Letters to the Editor
Queer National
Published Letters: 85 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Does anyone at Salon know one single LGBT person who isn't a jerk and can actually write?
[Read the article: At her majesty's pleasure]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because such a person would be a true novelty on this site.
Kurth is not merely a jerk, but a proud jerk. That this obliterates the supposed point of his entire "article" is self-evident, but, again, Salon apparently thinks that the fact he is a jerk is beside the point because, hey, he's gay. At Salon, that means that of course he's a jerk. Of course he's no role model. He's gay. At Salon, being gay means being Camille Paglia and Andrew Sullivan. Peter Kurth is right at home amongst those paragons of the queer community.
He can't write a coherent paragraph, but that, of course, isn't the point. He's gay and this is Salon; the point isn't to write at even a sixth-grade level, the point is for the weird gay people to show how twisted they are. Gays are the sideshow of Salon. There's all the other reporting here, and then there's what the LGBT freaks have to say.
That what seems to be the vast majority of red-starred comments here are posts completely supporting this article while many more posts pointing out its and its author's obvious flaws go un-starred is business as usual. Salon doesn't understand why thoughtful people don't appreciate its LGBT authors because Salon obviously believes that these people are all there is to choose from as far as LGBT authors go. Salon believes this is how LGBT people are. Salon is wrong.
There's no alternate universe which exists wherein Salon would have published this article if the author was a middle-aged white American man who was heterosexual and healthy but whose story was otherwise identical to this one. Because Salon would have considered that man to be a completely unsympathetic jerk. And they'd be right.
But take away the author's identity and what do you have left? Being a jerk on a plane from a foreign country can have ramifications. Who knew? Just about everybody but Peter Kurth, apparently.
Though I share Kurth's political struggle and applaud his longevity, that doesn't mean this drunken, impulsive, abusive, demanding, borderline-racist, misogynistic, arrogant, ignorant individual is someone I'd ever want to sit next to on a plane. Or read about anywhere. And why would you think most people would?
-
Everybody wins.
[Read the article: Jerry Falwell, "agent of intolerance," dead at 73]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]His minions can take comfort in the erroneous belief that he’s in a better place and the rest of us can take comfort in knowing he’s not.
-
I'm tolerant, not an idiot.
[Read the article: Jerry Falwell, "agent of intolerance," dead at 73]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The comments thus far simply prove that the "tolerant," "loving" hypcrites of the Left are every bit the vicious haters they accuse Falwell of being.
No, we just don't miss the vicious hater who made a career out of viciously hating us. That his hate lives on in his misguided minions is, sadly, not a surprise.
Falwell spent his life using lies to take money from people who couldn't afford it to attack others who did him and them no harm. The people who made him rich were as much his victims as the people they hated. Unlike his other victims, though, they are far from innocent. Their desire to sow hate had to exist before Falwell could exploit it.
As for the specious "tolerating the intolerant" argument? You've got to be kidding. You want to hate? I'll tolerate that. You want to stop me from loving? Not going to happen.
We would be hypocrites only if we actually mourned the passing of someone who brought nothing but pain into the world. And you would be a hypocrite if you mourned him in any way that didn't include insulting and attacking others. That is, after all, Falwell's only legacy.
You're all lying hatemongers simply making things up. Shame on you.
And so it goes...
-
Lies, ignorance and mistaken beliefs
[Read the article: Tinky Winky says bye-bye to Jerry Falwell]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The facts: Falwell was commenting on the fact that it was gay groups who were claiming Tinky Winky as their own, as reported in The Advocate. He did not come up with the judgment himself.
I can't find anything that says he got his information from The Advocate, including from Falwell's own website:
http://tinyurl.com/ywtg59
But I can easily find reporting on Falwell's delusional outing of the character and his casting judgment (gee, how Christian) on Mr. Winky, including this from the BBC:
"But the Teletubbies have made the Rev Falwell, chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, hot under the collar. He decided to 'out' Tinky Winky in the February edition of his National Liberty Journal.
In an article called Parents Alert: Tinky Winky Comes Out of the Closet, he says: 'He is purple - the gay-pride colour; and his antenna is shaped like a triangle - the gay-pride symbol.'
He said the 'subtle depictions' of gay sexuality are intentional and later issued a statement that read: 'As a Christian I feel that role modelling the gay lifestyle is damaging to the moral lives of children.'"
Don't feel bad, Anonymous. You tried. But it's impossible to defend these people without lying or, at the very least, getting your facts wrong.
Decrying the lack of "decent" mourning for the passing of a hatemonger, one Salon reader says this:
I don't know a lot about Jerry Falwell...
Quite simply, if you did, you'd know what you were talking about.
Finally, as to the Anonymous poster who is convinced that hell is a very real place, you'd better hope for Falwell's sake that you're wrong.