From what I can gather, Hod is disillusioned with the state of journalism as a whole to begin with, a juvenile outburst like this isn't unexpected.
What.
You're saying that it follows naturally that someone who is disillusioned about the state of journalism would behave like a child?
He's acting like a sixth grade girl. That's pathetic, and beneath the sensibilities of anyone seventh grade and above, let alone those of adults. He should be ashamed of himself. Were I his employer, I would fire him. This is completely juvenile and should be decried.
And as juvenile as it is, this sort of tabloid/rumor-based journalism is increasingly more common and more and more is being treated as legitimate news reporting. We can argue that it shouldn't be, but it really has become good enough for a lot of people.
No, see, the reaction to someone behaving like a total chicken**** should not be, "Well, there are a lot of people who behave immaturely, and this is treated with normality in certain circles."
We should decry people when they behave terribly. The fact that other people might behave terribly does not excuse terrible behavior. If other people behave terribly, one should try one's best to be an example to the terrible people by not being an awful person.
This guy is being an awful person. And to call what he's doing "journalism" offends me both as someone who has worked as a journalist, and as someone older than twelve.
For this particular incident, I can only echo Highroller in saying that whatever else it is, it's wildly unprofessional.
In general, I'm troubled by the proposition of using outing as a weapon to enforce political conformity. Talk about hypocrisy - what about the hypocrisy of "You should never ever out someone... unless they say or do something I disagree with"?
Strange as it seems, there are openly gay people who are against gay marriage. Not a lot, but a few. I really don't like the implications in this reasoning that what they are must determine what they believe. That an accidental biological feature of a person means they must conform to the opinions of all the other people with the same feature, and if they don't, the rules protecting such people no longer apply to them.
Marijuana use does not have the same strong privacy taboos as closeted homosexuality.
I get that the dramatic irony feels appealing; it certainly makes for a good story. But in the rational analysis, does it really matter that the positions in question are anti-gay?
Yes, in context it matters that the gay congressman is supporting anti-gay legislation.
Why?
By that I mean, I understand why it matters that he's supporting anti-gay legislation, and I understand why the fact that he's gay might feel like someone betraying his own kind. But why would that justify removing the same right to privacy you would accord to any other gay person?
Because aren't you therefore arguing that if a person is gay, he must think, or at least vote, a certain way or forfeit his rights? How do you justify this?
I don't see a reason that him being gay should be a secret if he's been gay in scenarios with other people who could testify that he's gay because of that. Now, we don't need to pry into his life, but I don't see how this was a secret or why it would need to remain so.
His being gay or not doesn't affect my perception of gay rights. Hopefully he can find peace though.
I think the question is also whether this should hit national news anymore or be even news worthy outside of perhaps political pundits, but the last time some elderly Congressman had sex with a male prostitute on a bathroom floor it was all over the news. Then we had the whole Monica Lewinsky Scandel which took about what like 4 years to resolve? Granted I did buy and read Death of American Virtue: Clinton Vs. Star and will recommend that book to anyone interested in criminal investigations, presidential history, or Bill Clinton. However, that is how I prefer to get my sex rumors. From an old lawyer who spent ten years digging through files and interviewing people to write a book about it after everyone's forgotten about it.
Ah memories, I need a Lorena Bobbit thread. /saunters off.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
From what I can gather, Hod is disillusioned with the state of journalism as a whole to begin with, a juvenile outburst like this isn't unexpected.
What.
You're saying that it follows naturally that someone who is disillusioned about the state of journalism would behave like a child?
I said it wasn't unexpected. Frustration and disillusionment are often followed by emotional outbursts and immaturity.
This guy is being an awful person. And to call what he's doing "journalism" offends me both as someone who has worked as a journalist, and as someone older than twelve.
What Hod did was not much different from what TMZ does daily.
I get that the dramatic irony feels appealing; it certainly makes for a good story. But in the rational analysis, does it really matter that the positions in question are anti-gay?
Yes, in context it matters that the gay congressman is supporting anti-gay legislation.
Why?
By that I mean, I understand why it matters that he's supporting anti-gay legislation, and I understand why the fact that he's gay might feel like someone betraying his own kind. But why would that justify removing the same right to privacy you would accord to any other gay person?
Do public figures (especially politicians) have the same right to privacy as everyone else if particular aspects of their private lives have some bearing on their public roles? I ask because we as a society frequently delve into the private lives of our leaders for that reason. Again, I refer back to Rob Ford, whose private life has been on display like a three-ring circus for months now.
The additional context of Schock's orientation will change things for some people. You can argue that it shouldn't, but ultimately it will.
Because aren't you therefore arguing that if a person is gay, he must think, or at least vote, a certain way or forfeit his rights? How do you justify this?
What I'm arguing is that he can vote as he likes, but that a gay man voting for anti-gay policies is going to draw a lot of negative feelings from the LGBT community so anyone in that position needs to recognize that. And if that man is trying to keep his sexuality a secret, someone at some point will try to use it to undermine him for the perceived betrayal, wrong as that is.
Do public figures (especially politicians) have the same right to privacy as everyone else if particular aspects of their private lives have some bearing on their public roles?
Is this such a situation, and if so, why?
The additional context of Schock's orientation will change things for some people.
Ah, so, you want him to be publicly humiliated because he's gay?
What I'm arguing is that he can vote as he likes, but that a gay man voting for anti-gay policies is going to draw a lot of negative feelings from the LGBT community
As opposed to a straight person voting for anti-gay policies?
And if that man is trying to keep his sexuality a secret, someone at some point will try to use it to undermine him for the perceived betrayal, wrong as that is.
Which goes back to should the media do this? And if we're agreeing that it's wrong — which I'm pretty positive we aren't — the answer is no.
Do public figures (especially politicians) have the same right to privacy as everyone else if particular aspects of their private lives have some bearing on their public roles?
Is this such a situation, and if so, why?
Honestly, I'm not sure. Clearly some people think it is and others do not. I understand the positions of both, but I don't know where I stand. Were I one of Schock's constituents, I'd want to know because that context is important to me, but I have a lot of issues with how that context was exposed.
The additional context of Schock's orientation will change things for some people.
Ah, so, you want him to be publicly humiliated because he's gay?
Not at all, and I'm not sure what about me makes you think I'd be okay with that. I'm just realistic about how perceptions of a person changes when their orientation is revealed, particularly in the realm of American politics.
What I'm arguing is that he can vote as he likes, but that a gay man voting for anti-gay policies is going to draw a lot of negative feelings from the LGBT community
As opposed to a straight person voting for anti-gay policies?
Yes. A straight person with anti-gay voting patterns will obviously draw negative feelings, but a gay person with the same voting will draw a much more intense response for reasons I've already explained.
And if that man is trying to keep his sexuality a secret, someone at some point will try to use it to undermine him for the perceived betrayal, wrong as that is.
Which goes back to should the media do this?
No. But so long as being gay is newsworthy and/or shameful, the media will continue to use it and people with axes to grind will use it as a weapon.
And if we're agreeing that it's wrong — which I'm pretty positive we aren't — the answer is no.
Then you've misread me. I have very personal, negative feelings about outing people and as much as I understand the motivation to do so in this case, I don't like when someone's orientation is used as a weapon.
Not at all, and I'm not sure what about me makes you think I'd be okay with that.
That's just it, I don't think you'd be ok with that.
But I think that's what people who wish Schock's orientation revealed because they feel he deserves public backlash are essentially saying. They want him to suffer public backlash because he's gay.
No. But so long as being gay is newsworthy and/or shameful, the media will continue to use it and people with axes to grind will use it as a weapon.
Perhaps, but they shouldn't is the point.
Then you've misread me.
Evidently, and I apologize for being presumptuous.
the real question is, why do we let anyone have a political career at all? Politics shouldn't be a career goal. IT is supposed to be civil service.
I feel that we should have the right to know if our congressmen and women are hypocritical lying scumbags, straight or not.
If things you have done and said make you look like a hypocritical, power seeking moron, you shouldn't have said or done those things.
Don't preach segregation and the banning of interracial marriages if you don't want your mixed race love child to pop out of the woodwork. Don't preach intolerance and bigotry towards LGBTQ people if you are one of them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former DCI Tournament Organizer
What is the standard organisational structure of shadow organisation?(Gotta love 4Chan)
Current MTGO Player and paper reseller/speculator.
No, it's unethical. If one is in the hugely conservative camp, being gay is heavily frowned upon, you don't get it to take it upon yourself to out them.
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
coming out of the closet is an extremely complicated, personal, and emotionally charged time in a gay person's life. as a fellow human being entitled to basic dignity and privacy, they deserve to choose the time, place, and manner of their coming out, period. It is never acceptable to out a gay person against their wishes.
What.
You're saying that it follows naturally that someone who is disillusioned about the state of journalism would behave like a child?
He's acting like a sixth grade girl. That's pathetic, and beneath the sensibilities of anyone seventh grade and above, let alone those of adults. He should be ashamed of himself. Were I his employer, I would fire him. This is completely juvenile and should be decried.
No, see, the reaction to someone behaving like a total chicken**** should not be, "Well, there are a lot of people who behave immaturely, and this is treated with normality in certain circles."
We should decry people when they behave terribly. The fact that other people might behave terribly does not excuse terrible behavior. If other people behave terribly, one should try one's best to be an example to the terrible people by not being an awful person.
This guy is being an awful person. And to call what he's doing "journalism" offends me both as someone who has worked as a journalist, and as someone older than twelve.
You're right.
I revise my stance on this.
Why?
By that I mean, I understand why it matters that he's supporting anti-gay legislation, and I understand why the fact that he's gay might feel like someone betraying his own kind. But why would that justify removing the same right to privacy you would accord to any other gay person?
Because aren't you therefore arguing that if a person is gay, he must think, or at least vote, a certain way or forfeit his rights? How do you justify this?
I think the question is also whether this should hit national news anymore or be even news worthy outside of perhaps political pundits, but the last time some elderly Congressman had sex with a male prostitute on a bathroom floor it was all over the news. Then we had the whole Monica Lewinsky Scandel which took about what like 4 years to resolve? Granted I did buy and read Death of American Virtue: Clinton Vs. Star and will recommend that book to anyone interested in criminal investigations, presidential history, or Bill Clinton. However, that is how I prefer to get my sex rumors. From an old lawyer who spent ten years digging through files and interviewing people to write a book about it after everyone's forgotten about it.
Ah memories, I need a Lorena Bobbit thread. /saunters off.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I said it wasn't unexpected. Frustration and disillusionment are often followed by emotional outbursts and immaturity.
What Hod did was not much different from what TMZ does daily.
Do public figures (especially politicians) have the same right to privacy as everyone else if particular aspects of their private lives have some bearing on their public roles? I ask because we as a society frequently delve into the private lives of our leaders for that reason. Again, I refer back to Rob Ford, whose private life has been on display like a three-ring circus for months now.
The additional context of Schock's orientation will change things for some people. You can argue that it shouldn't, but ultimately it will.
What I'm arguing is that he can vote as he likes, but that a gay man voting for anti-gay policies is going to draw a lot of negative feelings from the LGBT community so anyone in that position needs to recognize that. And if that man is trying to keep his sexuality a secret, someone at some point will try to use it to undermine him for the perceived betrayal, wrong as that is.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Is this such a situation, and if so, why?
Ah, so, you want him to be publicly humiliated because he's gay?
As opposed to a straight person voting for anti-gay policies?
Which goes back to should the media do this? And if we're agreeing that it's wrong — which I'm pretty positive we aren't — the answer is no.
Honestly, I'm not sure. Clearly some people think it is and others do not. I understand the positions of both, but I don't know where I stand. Were I one of Schock's constituents, I'd want to know because that context is important to me, but I have a lot of issues with how that context was exposed.
Not at all, and I'm not sure what about me makes you think I'd be okay with that. I'm just realistic about how perceptions of a person changes when their orientation is revealed, particularly in the realm of American politics.
Yes. A straight person with anti-gay voting patterns will obviously draw negative feelings, but a gay person with the same voting will draw a much more intense response for reasons I've already explained.
No. But so long as being gay is newsworthy and/or shameful, the media will continue to use it and people with axes to grind will use it as a weapon.
Then you've misread me. I have very personal, negative feelings about outing people and as much as I understand the motivation to do so in this case, I don't like when someone's orientation is used as a weapon.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
That's just it, I don't think you'd be ok with that.
But I think that's what people who wish Schock's orientation revealed because they feel he deserves public backlash are essentially saying. They want him to suffer public backlash because he's gay.
Perhaps, but they shouldn't is the point.
Evidently, and I apologize for being presumptuous.
I feel that we should have the right to know if our congressmen and women are hypocritical lying scumbags, straight or not.
If things you have done and said make you look like a hypocritical, power seeking moron, you shouldn't have said or done those things.
Don't preach segregation and the banning of interracial marriages if you don't want your mixed race love child to pop out of the woodwork. Don't preach intolerance and bigotry towards LGBTQ people if you are one of them.
Current MTGO Player and paper reseller/speculator.
UBRThe MindrazerRBU
UUUSpymaster of TrestGGG
GGGThe South TreeGGG
RRRHuman AscendantRRR