The World Beyond BetterMost > The Culture Tent
"Outrage" - Documentary Outs Gay Politicians Who Fight Gay Rights
injest:
I don't know anything about anyone's diary, but SOMEBODY went digging to find these "former lovers, tricks, and members of the general public who have seen them in situations where they either solicited public sex, bought it or contracted for it, and then insisted on secrecy after the fact." I suspect it was the filmmakers themselves. All these witnesses didn't just get together and decide to make a movie.
and who decided these people were credible? I could say that Milo and I are lovers all day long that doesnt' make it true. it is hearsay...and that is not proof. that is a hatchet job.
louisev:
someone went looking for these guys?
No. Someone didn't go looking for them. They went looking for a reporter is what happened. As in the case of Larry Craig's teenage lover, who came forward when he saw Craig on TV saying "I am NOT Gay!" and got so mad he had to tell someone. And when he told someone in D.C. at a gay bar, they encouraged him to give an exclusive scoop to Wonkette.com, which actually broke his story.
He is on the trailer for this film, and here is the original story
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3604
So no, nobody went looking for David Phillips. You sure are making a lot of assumptions about this film, and I have to wonder why.
And as far as "Gay party" goes, it does need attribution because the only references to something called "the Gay party" leads back to your Androphilia author, not to any concept that is in common parlance, nor is it in common usage except maybe between you and other people on a reading list for that book.
And I have to say I'm not very happy about the idea of using some private "catch all term" that designates a non existent (except to you and others who read this book) entity made up of self-identified gays and lesbians and possibly others who are hunting down closeted politicians and seeking murky political goals that you disapprove of, because that really does sound like dog-whistling against gays using new terminology. The way the term "San Francisco" (sometimes pronounced with an audible lisp) is a dog whistle against gays.
milomorris:
--- Quote from: louisev on April 29, 2009, 01:00:45 am ---someone went looking for these guys?
No. Someone didn't go looking for them. They went looking for a reporter is what happened.
--- End quote ---
Really?? I doubt it. I think the filmmakers went looking for them. Do you actually know anything about how this film was made?? Or are you just speculating in a different direction than I am??
--- Quote from: louisev on April 29, 2009, 01:00:45 am ---You sure are making a lot of assumptions about this film, and I have to wonder why.
--- End quote ---
Because the trailer makes it look like tabloid TV. So naturally I'm expecting something sensationalized and manufactured.
--- Quote from: louisev on April 29, 2009, 01:00:45 am ---And as far as "Gay party" goes, it does need attribution because the only references to something called "the Gay party" leads back to your Androphilia author, not to any concept that is in common parlance, nor is it in common usage except maybe between you and other people on a reading list for that book.
--- End quote ---
Last time I checked, this was a conversation, not a scientific research abstract. People invent phrases, share unique terms (like nicknames) among small groups of people, etc. all the time. I don't have to walk around citing that my source for the word "ass-hat" is a fellow opera singer named "Jimmy" when I'm having a conversation with people. So I don't need to do it here. If you don't understand, feel free to ask me what I mean.
--- Quote from: louisev on April 29, 2009, 01:00:45 am ---And I have to say I'm not very happy about the idea of using some private "catch all term" that designates a non existent (except to you and others who read this book) entity made up of self-identified gays and lesbians and possibly others who are hunting down closeted politicians and seeking murky political goals that you disapprove of, because that really does sound like dog-whistling against gays using new terminology.
--- End quote ---
Again, my intent is not to "dog whistle" at anyone.
Let me see if I can clarify with an example...
Back during the previous election, I was using the term "Christian Party" on a popular opera blog. I used it to describe the broader, politically-active Evangelical-types. Of course there was/is no such entity, but there do exist national, local, community, etc. organizations that share commonalities like those I used to describe the Gay Party. Nowadays, I have replaced that term with "Fundies," which I didn't coin. None of the opera singers stopped to ask me who I was talking about. And I doubt that I've confused anyone by using the term "Gay Party."
Another thing to keep in mind is that people create contractions, acronyms, nicknames, etc. as a means of linguistic economy. It helps get the point accross with fewer syllables.
--- Quote from: louisev on April 29, 2009, 01:00:45 am ---The way the term "San Francisco" (sometimes pronounced with an audible lisp) is a dog whistle against gays.
--- End quote ---
Really? First I've heard of it.
Rx
injest:
--- Quote from: milomorris on April 29, 2009, 01:24:18 am ---Really?? I doubt it. I think the filmmakers went looking for them. Do you actually know anything about how this film was made?? Or are you just speculating in a different direction than I am??
Because the trailer makes it look like tabloid TV. So naturally I'm expecting something sensationalized and manufactured.
Last time I checked, this was a conversation, not a scientific research abstract. People invent phrases, share unique terms (like nicknames) among small groups of people, etc. all the time. I don't have to walk around citing that my source for the word "ass-hat" is a fellow opera singer named "Jimmy" when I'm having a conversation with people. So I don't need to do it here. If you don't understand, feel free to ask me what I mean.
Again, my intent is not to "dog whistle" at anyone.
Let me see if I can clarify with an example...
Back during the previous election, I was using the term "Christian Party" on a popular opera blog. I used it to describe the broader, politically-active Evangelical-types. Of course there was/is no such entity, but there do exist national, local, community, etc. organizations that share commonalities like those I used to describe the Gay Party. Nowadays, I have replaced that term with "Fundies," which I didn't coin. None of the opera singers stopped to ask me who I was talking about. And I doubt that I've confused anyone by using the term "Gay Party."
Another thing to keep in mind is that people create contractions, acronyms, nicknames, etc. as a means of linguistic economy. It helps get the point accross with fewer syllables.
Really? First I've heard of it.
Rx
--- End quote ---
wow...you were on a forum where people were more interested in what you SAID rather than playing a game of 'gotcha' and 'distract with trivial crap when they dont' have anything to refute the argument with'??
that is cool. you are very lucky...
louisev:
--- Quote from: milomorris on April 29, 2009, 01:24:18 am ---Really?? I doubt it. I think the filmmakers went looking for them. Do you actually know anything about how this film was made?? Or are you just speculating in a different direction than I am??
--- End quote ---
not at all speculating. I know the story of David Phillips from when it broke. I recognized him in the trailer and I even made a link to his interview on radio for your convenience just now. Nobody went looking for him. He was a nobody with a story about Larry Craig and went on radio with it in November 2007. I just follow the news.
The same thing also happened to Rev Ted Haggard - that was also a front page story when he was caught buying meth and sex from a gay hustler and then went on TV insisting that it was some one-time thing and he's not gay and the hustler, who was his regular trick got angry about Haggard lying so profusely to the public and went public himself. As a prostitute he was under no "obligation", personally or politically, to keep Haggard's twisted lies for him. He paid him for sex, not permanent cover.
So if you don't know anything about these guys then you're not very well read or keeping up with the news. A lot of this stuff WAS linked in current events right here on Bettermost, too, as being items of "gay interest", as opposed to "gay party interest."
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version