Home / General / Sunday Links: Gay Camp Edition

Sunday Links: Gay Camp Edition

Comments
/
/
/
941 Views
  • Just so you know, sweater-vested idiot Rick Santorum is still around contributing to his Google hits by continuing to exist stupidly.”Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) claimed during a radio interview this week that anti-gay marriage business owners are being sent to ‘re-education camps’ for refusing to serve gay customers.” Imagine my disappointment when I learned that Gay Camp is a.) not fabulous b.) not real. ANYHOO… “You now see situations with bakers and florists and photographers who are being forced to provide services for same-sex weddings or get fined, lose their business,” Santorum said during the appearance on the American Family Association’s “Focal Point” radio program on Monday. “In the case of Colorado, there was a Colorado case recently where someone had to go to a re-education camp if you will…” I won’t.  (Thanks to Origami Isopod for the link.)
  • I’m not quite sure how to talk about this next item, as I have decidedly mixed feelings about it. I mean, I love big cats. So I actually kinda understand where these idiots are coming from when they take–yep, it’s a real thing–“tiger selfies.” HOWEVER, as majestic and beautiful as big cats are, they are also huge, deadly killing machines. And taking pictures with cuddly killing machines just seems very very very inadvisable to me. The sad part is, if I were in the dating game, I’d probably be intrigued by a tiger selfie, if nothing else. bspencer is not helping… SHUT UP, BSPENCER.
  • I like PZ Meyers a whole lot, but I vehemently disagree with him here when he says that internet-famous-atheist-asshole thunderfoot “makes a good point.” Apparently, blunderfoot made a video in opposition to Anita Sarkeesian’s video discussing the way women are objectified in video games. blunderbutt counters her video by fake-whinging about how men are routinely portrayed as expendable victims of violence, a thing which is true, but really has nothing to do with the sexual objectification of women and is a stupid counter to her argument on its face. Yes, men are routinely portrayed as anonymous and dispensable. But if you think about this issue for more than say 5 seconds, you’ll understand why this is so. There are two reasons, really: 1.) the types of people who get killed in movies and video games where this is lots of violence and mayhem are usually guards, soldiers, ninjas, fighters, warriors, etc. etc.  Now, women have always been warriors and will always be warriors. (Just as there are women guards and soldiers and fighters…and ninjas, etc. etc.) But I think it’s fair to say that most of these types of folks have been–throughout history–men. This will change and should change, but as of now having men portray most of these “expendables” is probably…accurate. (This is not to say video games and movies should always strive for accuracy. I just don’t think it’s misandry that’s driving this phenomenon.) And, finally, 2.) the reason the body count for men is so high is same reason that men are the focal point of so many video games and movies–because they’re thought of as the default human. (I’d also argue that men are thought of as inherently more interesting and brave than women.) More often than not women don’t even get the chance to be expendable…because to be expendable we’d have to be existent first.
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
It is main inner container footer text