PDA

View Full Version : I denounce Dan Savage



Soflasnapper
03-13-2012, 12:30 PM
Dan Savage created the Google bomb, whatever one calls it, that defines 'Santorum' in a disgusting sexual reference about 'froth' and lube and (well look it up yourself, if you don't know).

Although I'm impressed that he could do it, and it made me laugh when I first heard of it, AND I don't much care for Santorum, I think that such a thing ought to be illegal, or prevented by law in some way.

If that's too heavy handed (getting the state at some level involved), then Google itself ought to make a private decision that it should not allow its manipulation for such a political purpose.

I think Savage is a pretty mean mo-fo to do that to spite Santorum, and that's too far a stretch for my approval. I'm sure he writes a nice gay man sex column, and good luck with all of that (which I won't much hear about), but this is vicious.

LWW
03-15-2012, 02:53 AM
Sadly ... google has made the exact opposite decision.

Soflasnapper
03-15-2012, 11:18 AM
Perhaps legislation is in order, then? Or is that a slippery slope situation?

What was the original google bomb? Wasn't it something about putting stupid in as the search term, hitting 'I'm feeling lucky' and getting George W. Bush links? Something like that (or vice versa)?

I oppose that as well, whatever it was, even though I opposed the target of its ridicule quite strongly.

sack316
03-15-2012, 12:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
What was the original google bomb? Wasn't it something about putting stupid in as the search term, hitting 'I'm feeling lucky' and getting George W. Bush links? Something like that (or vice versa)?
</div></div>

Original: "more evil than Satan himself" yielded Microsoft as a top result.

The one you are thinking of came the following year, and was the first with a known creator!

Sack

Soflasnapper
03-15-2012, 12:17 PM
I'm not as concerned about people saying that about Microsoft, for some reason! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Qtec
04-30-2012, 05:27 AM
You might want to reconsider!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dan Savage offended some Christian teens when he told them <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"We can learn to ignore the bull---t in the Bible about gay people."</span>

Savage made his comments during a speech at the National High School Journalist Conference in Seattle.

After many students walked out of the speech, one of whom appeared to be crying, Savage said, “It’s funny, as someone who’s on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the bible, how pansy-assed some people react when you push back.”

Fox News reports that Savage's comments upset the executive director of GOProud, a gay conservative group.

"Dan Savage should apologize for his comments and should apologize to the high school students in attendance whom he called ‘pansy-asses,’” Jimmy LaSalvia told Fox. “It is ironic that someone whose claim to fame is fighting bullying would resort to bullying tactics in attacking high school students who were offended by his outrageous remarks.”

Towleroad had a different take:

It's too bad the Christian kids left the hall. They're supposed to be journalists, and we in the journalism biz must often dirty our ears with others' distasteful utterances. While Savage might have profitably avoided the use of profanities (which, when used to describe allegedly sacred documents, tend to make believers less than receptive to whatever might come next), what he said was materially true, and good journalism students of any creed ought to know it.

Pink News reports that Savage said he was sorry if he hurt anyone, but did not apologize for what he said. </div></div>

watch it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ao0k9qDsOvs#!)

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/28/dan-savage-speech-controversy_n_1461863.html#s656625&title=Losing_Your_Virginity)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A Rebellious Son

18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death.</span> You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel. </div></div> <span style="color: #000099">Bad news for Newt!</span>

The guy has a point. Today's war on gays is a result of RW Christians cherry picking. When this is pointed out to them they can't take it.

IMO people are born gay or straight, adultery is a choice.

Q

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Marriage Violations

13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her , dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and <span style='font-size: 20pt'>no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.</span> She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you. </div></div>

Gayle in MD
04-30-2012, 07:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You might want to reconsider!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dan Savage offended some Christian teens when he told them <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"We can learn to ignore the bull---t in the Bible about gay people."</span>

Savage made his comments during a speech at the National High School Journalist Conference in Seattle.

After many students walked out of the speech, one of whom appeared to be crying, Savage said, “It’s funny, as someone who’s on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the bible, how pansy-assed some people react when you push back.”

Fox News reports that Savage's comments upset the executive director of GOProud, a gay conservative group.

"Dan Savage should apologize for his comments and should apologize to the high school students in attendance whom he called ‘pansy-asses,’” Jimmy LaSalvia told Fox. “It is ironic that someone whose claim to fame is fighting bullying would resort to bullying tactics in attacking high school students who were offended by his outrageous remarks.”

Towleroad had a different take:

It's too bad the Christian kids left the hall. They're supposed to be journalists, and we in the journalism biz must often dirty our ears with others' distasteful utterances. While Savage might have profitably avoided the use of profanities (which, when used to describe allegedly sacred documents, tend to make believers less than receptive to whatever might come next), what he said was materially true, and good journalism students of any creed ought to know it.

Pink News reports that Savage said he was sorry if he hurt anyone, but did not apologize for what he said. </div></div>

watch it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ao0k9qDsOvs#!)

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/28/dan-savage-speech-controversy_n_1461863.html#s656625&title=Losing_Your_Virginity)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A Rebellious Son

18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death.</span> You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel. </div></div> <span style="color: #000099">Bad news for Newt!</span>

The guy has a point. Today's war on gays is a result of RW Christians cherry picking. When this is pointed out to them they can't take it.

IMO people are born gay or straight, adultery is a choice.

Q

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Marriage Violations

13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her , dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and <span style='font-size: 20pt'>no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.</span> She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you. </div></div>

</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I’m done beating up the Bible. It’s funny to someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansy-ass people react when you push back.

</div></div>


<span style="color: #990000">Gotta say it, this statement couldn't be more true!

There is so much ignorant hatred in the bible! Santorum is disgusting to me, althhough I don't know what Savage's horrible statement is supposed to be, it would have to go a long way to be worse than what I hear coming from the Psychotic Religious Right, like Santorum!

G.</span>

Sid_Vicious
04-30-2012, 08:00 AM
I've alway had lots of problems with the concept that everything in the Bible is pure, God's word, and to not be questioned, yet SO-CALLED CHRISTIANS(fake-jakes) electively select which scriptures to abide by, and which to ignore. When you take just ONE directive from The Bible(God Himself) and reject that one, and not following it, you just nullified the whole book. God wasn't wrong ever, right?

Savage made a lot of good points IMO, bluntly but good points, and I think that even God is a little pissed off at how "He has and is being used." It is odd too, cuz the biggest number of rapists of God's Word are from the so-called hard Christian Right.

It is simply idiotic to tout the Bible as the end-all of morality, with no mistakes, and then prune out what doesn't fit in your personal opinion, but selectively and strongly enforce the other stuff you want at the time. Do you really think God likes that? It is just insane. sid

Gayle in MD
04-30-2012, 10:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've alway had lots of problems with the concept that everything in the Bible is pure, God's word, and to not be questioned, yet SO-CALLED CHRISTIANS(fake-jakes) electively select which scriptures to abide by, and which to ignore. When you take just ONE directive from The Bible(God Himself) and reject that one, and not following it, you just nullified the whole book. God wasn't wrong ever, right?

Savage made a lot of good points IMO, bluntly but good points, and I think that even God is a little pissed off at how "He has and is being used." It is odd too, cuz the biggest number of rapists of God's Word are from the so-called hard Christian Right.

It is simply idiotic to tout the Bible as the end-all of morality, with no mistakes, and then prune out what doesn't fit in your personal opinion, but selectively and strongly enforce the other stuff you want at the time. Do you really think God likes that? It is just insane. sid </div></div>

Our country, which was founded on Separation Of Church And State,
is being destroyed by Psychotic Religiosity, and the exploitation of the ignorant religious right.


Now that I have had the chance to look into this matter:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Spreading Santorum, the website created by gay rights activist Dan Savage to propagate a nasty anal-sex related definition of “Santorum,” appears further down on the first search results page for some users, and even further down on page 2 for other users.

But Savage says the vulgar definition isn’t going away any time soon.

“The damage is done,” he said. “Toxic e-mission accomplished.”

Savage said that between the widespread coverage of Santorum’s “Google problem” in the media, and the disgusting definition’s salvos on comedy shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show, his definition has become a part of pop culture.

“Nobody has to rush to Google,” he said. “Everybody gets it. Our Google ranking isn’t that important anymore.”

And Savage’s definition is still front and center.

Coming in among the page 1 results during a search today, are Santorum’s Wikipedia page, the Wikipedia link about Savage’s re-definition, and Santorum’s official campaign website. There is also a link to Urban Dictionary, which spells out Savage’s description in all its “frothy” and “fecal” glory.

“Careful what you wish for though,” Savage said, adding that the Urban Dictionary link is “a much more disgusting return than ours.”

Google insists they did not specifically make the switch, although they did tweak their algorithms in ways that could have affected the result.

“We make more than 500 changes to our algorithms in a typical year, and with each of those changes, sites will shuffle to different positions in our search results,” a Google spokesman said. ”We have not manually taken action to change the ranking of the site.”

Google points out that it made 40 algorithm changes in February, some of which went into effect on Monday and Tuesday, right before Spreading Santorum fell down in the search results.

One tweak that may have done the trick is adjusting their top-secret Google formula so “official” pages are pushed to the top of search results. In announcing the changes on the Google Search blog, the company said the change will lead to “more accurate identifications” and push “many pages that were previously misidentified as official” out of the top results.

Santorum has been demanding that Google remove Spreading Santorum from the top search result for months. In September Santorum publicly denounced the search giant for not stepping in.

“If you’re a responsible business, you don’t let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country,” he told Politico. “To have a business allow that type of filth to be purveyed through their website or through their system is something that they say they can’t handle but I suspect that’s not true.”

The “joke,” as Savage calls it, began in response to comments Santorum made in a 2003 interview where he equated gay sex with bestiality and polygamy.

“There’s this one interview where this anti-gay bigot said really disgusting things almost a decade ago and now because of the site he’s still being asked to answer for it,” Savage said.

Describing the interview, Savage said Santorum “equated consensual adults same-sex love to raping dogs.”

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>“It’s all about making sure he could never run away from this,” Savage said. “LGBT people, we just don’t get punched in the face anymore without us punching back. You can say vile things about us and were going to say vile things about you.”</span>



</div></div>

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/santorums-google-problem-nasty-definition-sinks-search/


I guess turn about is fair play. I think the religious right has done far more damage to our society, than Mr. Savage.

Soflasnapper
04-30-2012, 10:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've alway had lots of problems with the concept that everything in the Bible is pure, God's word, and to not be questioned, yet SO-CALLED CHRISTIANS(fake-jakes) electively select which scriptures to abide by, and which to ignore. When you take just ONE directive from The Bible(God Himself) and reject that one, and not following it, you just nullified the whole book. God wasn't wrong ever, right?

Savage made a lot of good points IMO, bluntly but good points, and I think that even God is a little pissed off at how "He has and is being used." It is odd too, cuz the biggest number of rapists of God's Word are from the so-called hard Christian Right.

It is simply idiotic to tout the Bible as the end-all of morality, with no mistakes, and then prune out what doesn't fit in your personal opinion, but selectively and strongly enforce the other stuff you want at the time. Do you really think God likes that? It is just insane. sid </div></div>

To take it all as inerrant requires advocating the death penalty for shrimp or lobster eaters, for those who wear two kinds of cloth at the same time, etc., and I think rounded collar wearers are also condemned to death. Married couples having sexual relations with one another in the marital bed during the woman's menses are both to be killed, and it goes on, of course.

If a child is a glutton (look out, obese American kids!), they should be stoned to death, and even if they are just 'unruly,' same thing.

But, that Dan Savage makes good points doesn't make the Google trick he performed good policy. Sure, in this case, perhaps we are not sympathetic to former Senator Santorum, but there is no bar to this tactic based on our preferred or dispreferred targeting.

I still argue it ought to be opposed for general reasons, and if not exactly made illegal, then prevented as a matter of Google policy. Ridicule is already a primary method of political tricksters (cf: Alinksyism, as now taught by FreedomWorks to their minions), and this just puts too much power into their hands in addition.

Gayle in MD
04-30-2012, 11:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But, that Dan Savage makes good points doesn't make the Google trick he performed good policy. Sure, in this case, perhaps we are not sympathetic to former Senator Santorum, but there is no bar to this tactic based on our preferred or dispreferred targeting.

</div></div>

I agree with you on this point, about distorting Google function, which as I reflect, was really, I think, the crux of your original point, from the start.

I would only have to add, if the Republicans were smart enough to figure out how to do what Savage did with "The Google" they would have been doing it long ago!

LOL... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

As for the words he used, no worse than Santorum's, IMO.

Sid_Vicious
04-30-2012, 12:12 PM
"I still argue it ought to be opposed for general reasons, and if not exactly made illegal, then prevented as a matter of Google policy."

And I feel the so-called Christians need to be called out. If it takes hard nuckles in Utube and Google content, then more power to them. You can't wollow with pigs without getting muddy. Nice guys finish last. sid

Soflasnapper
04-30-2012, 12:45 PM
I agree with those ends, but not with the method.

Flooding Google under a given name of a person with pages explaining their policy errors or crimes, if there are those, is appropriate. Creating hard-hitting YouTube vids or whatever, also fine.

This is more like drive-by graffiti on a public utility, which Google resembles. As Google is increasingly important, gaming it THIS way, with a purely personal smear using some disgusting imagery, should be prevented, internally or by law.

In 'A Man for All Seasons,' Paul Scofield's Sir Thomas More character discusses things with a red-hot, who proclaims that he'd tear down the very law if necessary to get the Devil. Scofield asks, with the law torn down, when the Devil turns to face you, where is the refuge?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it--d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. </div></div>