagination on display in the pages of the Stranger is the failure to recognize or understand that not all Democrats are so-called "progressives" -- that not everyone who disagrees with the war or who believes in civil liberties necessarily shares the Stranger's contempt for religion, their love of mass transit or their attitude about illegal immigration. The Stranger's constant refrain about the failure of "the Democratic super-majority" to advance the Stranger's political platform in Olympia is emblematic of the Stranger's narrow-mindedness about the spectrum of political and social thought outside the tiny enclave of "urban archipelago" where they ironically chug PBR and practice their downward dogs.

If you're going to tell me I'm full of shit it might be a good idea to be demonstrate a basic grasp of what I said, you fucking dilhole.

Posted by Judah | September 10, 2007 2:57 PM
37

@18 There IS no such thing as a "scoop" in the blogosphere vs. print world because of the immediacy of the web and the legal differences between print and the internet. Which is why the stranger is afraid to take ownership of their content and defend it in a courtroom.

Posted by look it up | September 10, 2007 3:00 PM
38

ORmatt: yeah, i agree. but then, when a christian does come along and say those nice and proper things, they get flamed here anyways. i think that's the point.

Posted by infrequent | September 10, 2007 3:01 PM
39

@36 Judah

To put it simply, it's the Stranger. It's Dan Savages newspaper. It's Dan's opinions you either agree or disagree with. You may agree or disagree with some, all, or none of it. But it's Dan's overly opinionated editorial that you read. ESPECIALLY IN THE SLOG. All you have to do is appreciate where Dan is coming from. I came from a catholic family too. Divorced cathoic family, and I can imagine Dan's experience with religion many many many times worse than mine. Not everyone gets to have positve relgious experiences you know? Some of us have to deal with dillhole religious fanatics that scar us for life.

Posted by OR Matt | September 10, 2007 3:04 PM
40

I don't drink PBR or do yoga. But thanks for dropping by, Judah.

And you should come to an edit meeting sometime -- my opinions don't carry the weight you seem to think they do. Other staffers have their own take on stuff, and we argue and bicker and la la la. But we all agree that the viaduct should come down and that pot should be legal and so should abortion and gay sex is neato.

Posted by Dan Savage | September 10, 2007 3:07 PM
41

@38

I don't know. The Christians I meet are romantics of sorts. They are in love with the idea of family, security, god. The real world doesn't really ... let's just say they need to evolve with the real world better. I can sit on my soap box all day. But I meet more people who do the Christian thing, get married and have babies when they are young only to have it ALL go down in flames than people who live happily ever after. They mean well ... they are just too impatient ... The cynicism towards religion I think is what puts people off in these posts ... I rarely see them actually post anything.

Posted by OR Matt | September 10, 2007 3:09 PM
42
Not everyone gets to have positve relgious experiences you know? Some of us have to deal with dillhole religious fanatics that scar us for life.

Yeah, I know. I used to live in a mostly-black neighborhood and the black kids there beat me up a bunch of times and called me honkey and kike and one time this teenager even had his German Shepard attack me while I was walking to the grocery store. So now I hate black people.

I mean, that justifies bigotry, right? If I have an excuse for it?

Wait, now you're going to tell me that it's different because religion is a choice and race isn't. Have you ever read that book, How the Irish Became White? You should check it out.

And in case this isn't obvious (one never wants to give people on the internet too much credit), I don't actually hate black people.

Posted by Judah | September 10, 2007 3:16 PM
43

Never said I hated religious folk either. Would just rather their politics didn't have an effect on my life ....

Posted by OR Matt | September 10, 2007 3:19 PM
44
I don't drink PBR or do yoga. But thanks for dropping by, Judah.

Argh! And now my whole argument has completely unraveled! Damn you, Savage! *shakes fist at the sky*

And you should come to an edit meeting sometime

Sure. What time?

Posted by Judah | September 10, 2007 3:22 PM
45

I don't hate religious people. I think they're wrong -- and I think they have awfully high opinions of themselves, considering the damage religion does to individuals, societies, twin towers, etc. But I don't hate 'em.

Goodness, some of my best mothers are Catholic.

Not being thought highly of does not equal hatred.

Posted by Dan Savage | September 10, 2007 3:22 PM
46

Has anyone ever read Madeline L'Engle's a Wrinkle in Time? She passed away last week. Not my favorite book or author, but she wrote many books with science fiction AND religious themes. It was as if she wasn't so fanatic that she could actually accept science. It made me think that there was a time where one could be religious and not a fanatic (well ... gay bigottry aside).

Where people simply more accepting of alternative views? (gay biggotry aside?)

Posted by OR Matt | September 10, 2007 3:26 PM
47

You know, Dan, this has been pointed out to you before but Hitler, Stalin and Mao, the greatest mass murderers in living memory, were explicitly non-religious political leaders.

I mean, if we're keeping score of the "damage religion does to individuals, societies, twin towers, etc".

Posted by Judah | September 10, 2007 3:34 PM
48

Abraham Lincoln wasn't religious either .... I think it's a moot point.

Posted by OR Matt | September 10, 2007 3:37 PM
49
I think it's a moot point.

I guess that's probably why it clearly wasn't aimed at you.

Posted by Judah | September 10, 2007 3:40 PM
50

All that demonstrates, Judah@47, is that organized religion is not the sole source of horrible behavior in human society. If anything, you'd be better off arguing that religion has also served to channel humans' impulses in positive ways as well - although this would still be pretty pointless, frankly, since none of those meanie Stranger-reading liberals you're screaming about bash Christian organizations for feeding the poor.

Posted by tsm | September 10, 2007 3:42 PM
51

The Stranger and the majority of it's readers are probably not the church-going type and The Stranger will more than likely never endorse any political entities who promote the conservative agenda. That's a safe statement; call me a dillhole if I'm wrong.

Either way, Connelly is missing the point of The Stranger's critism of Burgess' reinvention as a progressive. Erica's coverage of Burgess' position has been more skeptical of his sincerity than an attack on his personal beliefs.

We should all be skeptical when marketing and politics cross paths as they unavoidabley do.

Posted by tabletop_joe | September 10, 2007 3:47 PM
52

I don't the majority of people are motivitated to do things for glory in the eyes of their creator. I think the majority of people do things ... well good things to appeal to other people in their community and bad things, maybe because they feel entitled to it. Personally I think God has nothing to do with it because it neither promotes nor deters the actions of real human beings. It's all about the community. Ted Haggard couldn't give a shit if god knew about his infidelities nor Senator Larry Craig. It only seems to matter if you loose face with to your community. When people choose to leave a cult, or closed off issolated religion. They are less afraid of how they are percieved in the eyes of god, and more afraid of how they are percieved by their peers and family.

Posted by OR Matt | September 10, 2007 3:49 PM
53

I nominate "dillhole" as the Slog flame of the week!

Posted by kid icarus | September 10, 2007 3:52 PM
54

tsm: The instances cited are not characterized merely by a lack of religion, but by explicit doctrinal atheism similar, in some respects, to that of Dawkins or Hitchens. Or Savage.

The point of bringing them up is to demonstrate that atheism, as such, does not prevent the types of atrocities Dan associates with religion. The implication is that atrocities have a correlative rather than a causative relationship with religion and that that Dan's beef with religion -- on that score -- is therefore bullshit.

Keep trying, slick. You'll get there eventually.

Posted by Judah | September 10, 2007 3:59 PM
55

Dilhole. One l. As in, "the hole into which one inserts a dildo."

Insofar as "dildo" has one l, so does dilhole.

Posted by Judah | September 10, 2007 4:04 PM
56

I have lived a quiet Christian youth pastor life, what is the meaning of dillhole?

Posted by Barnes | September 10, 2007 4:05 PM
57

Though I suppose it might also be "the hole into which one inserts a dill pickle," in which case I suppose it would be appropriate to spell it with two ls.

Posted by Judah | September 10, 2007 4:05 PM
58

@54 - "The implication is that atrocities have a correlative rather than a causative relationship with religion"

And now I call upon you to show where Dan declared that such a correlative relationship exists. Saying religion causes damage is not the same as saying damage is correlated with religion. You appear to not understand the difference between a conditional and a biconditional assertion.

Posted by tsm | September 10, 2007 4:09 PM
59

From Urban Dictionary:

1. dillhole

Originally used on the TV series Beavis and Butthead, presumably because you can't say dickhole on TV.

A mild insult.

To be fair, it does appear with both one "l" and two "l's", and the kids who post definitions over there aren't exactly rocket scientists.


Posted by kid icarus | September 10, 2007 4:15 PM
60

Come to think of it ... wasn't the BTK killer a deacon or something? Not like it matters or anything.

And rereading your post. I don't really give a shit if you don't like black people. Don't know why? I just don't feel it matters.

Posted by OR Matt | September 10, 2007 4:16 PM
61

I understand bashing intolerance in the name of God, but not bashing religion per se. Just because the MSM focuses on the right-wingers doesn't mean most religious people are of that bent - there are a lot of moderate and liberal Christians out there. That's coming from an agnostic (not raised Catholic, though).

Erica, thanks for the long excerpt of Connelly's column. That's one of the things I love about Media Matters, is the ability to catch the context. I know it upsets Bill O'Reilly, but that can't be helped.

Posted by Ebenezer | September 10, 2007 4:26 PM
62
And now I call upon you to show where Dan declared that such a correlative relationship exists.

I didn't say Dan declared that a correlative relationship exists. I said that Dan declared that a causal relationship exists, and I was attempting to demonstrate that it was, at best, correlative. I think what's tripping you up is, "the implication." I meant "my implication" -- not that the two are mutually exclusive.

You appear to not understand the difference between a conditional and a biconditional assertion.

Whatever maynard.

Posted by Judah | September 10, 2007 4:29 PM
63

judah, you need to read The End of Faith. Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin may have been explicitly atheist, but their political doctrine was as similarly devoid of reason & based of faith as any of the 3 monotheisms.

at least that's Sam Harris' argument as i understand it.

the point is that the 20th century anomaly of Atheist Communism does not absolve monotheistic religion of its 2000 year history of genocidal crimes whatsoever.

Posted by maxsolomon | September 10, 2007 4:32 PM
64

Judah, have you read Hitchens and Dawkins on Hitler and Stalin?

Posted by Dan Savage | September 10, 2007 4:32 PM
65

Kudos to The Stranger for stirring up the wasps nest. The Stranger is the only newspaper in Seattle willing to stand up to the ignorant Christians and the goyium that live in the dark cloud of their toxic beliefs. The Stranger was the only Newspaper in town to demand a Menorah be placed in SeaTac to celebrate our sacred holiday.

The goyium are ignorant, rural, and deserving of scorn. Gevurah is associated in the soul with the power to restrain one's innate urge to bestow goodness upon others, when the recipient of that good is judged to be unworthy and liable to misuse it. Seattle's idiot Christians deserve all the scorn Dan Savage and his crew can muster. Mount the Merkava of Daniel and soar through the fires to glory! Mazel Tov!


Posted by Issur | September 10, 2007 4:36 PM
66

Oh, and...

Atheists don't run around claiming that atheism makes people moral and good. Religious people make that claim about religion, which makes the immoral and bad actions of religious people germane, Judah. "There is no morality without religion," some jackass once said. That's not true, as morally upright atheists prove every day. And there is immorality with religion, as immoral religious people prove every day.

Posted by Dan Savage | September 10, 2007 4:41 PM
67

Now it's getting boring ... sigh ...

I wonder is it fair to make statements stating all of the worlds scorn is caused by faith, or perhaps even MOST of the worlds scorn is caused by faith.

I want to make the argument that the worlds scorn caused by faith is done when someone can profit from it. When I look at issues of faith, I like to take a few deep breaths and ask myself who makes the most money keeping the US fundamentalist christian red neck trolls and the picture gets even more lucid, and it helps me relax.

Posted by OR Matt | September 10, 2007 4:45 PM
68


This kills me, a writer for The Stranger complaining that a reporter...has....made stuff up...and twisted things around...and unfairly attacked somebody...and showed meanness...and used names!

Stop, I'm laughing so hard!

And then Erica does a Mike Fancher imitation: "The Stranger is not a monolith any more than the P-I; the writers and editors ere hold a diversity of views on a variety of different issues." Yeah, right! You almost said we're fair and balanced.

This is the publication that runs nasty things that just sputter into a Fuck You to this person or that.

And now, you're protesting that somebody lacks standards?

Wow. As Dan might say, where do I start?


Grow up.

Posted by You've moved beyond self parody, ECB | September 10, 2007 4:48 PM
69

You've moved beyond makes an excellent point.

Eric, don't act like Mike Fancher.

The Stranger is entertaining because it is not bound by rules of fact, fairness or the limits of decency that makes dailies dull.

Erica and Josh often do interviews together, paired like snakes. So enjoy it!

Posted by Erica, Josh, Dan, sitting in the tree | September 10, 2007 4:55 PM
70

#67:

Most of the world's scorn is caused by stagnant anger. Jerks just use religion as justification to act out.

Not all religious people are jerks.

Not all non-religious people are not jerks. Those kinds of jerks are more creative with their reasoning.

I would say the jerk/civilized person ratio is even in both camps.

Posted by tabletop_joe | September 10, 2007 4:58 PM
71
Judah, have you read Hitchens and Dawkins on Hitler and Stalin?

Do I need to? I haven't critiqued their views of fascism -- just the quality of their atheism.

That's not to say I haven't read Hitchens or Dawkins; I have. I've read quite a bit from both of them about religion, and various other things from Hitchens -- politics, history and such. Neither is it to say that I haven't read Hitler or Stalin on religion, which I've also done. Mao I've only read about. But I feel okay comparing Hitchens' and Dawkins' atheism, broadly, to the doctrinal atheism of the dictatorships I mentioned on the evidence I've seen, without getting into their attempts to draw advantageous distinctions that may not be consistent with other things I've seen them write and heard them say.

One hardly need read Kissinger's Diplomacy to have a reasonably informed opinion about his handling of foreign policy.

Religious people make that claim about religion, which makes the immoral and bad actions of religious people germane, Judah.

Some do. Some don't.

Atheists don't run around claiming that atheism makes people moral and good.

And here again: some do, some don't. In either case, it's fairly common for atheists to claim that their atheism insulates them from unreason, bigotry, superstition, and mass hysteria. If you don't make those claims, that's fine. But it's disingenuous to pretend it doesn't happen.

Posted by Judah | September 10, 2007 5:08 PM
72

Judah ... time out ... not every one on the planet, world leader or otherwise walks around with some sort of relgious or antireligious agenda. But ... if someone doesn't "like" something, it seems that they can use their religion to back something they lack the desire to seek introspect on. With people homophobes. They can't just simply admit that they don't like gay people, it seems they use god to justify their hatred toward them.

Therego, I don't expect any homosexual person to turn the other cheek on this.

Posted by OR Matt | September 10, 2007 5:17 PM
73
With people homophobes. They can't just simply admit that they don't like gay people, it seems they use god to justify their hatred toward them.

People put evolutionary science to similar use: rather than just admit they're homophobes, some people claim that their problem with homosexuality is that it's bad for the species -- "If everyone were gay, the human race would die out!" Do gays now have a reason to dislike Darwinism? Biology? Of course not.

People who use evolutionary science like that are misusing it. They're drawing faulty conclusions that serve their own prejudices based on an incomplete understanding of the discipline. So-called "racial science" did it for decades.

The kind of religious bigots you reference are doing pretty much the same thing with religion. Take religion and science away from them, they'll make something else up.

Posted by Judah | September 10, 2007 5:30 PM
74

I'm glad ECB, Dan, and whomever else decided to talk to Burgess again. I think Burgess has come out of all of this remarkably unscathed. If nothing else, he's gotten a lot of publicity that will add to his name recognition -- hardly a bad thing as a politician seeking office! He's also gotten some quality chances to elaborate on his views, and to explain some inconsistencies of his. That's a GOOD thing.

As far as The Stranger aka Savage Weekly, that's WHY I read the paper... it's interesting. They pick fights. They respond to taunts. The paper ENGAGES. I like it, I prefer it to other papers which skim along pretending to be grown-up and above it all.

Posted by Katelyn | September 10, 2007 5:36 PM
75

Once again, bull shit, it wasn't until the past 20 years has there been such a great surge for people to choose science over religion ... look to Oppenheimer, Madeline L'Engle, Einstein. (Well maybe the Scope trials started it.) Still forcing people to accept some intelegent design bull shit ... when at the bare minimum is phisophy based.

Personally people can believe whatever the hell they want to believe. But to throw in something metaphysical into a science class undermines the basis of disipline in general. It's not that science is the absolute truth, it's the search of truth. In order for us to survive we have to evolve too, and if that means pluto doesn't get to a planet anymore. That's the cost of science. Why religion doesn't have to play by the same rules is beyond me.

Posted by OR Matt | September 10, 2007 5:36 PM
76

Oh. Regarding homosexuals and church... The Church claimed all along to be a community of acceptance and love! To then choose meaningless arbitrary dogma over acceptance and love for the gay members of their community is just plain unChristlike. There's been a lot of hurt all the way around the block, and I think OR Matt has an excellent point: why would any gay person turn the other cheek? When it comes to the church, most gay people have turned all the cheeks they've GOT... and been smacked down each time.

Posted by Katelyn | September 10, 2007 5:44 PM
77

ECB IS SUCH A JOKE. She can dish it all day long, but can NEVER take it. She always whines--or wait, what does she say to people who complain about her hit pieces? CALL THE WHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE. For Erica, the WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE is always Dan and Josh, the big brothers who come onto slog and stick up for her against all the meanies on the playground that hurt their delicate flower's little feelers. Poor baby!

For someone who pays RENT by sliming people, she really flips the fuck out when someone slings some of her own shit back at her. And for a feminist, she sure seems to enjoy the paternal protection of the stranger's brute squad.

WHAT A HACK!

Posted by Big Daddy | September 10, 2007 5:47 PM
78

Who knew that there were so many insecure, terrified, easily emasculated dickfucks in this town?

Posted by Dan Savage | September 10, 2007 5:57 PM
79

Big Daddy, you're my hero. When The Savager decides to grow the fuck up and stop with their own brand of name-calling (anyone remember "retardedly good"?) then maybe you'll be taken seriously. Until then you're a free tabloid with bar ads with an (extremely boring) pro-gay agenda. And yep, it's a free country: not interested, then don't read it. But The Savagers seem to spent an awful lot of time reading other newspapers and tearing them apart here. And you just can't stand it when someone criticizes you. Didn't your mother ever have "the bully talk" with you?

Posted by I think you're terrified | September 10, 2007 6:15 PM
80

The uncut goyium are insecure about their cloaked putz, this is the root of their darkenss.

The Jewish soul is shrouded in brilliant light, a divine spark bringing tzedek to the goyium. Jewish men are not insecure because their masculine selves are sliced open, exposed to the divine. La Chiem!

Posted by Issur | September 10, 2007 6:22 PM
81

@78

Dan, you already knew that, and you know it, so it is known. Seattle houses some of the dumbest motherfuckers on the face of the planet. Hello?! Me?!

Posted by Mr. Poe | September 10, 2007 6:31 PM
82

Not that anyone wants to revisit the topic, but threads like this are why I think a registration system is a good idea.

Posted by Matt from Denver | September 10, 2007 6:34 PM
83

You guys are so Kanye.

Posted by seat | September 10, 2007 6:40 PM
84

Nice once Dan! You really showed us!

ECB, you still haven't answered whether you tried to talk to Sharkansy before you posted the original Slog post?? (See #21, 22, 24)

Posted by GoodGrief | September 10, 2007 6:46 PM
85

@79 -- Don't forget about the hooker ads.

ECB -- how about an expose on how The Stranger contributes to our paternalistic society and leads to the objectification of women through its advertising. Now THAT would make for some good readin'!

Posted by GoodGrief | September 10, 2007 6:51 PM
86
Once again, bull shit, it wasn't until the past 20 years has there been such a great surge for people to choose science over religion ...
Yeah, no. Francis Bacon; the Enlightenment, The Age of Reason, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill; etceteras etceteras ad infifuckingnitum: there have been major cultural pushes away from religion and towards science (or what passed for science at various points in history) and scientific method for hundreds of years. Sometimes these pushes were very popular. Y'ever read much Restoration journalism? Reads a lot like the Stranger.
Posted by Judah | September 10, 2007 6:58 PM
87
And you should come to an edit meeting sometime -- my opinions don't carry the weight you seem to think they do.

Hey Dan, why don't you get an intern to set up a camera and broadcast your editorial meetings? Even the Spokane Spokesman-Review webcasts their editorial meetings online every day. It would quiet these critics and provide some great entertainment and fashion tips too.

If you want to hear a snippet about the theory behind editorial transparency and a trip back in time to Jim West and Larry Craig pre-bathroom, listen
(On The Media, NPR).

Posted by jamier | September 10, 2007 7:35 PM
88

What is up with the ECB hatred? It is so crazy -- and, well, transperant. Really. Calm down. She can't hurt you. Well, she might be able to, but I hope she has better things to do.

Posted by Emma | September 10, 2007 7:42 PM
89

Yeah yeah yeah enlightenment Copernicus, Dante, Kant. But philosophers were divided about the existence of god in the first place. Many oscilated back and forth. God is not something you can either prove or disprove. Honestly, I think science makes the universe more confined in some respects and undefined in others, should a person CHOOSE to believe in god they are really going to have to chalenge their imagination.

You don't get to set up an experiment that proves emperically the existance of god.

Not that there is anything wrong in that, but it's not up to a science class to teach people how resolve people's beliefs in God! (More importantly, I think it's the children that feel that what they beleive is going to dissappoint mommy and daddy, shame on them for being insecure in the first place).

What this haas to do with the stranger .... it's free speech. I feel the gay community has been very much slighted by the Christian Community. Why should they make nice any time soon? Especially since good Christian folk were oh so happy when Matthew Sheperd really got what was coming to him. You want to talk about an all inclusive community?

I propose this to you, the existance of God is important to the people who really choose to think and dwell upon it. The majority of people in this world really don't think very deeply about these things, don't question these things these "values" unless it affects their position in the community. Religion has less to do with spirituality and more to do with community, a sense of belonging, and sense of structure, at least to the average Joe. And then what happens when people don't exactly fit in said community?

Posted by OR Matt | September 10, 2007 7:59 PM
90
I propose this to you (*snip*) then what happens when people don't exactly fit in said community?

So what's your theory here, that a community model built on some alternative to religion is going to create a more inclusive community? What're you, stupid?

Most people are insular self-satisfied assholes. Among these "average Joes" you mention, anyone who feels like they belong to any group believes their group is better than some other groups. Doesn't matter what the characteristics of the groups are. On some level Christians think they're better than Jews, pagans think they're better than Christians, theatre people think they're better than Hollywood people and so on. And gays definitely think they're better than straights: look at any thread on the Slog about club violence or whatever. There's always a chorus of, "Gay men just don't do that kind of thing!"

This wave of atheism you and Dan seem so impressed by is basically just creating another group; another club; another church. I'm sure it'll be good for the gays, so of course the gays will be for it. But the idea that this new secular atheism is going to be a net improvement -- that the atheists aren't going to have groups of people they shit on on a regular basis -- is just ridiculous. They're already creating a consensus about who's too stupid to be in their special urban archipelago.

Obviously everyone can and will do whatever they want. But don't try and sell me the idea that this is going to be a net improvement. The pieces are just shifting around on the board so someone else can get fucked, and if you're too stupid or too deeply in denial to recognize that, it's your problem more than it's mine.

Posted by Judah | September 10, 2007 9:59 PM
91

I'm not necessarily selling it as an improvement ... there is no improvement. It's the reality we live in. The world will be perpetually with conflict. Like you said, the pieces just move around on the board. I'm just proposing that God has little to do with it. It's more about community than about faith. It happens all the time. The protestant reformation, all those heretical societies in the middle ages, the gnostics, the mormons, and now ... the aethists. Which I think in this case I don't think aethism has anything to do with it ... it's anti-catholisism.

I think we might actually agree on something. I'm just not going to sit around and believe and listen to people tell me that I'm morally inferior because I don't accept Jesus Christ as my savior. Been there, done that, have the rosary beads ... and I just don't buy it anymore. I just think there are better ways to be good to your fellow man. But that is just me ... If I go to hell making the world a better place. I can sit there, burn and at least be reassured that I made other people happy.

Posted by OR Matt | September 10, 2007 10:58 PM
92

"What're you, stupid?"
"Whatever maynard"
"you fucking dilhole.."
'Keep trying, slick. You'll get there eventually."

BITE ME YOU ATHIEST FOOLS, If we met in real life "I would burn you down"

and then tell you that if I(yeah badass and self proclaimed master of LOGIC I am) met you in an alley.... well then???

Posted by judahdarude | September 11, 2007 5:50 AM
93

@92

Uh-huh. And?

Posted by Judah | September 11, 2007 6:46 AM
94

@93: and often I try to back pedal my way out of situations through threats and bluster...but hey thats cool...ya'all can check out my blog where I pontificate on things, and other things to meet my therapists requirements to get over the abuse.

Posted by judahdarude | September 11, 2007 7:05 AM
95

@90 "And gays definitely think they're better than straights: look at any thread on the Slog about club violence or whatever. There's always a chorus of, 'Gay men just don't do that kind of thing!'"

Ah, well...having gone to gay clubs for over 15 years and attended circuit parties packed with literally thousands and thousands of drunk gay men I can say without a doubt: Gay men just don't do that kind of thing!
Not sure what this has to do with Tim Burgess but the minds of gay men just seemed to be programmed differently. You get that same ratio of heavily drunk straight men and you have a completely different outcome. I saw it back in high school and it is happening even worse with today's younger wannabe "thug" generation. Again I am not sure that this has to do with Tim Burgess

Posted by Touring | September 11, 2007 8:09 AM
96

@94

Back pedaling? Ha.

And yes, it's clearly very important to me that people read my blog; that's why I update it about once a month.

Posted by Judah | September 11, 2007 9:10 AM
97

So I read about 3/4 of the comments here and then skimmed the rest. Some observations:

-Judah is either a character made up by a bored person, or the most obnoxious douchebag in the world.

-Dilhole is a really stupid insult.

-Everyone pretty much agrees that The Stranger has an agenda. No shit.

-Apparently Connelly and ECB are ... children?

-Slog commenters get really pissed off at Dan Savage. It's a little ridiculous.

-Religious people are 100% more likely to be shitty than non-religious people.

-Spokane is NOT a bastion of red, conservative values... huh.

-Pit bulls are evil.

Posted by Nick | September 11, 2007 9:29 AM
98
most obnoxious douchebag in the world.

I'm an obnoxious douchebag. I think Bill O'Reilly is probably the most obnoxious douchebag.

Posted by Judah | September 11, 2007 9:40 AM
99

yes I do back pedel, now and then, when it suits, or when someone(important) calls me on my hyperbole.
for the most part, I'd like to think I'm pretty smart and probably a nice guy at heart but this need to denegrate others is just too overriding...can't help myself -- you ponzi dickwads!

Posted by judahdarude | September 11, 2007 9:54 AM
100

@99

Well hey, good thing you're here to set me straight. I look forward to seeing you in other comment strings.

Posted by Judah | September 11, 2007 10:23 AM
101

I'm fine with being an ass, it's everyone else that has a problem(yeah thats what it is)..damn them for pooping in MY sandbox!!!

Posted by judahdarude | September 11, 2007 11:19 AM
102

Getting scary around here

Posted by OR Matt | September 11, 2007 12:05 PM
103

This is just one blowhard attacking another. tl;dr

Posted by Gomez | September 11, 2007 12:40 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).