I can see it now, eh?

[One Brow]

No, I'm not interested in "defending" the obvious in some extended argument full of verbal equivocation and disingenuous assertions.

I'll just note that "obvious" is not a standard that is objectively observable nor verifiable, and in fact one you have routinely rejected when employed by the moderators.

I'm am confident that the average person immediately understands that your claims are obviously mistaken.

Assuming that's even true, does that mean the average person is accurate in their assessment?

If you want to claim that you have never had any reason to suspect that any homosexual is that, without first getting into bed with them, I'll even take you at your word. Just don't assume that everyone else is that blind.

Again, you move the goalposts. Lots of people of people have suspected me, or different straight men that I have known, of being gay, based on the "obvious". I've also know my share of gay men that everyone assumed were straight. Frankly, you probably can find a "reason" to suspect any man is gay. When your "reason" leads to an accurate conclusion, you remember it; when it doesn't, you discount it (this is a common feature among humans, including myself). One term for this is confirmation bias.

Same with the rest of your post. I get the feeling, Eric, that you somehow feel obligated to defend, and "prove," the validity and accuracy of any and all claims made by what this author calls the "gay blogs' (or whatever he called them). I don't, and am hence not artifically constrained in the conclusions I allow myself to draw.

So, you can come to your own conclusions, but must enslave myself to the opinions of others?

 

[Hopper]

So, you can come to your own conclusions, but must enslave myself to the opinions of others?

Eric, we've had many discussions over the years. This is certainly not the first time that I have told you that many of your assertions appear to me to be generated by loyalty to partisan causes. I could be wrong, of course. But I see you as being much more devoted and dedicated to ideological positions than I (or most people I know) am/are. Just my perception. I'm sure you don't see it that way.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." (Thomas Jefferson)

My sentiments exactly, eh?

 

[Hopper]

Two different people make the same statement:

Martin Luther King: "John Jones is a black man."

Grand Wizard of the KKK: "John Jones is a black man."


Who, if anyone, is "insulting" blacks, or John Jones, here?

I'm gunna take a minute and answer this question in a way that I think many would (and do). That answer might run along these lines. Yes, it is obvious that MLK is not insulting Jones, and it is equally obvious that the KKK guy is. We know MLK doesn't have prejudices against blacks, and we know the KKK does. We therefore know that the KKK guy is tryin to insult Jones by pointing out that he is black.

Such people attack the statement, if made by the KKK guy, but praise it if made by MLK. Their understanding of what it "means" is determined by how they perceive the intentions and belief systems of the person making the statement. They would, if it were in their power, punish the KKK guy for making the statement in the first place. But if John Jones feels that he has been "insulted" by the KKK guy for that statement, I truly pity him. I pity anyone that weak and insecure, who feels that his worth or mental complacency is somehow dependent upon the approval the grand wizard of the KKK. Yet such people exist. And until the KKK guy says "I like all black men," they will feel personally insulted by his subjective beliefs.

“He that would be superior to external influences must first become superior to his own passions.” (Samuel Johnson)

“If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself but to your own estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.” (Marcus Aurelius)

 

[One Brow]

Eric, we've had many discussions over the years. This is certainly not the first time that I have told you that many of your assertions appear to me to be generated by loyalty to partisan causes.

As opposed to my loyalty being generated to causes that happen to pronounce things I agree with, I suppose.

I could be wrong, of course. But I see you as being much more devoted and dedicated to ideological positions than I (or most people I know) am/are. Just my perception. I'm sure you don't see it that way.

I don't think there is any single party/group to which I devote my allegiance, but I don't fear my allegiance being devoted to groups that put forth postions I agree with, for the duration that they put them forth, to the degree that I approve of their positions overall. I feel free to approve of a commentators positions of governemnt while denouning what they say about medicine. However, when discussing ideological positions, as opposed to groups/parties/people, I quite possibly do take them more seriously than many other people you interact with.

 

[Hopper]

I don't think there is any single party/group to which I devote my allegiance, but I don't fear my allegiance being devoted to groups that put forth postions I agree with, for the duration that they put them forth, to the degree that I approve of their positions overall. I feel free to approve of a commentators positions of governemnt while denouning what they say about medicine. However, when discussing ideological positions, as opposed to groups/parties/people, I quite possibly do take them more seriously than many other people you interact with.

Just curious. Do you agree with the claim that the gay writer is "horrendously homophobic?"

Do you agree that he is "bigoted" (in a purportedly "antigay" way)?

 

[One Brow]

Just curious. Do you agree with the claim that the gay writer is "horrendously homophobic?"

I don't see any evidence of animus/fear, so I would say there is no evidence to support the claim.

Do you agree that he is "bigoted" (in a purportedly "antigay" way)?

I would say he is bogted. Homosexuals can't make convincing straight men because they are homosexual, but straight men can make convincing gay characters, and apparently regardless of the talent/charisma displayed.

You have avoided any discussion of the writer's opinion of Rock Hudson. Does saying that Hudson makes a believable romantic lead in "Pillow Talk" when you think he is straight, but that the movie is a farce when you find out he is gay, change in any way Hudson's on-screen performance? To what do you attribute the difference, if not bigotry?

 

[Hopper]

You have avoided any discussion of the writer's opinion of Rock Hudson. Does saying that Hudson makes a believable romantic lead in "Pillow Talk" when you think he is straight, but that the movie is a farce when you find out he is gay, change in any way Hudson's on-screen performance? To what do you attribute the difference, if not bigotry?

One thing at a time. First this. Yes I have addressed his statements about Rock Hudson, Denzel Washington, Tom Hanks, and other actors (and his estimation of the effect that "public opinion" has on the careers of such actors). Whether I agree with him, or not, isn't even the point. I take him at his word that these are his honest opinions and I cannot even remotely see how his opinions are a mere product of homophobia.

 

[Hopper]

I don't see any evidence of animus/fear, so I would say there is no evidence to support the claim.

I would say he is bogted. Homosexuals can't make convincing straight men because they are homosexual, but straight men can make convincing gay characters, and apparently regardless of the talent/charisma displayed.

Now these two, the second one first: That's not even the claim he makes, is it? Have you read his article (which I have cited) or are you just goin on how the gay blogs had chosen to characterize his claims?

Now the first one: Then why this does Chenoweth babe (I don't know who she is, but apparently some kinda celebrity and a co-star with the paricular actor criticized) make such a claim? Why would the gay bloggers stir up an outrage to the point where this writer is gittin all kinda hate mail, and stuff? What is the motive here? What is the agenda?

 

[Scat]

... Chenoweth babe (I don't know who she is, but apparently some kinda celebrity)...

 

[sirkickyass]

She was very good in Pushing Daisies and Leonard Bernstein's operatic interpretation of "Candide."

 

[Hopper]

Suddenly, Marcus, for some damn reason, I'm startin to put a little more credence into anything she says, ya know?

 

[Scat]

Suddenly, Marcus, for some damn reason, I'm startin to put a little more credence into anything she says, ya know?

Can you list a couple of reasons for this?

 

[Hopper]

Can you list a couple of reasons for this?

It's all a little too subtle to be broke-down, analytical-like, eh, Marcus? Just kinda a "feelin," I git, know what I'm sayin?

That said, if I wuz forced to give two reasons, on pain of death, then I would say there are two obvious reasons in that pic, right above where it says "the premier."

 

[sirkickyass]

That said, if I wuz forced to give two reasons, on pain of death, then I would say there are two obvious reasons in that pic, right above where it says "the premier."

Apparently you are distracted enough that you are having difficulty reading. I believe the text reads "The Piemaker" which is probably a Pushing Daisies reference.

 

[Hopper]

Apparently you are distracted enough that you are having difficulty reading. I believe the text reads "The Piemaker" which is probably a Pushing Daisies reference.

Piemaker!? All the more better, eh!?

Can't resist this here edit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=468XodYBFBc

 

[One Brow]

Whether I agree with him, or not, isn't even the point.

That's why I didn't ask.

I take him at his word that these are his honest opinions

As do I.

and I cannot even remotely see how his opinions are a mere product of homophobia.

If you meant that can't even see how bigotry can explain the two discordant interpretations of the same performance by the same person, with the primary difference being a knowledge of the actor's orientation, than I find such a claim very difficult to believe and not at all in line with your usual posting. So, perhaps you could reword that position? Otherwise, if you could offer any reasonable alternative for saying the same performance has to interpreted very differently depending on the orientation of the actor (as opposed to the character), I'm all ears.

Now these two, the second one first: That's not even the claim he makes, is it? Have you read his article (which I have cited) or are you just goin on how the gay blogs had chosen to characterize his claims?

I have not read any gay blogs, just "Straight Jacket".

Now the first one: Then why this does Chenoweth babe (I don't know who she is, but apparently some kinda celebrity and a co-star with the paricular actor criticized) make such a claim? Why would the gay bloggers stir up an outrage to the point where this writer is gittin all kinda hate mail, and stuff? What is the motive here? What is the agenda?

To point out obvious bigotry, perhaps.

 

[Hopper]

If you meant that can't even see how bigotry can explain the two discordant interpretations of the same performance by the same person, with the primary difference being a knowledge of the actor's orientation, than I find such a claim very difficult to believe and not at all in line with your usual posting. So, perhaps you could reword that position? Otherwise, if you could offer any reasonable alternative for saying the same performance has to interpreted very differently depending on the orientation of the actor (as opposed to the character), I'm all ears.

I'm sure whatever you're tryin to say here makes sense to you, Eric, but it don't to me. You wouldn't be the first gay (or other kind of) advocate to claim that 1. "You don't share my values and opinions" is identical to 2. "You are an utter bigot." The author himself says this, for what it's worth: "Just rewatch the scene where he’s wading around in a bubble bath by himself." I have no idea what that scene is, but I can imagine it. As with any topic, if you have been fooled, you re-evaluate things after gittin wised up. This guy aint sayin that Hudson wasn't convincin, as you seem to claim. He's just sayin it's all viewed differently if you later find out he has no attraction to women whatsover, despite deceptive appearances in the movie.

To point out obvious bigotry, perhaps.

If that's the best you can come up with, I won't even bother responding.

 

[One Brow]

I'll start by saying this: having now read "Out of Focus", it seems the author now explains he was trying to say that he saw mainstream America as having the opinions expressed, and the opinions in "Straight Talk" may not be his opinions personally (he was not particularly clear on that point, but it seemed to be the jist of it). To the degree that is true, "Straight Talk" seems to have been a poorly worded article, but the author would not be as bigoted as the thoughts you see in "Straight Talk".

I'm sure whatever you're tryin to say here makes sense to you, Eric, but it don't to me.

I may downgrade my opinion of you, then. If you can't even comprehend a request to offer a possbile explanation for a difference in perception as stated by the author, that's a serious gap. It's more believable the obtuseness is deliberate.

You wouldn't be the first gay (or other kind of) advocate to claim that 1. "You don't share my values and opinions" is identical to 2. "You are an utter bigot."

I don't recall making such a claim, regardles of whether I would be the first.

The author himself says this, for what it's worth: "Just rewatch the scene where he’s wading around in a bubble bath by himself." I have no idea what that scene is, but I can imagine it. As with any topic, if you have been fooled, you re-evaluate things after gittin wised up. This guy aint sayin that Hudson wasn't convincin, as you seem to claim. He's just sayin it's all viewed differently if you later find out he has no attraction to women whatsover, despite deceptive appearances in the movie.

I don't see why, other than bigotry. By comparison, Debra Winger and Richjard Gere really disliked each other when making An Officer and a Gentleman. I've never heard anyone say that turns the movie into a farce because the leads had no sexual chemistry off-screen.

If that's the best you can come up with, I won't even bother responding.

If you have something better to offer, I'm listening.

 

[Hopper]

I'll start by saying this: having now read "Out of Focus", it seems the author now explains he was trying to say that he saw mainstream America as having the opinions expressed, and the opinions in "Straight Talk" may not be his opinions personally (he was not particularly clear on that point, but it seemed to be the jist of it). To the degree that is true, "Straight Talk" seems to have been a poorly worded article, but the author would not be as bigoted as the thoughts you see in "Straight Talk".

Careless reading does not necessarily imply poor wording, eh, Eric? The original article says things like this: "This is no laughing matter, however. For decades, Hollywood has kept gay actors—Tab Hunter, Van Johnson, Richard Chamberlain, Rock Hudson, etc.—in the closet, to their detriment. The fear was, if people knew your sexual orientation, you could never work again. Thankfully, this seems ridiculous in the era of Portia de Rossi and Neil Patrick Harris. But the truth is, openly gay actors still have reason to be scared."

Read all the "horrendous homophobia" or "bigotry" into that that you want, I just don't see it.

I may downgrade my opinion of you, then. If you can't even comprehend a request to offer a possbile explanation for a difference in perception as stated by the author, that's a serious gap. It's more believable the obtuseness is deliberate.

I gave an alternate explanation. You can agree with it, or not, suit yourself. However, the mere presupposition that "only" bigotry could possibly explain such a thing seems very narrow-minded and prejudicial to me.

If you have something better to offer, I'm listening.

OK, see next post.

 

[Archie Moses]

Will you two (err one) quit arguing with yourself?