Slog
News & ArtsThursday, December 29, 2011
Conflict of Interest Moore Award: Polls Closing Soon!
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:14 PM
I may be far ahead of the pack—my nearest competitor, Cornell West, is behind me by 4K+ votes—but I am not taking victory for granted. No premature celebrations. VOTE FOR MEEEEEEEEEE!
3
I don't understand what the Moore Award is? I clicked through as much of Sullivan's blog as I could handle and there's no description, though something tells me it's an award that's not meant to be an honor . . .
4
I would really believe that you were an attention whore if you started doing drunken handstands, or if you made out at the bar with another girl.
5
@3
"The Moore Award - named after film-maker, Michael Moore - is for divisive, bitter and intemperate left-wing rhetoric."
"The Moore Award - named after film-maker, Michael Moore - is for divisive, bitter and intemperate left-wing rhetoric."
6
Nobody takes criticism quite like you do, Dan. For someone in your line of work, you have a remarkably thin skin.
9
I had to vote for Mike Malloy.
Agree with @2 after reading the definition. Unless Sullivan is 100% willing to admit that there are so many that would win a right-wing version of that 'award' that it's not worth bothering with a vote, then the award itself is divisive, bitter right-wing rhetoric.
Agree with @2 after reading the definition. Unless Sullivan is 100% willing to admit that there are so many that would win a right-wing version of that 'award' that it's not worth bothering with a vote, then the award itself is divisive, bitter right-wing rhetoric.
10
@3: "I don't understand what the Moore Award is?"
For being correct and not coddling the feelings of the far right-wing. It's a fairly prestigious honor, AFAIK.
For being correct and not coddling the feelings of the far right-wing. It's a fairly prestigious honor, AFAIK.
12
@9--He has the Malkin Award award for that - named after blogger, Michelle Malkin - is for shrill, hyperbolic, divisive and intemperate right-wing rhetoric. Ann Coulter is ineligible - to give others a chance.
He also has The Hewitt Award - named after the absurd partisan fanatic, Hugh Hewitt, is given for the most egregious attempts to label Barack Obama as un-American, alien, treasonous, and far out of the mainstream of American life and politics.
He also has The Hewitt Award - named after the absurd partisan fanatic, Hugh Hewitt, is given for the most egregious attempts to label Barack Obama as un-American, alien, treasonous, and far out of the mainstream of American life and politics.
13
That's a start. I think Glenn Beck compared the Norwegian shooting victims to Hitler youth. That should cover the Malkin Award.
There should be an award for the most ridiculous assertion that something is socialism. Pat Dollard claimed that Michelle Obama promoting healthy eating was communism.
Michelle Bachmann needs to win an award for bad science and all-around dumb-assedness.
There should be an award for the most ridiculous assertion that something is socialism. Pat Dollard claimed that Michelle Obama promoting healthy eating was communism.
Michelle Bachmann needs to win an award for bad science and all-around dumb-assedness.
14
You guys: Andrew is a good friend, I wasn't upset to get the nom (although what I said was true!), and I'm just messing around and playing with The Dish here. Not angry, not shrill. Game!
16
I'm still fixated on that video. I'm not sure if I've ever used this word in the archaic sense, but that was a real boner.
18
#14 As you know, that (stupid) award isn't for stating falsehoods, it's for expressing something with a liberal bias in a way that's so over-the-top it's noteworthy. Which you did.
And any casual reader of slog knows that when you are challenged a little you go nuts. Ask Lindy.
And any casual reader of slog knows that when you are challenged a little you go nuts. Ask Lindy.
20
I still don't get why you aren't able to bring your eye for nuance and the complexities of life, which is your bread-and-butter when it comes to relationship advice (I think we can drop the "sex advice" pretense - you offer good relationship advice which just happens to focus often on one (important) part of relationships), to politics. It's like your ability to see all the fine detail shuts down when you see the red and blue of partisan politics, and *everything* becomes blue=good and red=evil.
21
Dan, I love you but I loathe AS. I used to read him pretty regularly because I wanted to know what the other side was thinking, and he is a good writer. But he's full of it more often than not. He's Madonna of the internet, and I'm no fan of hers either.
I put a hold on it when Hillary was running for pres because I knew he'd go from 0 to Shrill every chance he got when discussing her. Then I came back after Obama won but really, he allows no comments, so no thoughtful or raging or whatever conversation can happen unless it's with someone else who has a big time blog or book. And the final straw for me was his lame ass explanations about race with Ta-Nehisi Coates (sp).
He's no Hitchens.
I put a hold on it when Hillary was running for pres because I knew he'd go from 0 to Shrill every chance he got when discussing her. Then I came back after Obama won but really, he allows no comments, so no thoughtful or raging or whatever conversation can happen unless it's with someone else who has a big time blog or book. And the final straw for me was his lame ass explanations about race with Ta-Nehisi Coates (sp).
He's no Hitchens.
24
@luke1249,
Please explain why Dan Savage should see the Republicans as anything but homophobes? What are they doing to promote equal rights? Aren't all the Republicans nominees promising to repeal the repeal of DADT?
Please explain why Dan Savage should see the Republicans as anything but homophobes? What are they doing to promote equal rights? Aren't all the Republicans nominees promising to repeal the repeal of DADT?
25
@24: Luke's a fairly standard conservative, so it's obvious why he would want this "nuanced" look at their horrible policies.
@18: "As you know, that (stupid) award isn't for stating falsehoods, it's for expressing something with a liberal bias in a way that's so over-the-top it's noteworthy. Which you did."
There's nothing over-the-top about calling conservatives out for wanting women to die for easily-preventable cancers.
@18: "As you know, that (stupid) award isn't for stating falsehoods, it's for expressing something with a liberal bias in a way that's so over-the-top it's noteworthy. Which you did."
There's nothing over-the-top about calling conservatives out for wanting women to die for easily-preventable cancers.
26
@24-25, I'd say there is a difference between Republican politicians and people with Republican opinions or who for some reason or other identify with the Republican party (but are not in congress carrying out the agenda of the extreme right).
If you think of 'Republican' as not synonymous with closet gay homophobe politicians in Washington trying to brand Obama as the next Atheist Caliph from Kenya, but with a certain set of opinions about governance and the role of the state, and also about tradition and 'traditional values' (remember the actual meaning of these words, rather than the code they have become in the hands of extreme right wings, meaning 'social oppression of other lifestyeles')...
then it is not impossible to subscribe to a few, some, most, or even all of these beliefs without necessarily being an asshole who wants to impose his/her view on everybody else.
Of course people exaggerate on both sides, and there's a lot of mud being thrown around. And Republican politicians, alas, are certainly among the worst. But it's not solely their prerrogative; others do it as well.
When Dan claims conservatives want women to die from cancer, he is doing such a thing. Conservatives don't want women to die from cancer; they want them to stop having sex in a way that they don't approve of (with a higher, but still rather low, possibility of cancer as a possible punishment for their 'sin'). The way Dan phrased it, it's as if conservatives wanted even their own mothers, sisters, wives and daughters to be sent to Auschwitz -- which is not the case.
And in fact what they really want -- to discourage alternative lifestyles and to force people into old stereotypical roles -- is already bad enough. Why make it worse with exaggerations? Isn't it the same kind of thing Glen Beck used to do at Fox News?
(One may argue that, since they're doing it, then their opponents should do, too -- call it the 'let's fight mud with mud' school of thought. There are some good arguments in favor of it, and some even better ones against it. But I digress.)
More...
If you think of 'Republican' as not synonymous with closet gay homophobe politicians in Washington trying to brand Obama as the next Atheist Caliph from Kenya, but with a certain set of opinions about governance and the role of the state, and also about tradition and 'traditional values' (remember the actual meaning of these words, rather than the code they have become in the hands of extreme right wings, meaning 'social oppression of other lifestyeles')...
then it is not impossible to subscribe to a few, some, most, or even all of these beliefs without necessarily being an asshole who wants to impose his/her view on everybody else.
Of course people exaggerate on both sides, and there's a lot of mud being thrown around. And Republican politicians, alas, are certainly among the worst. But it's not solely their prerrogative; others do it as well.
When Dan claims conservatives want women to die from cancer, he is doing such a thing. Conservatives don't want women to die from cancer; they want them to stop having sex in a way that they don't approve of (with a higher, but still rather low, possibility of cancer as a possible punishment for their 'sin'). The way Dan phrased it, it's as if conservatives wanted even their own mothers, sisters, wives and daughters to be sent to Auschwitz -- which is not the case.
And in fact what they really want -- to discourage alternative lifestyles and to force people into old stereotypical roles -- is already bad enough. Why make it worse with exaggerations? Isn't it the same kind of thing Glen Beck used to do at Fox News?
(One may argue that, since they're doing it, then their opponents should do, too -- call it the 'let's fight mud with mud' school of thought. There are some good arguments in favor of it, and some even better ones against it. But I digress.)
27
@26: "The way Dan phrased it, it's as if conservatives wanted even their own mothers, sisters, wives and daughters to be sent to Auschwitz -- which is not the case."
That, again, is exactly what they want.
"they want them to stop having sex in a way that they don't approve of"
Human biology doesn't work that way, certainly considering that they don't give a shit about men that have sex before marriage, only women. There are no social sanctions for Republicans who are adulterers and fornicators.
Republican women, daughters, aunties, and grammas all die from cancers stemming from HPV. Your handwaving does not detract from this. Republicans would rather their mothers and daughters die than vaccinations interrupt their rhetoric.
That, again, is exactly what they want.
"they want them to stop having sex in a way that they don't approve of"
Human biology doesn't work that way, certainly considering that they don't give a shit about men that have sex before marriage, only women. There are no social sanctions for Republicans who are adulterers and fornicators.
Republican women, daughters, aunties, and grammas all die from cancers stemming from HPV. Your handwaving does not detract from this. Republicans would rather their mothers and daughters die than vaccinations interrupt their rhetoric.
29
It's no different than the fundamentalist Catholics who would rather people die of AIDS than affect their immortal soul through the use of prophylactics. You may not like the tone, but it is not untrue, and there is no need to clutch pearls or get the vapors, as the loathsomeness of their decisions is far more hideous than our word choice here.
30
Dan@14: "AS [Andrew Sullivan] is a good friend."
Uh, wow.
The guy who once wrote a column castigating the media for paying "too much" attention to the murder of Matthew Shepard - and so far as I know has never said word one in apology - is a "good friend" of the founder of "It Gets Better".
The guy whose columns were trotted out for years - YEARS - by every right-winger with a pretense
to fairness as evidence that the gay community was overreaching itself in demanding equal rights
(after all, he's one of THEM, so he's gotta have an unbiased opinion!) is a "good friend" of a man
who's repeatedly attacked Human Rights Campaign for being too cautious and conservative in their
activism.
The guy who chided his fellow gays for scaring the straights by being too open - until he got caught
trawling for pickups online - is a "good friend" of an ostensibly sex-positive columnist.
What fucking rabbit hole did I just fall down?
Dan, were you and Sullivan and I in the same room right now, I don't know whose face I'd slap
first. About all I do know is: you'd get the palm. He'd get the knuckles.
Uh, wow.
The guy who once wrote a column castigating the media for paying "too much" attention to the murder of Matthew Shepard - and so far as I know has never said word one in apology - is a "good friend" of the founder of "It Gets Better".
The guy whose columns were trotted out for years - YEARS - by every right-winger with a pretense
to fairness as evidence that the gay community was overreaching itself in demanding equal rights
(after all, he's one of THEM, so he's gotta have an unbiased opinion!) is a "good friend" of a man
who's repeatedly attacked Human Rights Campaign for being too cautious and conservative in their
activism.
The guy who chided his fellow gays for scaring the straights by being too open - until he got caught
trawling for pickups online - is a "good friend" of an ostensibly sex-positive columnist.
What fucking rabbit hole did I just fall down?
Dan, were you and Sullivan and I in the same room right now, I don't know whose face I'd slap
first. About all I do know is: you'd get the palm. He'd get the knuckles.
31
@30: Yeah, I don't know why people are so willing to easily gloss over these horrible statements because a person comes off as nice at a dinner party.
I'm sure Rick Santorum would be a *lovely* person if you met him at a fundraiser and the press weren't around.
I'm sure Rick Santorum would be a *lovely* person if you met him at a fundraiser and the press weren't around.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
Slog Super Poll: Who Should Be Mayor? by Dominic Holden
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
Tim Burgess Quits the Mayor's Race by Dominic Holden
-
Meanwhile in Toronto by Dan Savage
-
In Which I Do Not Declare My Candidacy for Seattle City Council by Goldy
-
Slog Overnight by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (31) RSS