For those of you not familiar with hockey, Datsyuk is universally recognized as the best two-way player in the game. I'd go farther than that: I've watched hockey for over 30 years, and I think he's the best player, period, in the history of the game. That would certainly be debatable, but that's a debate for another time.
This is Pavel Datsyuk:
And I'm sure part of that humility comes from his faith -- he's a quietly devout Orthodox Christian.
Because the Olympic hockey tournament will be played in Russia this year, and gay rights advocates have pushed the issue to the forefront all summer, it was inevitable that some reporter would ask Datsyuk his opinion of his country's laws regarding homosexuality. Datsyuk responded about as I expected:
"I'm an orthodox and that says it all."
More after the break.
And sports writers have gone ape-shit nuts over this statement. Before cleaning up their headline, one site ran an article titled "Pavel Datsyuk basically says he's anti-gay." They sanitized it to the still remarkably foul: "Pavel Datsyuk cites anti-gay religion when asked about gay rights." So apparently anyone who belongs to the Orthodox Church is a bigot who should be hounded out of his profession.
Now, consider how innocuous Datsyuk's statement is. You could interpret it to mean: I'm orthodox, so I condemn homosexuality as a sin and support these laws. Or you could interpret it mean: I'm orthodox, so I follow the teachings of Jesus -- whatever you did for one of the least of these, you did for me, yada yada -- and so I condemn these laws. It's a verbal Datsyukian deke. But militant gay rights supporters leapt to the conclusion that he supported these laws, because he didn't sing precisely the tune they'd called, in just the right pitch they demanded. They require absolute...orthodoxy, in the interveiwee's debasement before their idol (yes, it's a giant erect cock.)
But certainly Datsyuk should have been clearer in denouncing laws that ban homosexuality, resulting in the execution of gays. Wait, what's that? You say...they don't ban homosexuality at all, but only those obnoxious gay pride parades? And violators of the law aren't stoned or hanged...they're fined a few hundred dollars?
That's right: The gay mafia has their panties in a twist over a few misdemeanor-level laws. I haven't heard much from them lately about this sort of thing:
Or the fact that homosexuality is actually illegal in just about every country in Africa.
Consider, also, that Datsyuk's wife and daughter still live in Russia; and Russia is ruled by this guy:
Datsyuk's statement was perfect -- it could not have been better. These gay-rights assholes have burned every bit of good will they ever had with me.
114 comments:
Hey, what's up with the insult to the mafia?
The gay mafia has gone too far this time.
"Gaystapo" is probably a better moniker than gay mafia.
I believe that Titus is member carrying card for the lavender mafia so perhaps we should ask him.
These gay-rights assholes have burned every bit of good will they ever had with me.
For soothing relief from itching, burning and swelling hemorrhoids, 4 out of 5 sodomites surveyed recommend TUCKS® Medicated Cooling Pads!
Patrice Bergeron is the best two way player in hockey.
I agree on almost all of your other points, however.
And really--gay mafia, gaystapo...it's all the same isn't it? Anything that's not the party line must be eradicated. Doesn't matter if the insult is to the gays, the blacks, the jews...
oh. Wait. We can still insult Jews.
It's the velvet mafia and it isn't because they like purple either.
Cody Jarrett said...
oh. Wait. We can still insult Jews.
And Christians. Can't leave them out.
Some of you righties act like you're the only ones in the world who ever had to deal with zealots. Buck up. In case you didn't notice, this kind of ridiculous self-righteousness is endemic to humanity. The only question is how you are going to respond and if you are going to find a different role model for yourself (or basically be the same kind of an asshole without realizing it).
To think clearly you have to experience this stuff soberly, without falling to pieces or getting all het up because some dingbat (righty or lefty) is violating your civil rights and entitlements.
Meth...I didn't know there were still Christians about to insult.
(see what I did there?)
PS I hate to draw attention to it but I figured I'd better before someone starts on me about being anti-C.
phx, explain how mentioning it with ridicule, or commenting on (also with ridicule) is "falling to pieces" and whatever other bullshit you wrote?
Noticing something isn't anywhere near falling to pieces.
At least it never used to be. Maybe in your brave new liberal world it is, I dunno.
Don't say anything that might be interpreted as insulting to a thin-skinned member of the protected classes and/or their brilliant and not-at-all cold-bloodedly opportunistic minders in politics and the media. They might hate you more than they already do. And then they won't vote for you. Reach out to the protected classes by dishonestly conceding to their points. It's insulting and homophobic/racist/sexist/haterist to insist that their demands make sense and be constitutional.
In Monty Python's the Meaning of Life (1983), there was a segment entitled "Fighting Each Other."
At the time, I thought that rather astute.
Still do.
There's an evolutionary explanation, probably.
"Some of you righties act like you're the only ones in the world who ever had to deal with zealots. Buck up."
The zealotry is getting worse, every day.
Bucking up can and should include loud and sustained rejection and mockery of the the zealots.
That's right: The gay mafia has their panties in a twist over a few misdemeanor-level laws.
"Y'all have your own drinking fountains, what are you complaining about?"
Of course the gays hate a two way player. They always hate the bi's.
They are funny that way.
You are absolutely right about the drinking fountains.
Just look at all the trouble that started.
Next thing you know Richard Simmons will be President.
Well the white Richard Simmons.
You know what I mean.
Richard Simmons is making a comeback, I read the other day.
It's one thing for the gay mafia to speak truth-to-power from the safety of their loft on the Upper West Side. It would be quite another for Datsyuk to take a controversial stand, and endanger his wife and child, all so homosexuals can rampage through the streets of St. Petersburg with their genitals hanging out and painted day-glo orange.
LOL, that's some funny writing right there, even with all the suffused anger!
"Y'all have your own drinking fountains..."
Palladian, what 'drinking fountains' or 'back of the bus' or lunch counters are there in the US for gays?
Seriously, where is it?
I mean, other than the fashion industry, a pro-gay barrier.
I know a kind of ugly dorky looking guy who got a really hot girlfriend (they had relations and everything) simply because she was a huge theater person, spent all her free time there. He happened to be about the only straight guy involved in the company.
I mean--he's a really nice kid, really talented and scarey smart. Probably smarter even than Palladian.
But a girl like that? Nah.
Sometimes that gay barrier helps!
Pogo, I was referring to Russia, and Pastafarian's assertion that the situation in Russia is only a few "misdemeanors".
Palladian, what 'drinking fountains' or 'back of the bus' or lunch counters are there in the US for gays?
I wondered, but figured I was being obtuse again. Apparently I do it a lot.
Palladian, you might want to revisit what Pasta said.
But certainly Datsyuk should have been clearer in denouncing laws that ban homosexuality, resulting in the execution of gays. Wait, what's that? You say...they don't ban homosexuality at all, but only those obnoxious gay pride parades? And violators of the law aren't stoned or hanged...they're fined a few hundred dollars?
Wake me up when they start having straight pride parades or they found the NAAWP.
I'd prefer to let you sleep, Cody.
Thanks Palladian.
Appreciate it.
Guess I learn a new lesson every day.
As I say, the demand that all must not only bow, or even smile, but cheer is the rock on which the homosexual agenda will founder.
Trooper York said...
Well the white Richard Simmons.
You know what I mean.
He's already there.
He's going to blow up an aspirin factory in Syria this weekend, I hear.
As I say, the demand that all must not only bow, or even smile, but cheer is the rock on which the homosexual agenda will founder.
As the columnist Mark Shea puts it, "Tolerance is not enough. YOU.MUST.APPROVE!"
Cody at 1:53: Patrice Bergeron.
Are you kidding? You're fucking with me, right?
Sure, Bergeron is better than Datsyuk. Of course, not offensively, because he averages 50 points a season, and Datsyuk averages 70 points, over a longer career. That's not even close.
And not defensively. Datsyuk is always at or near the top of the league in steals; Bergeron doesn't even lead his TEAM.
So he's not better offensively or defensively, but...he's a better two-way player. Uh-huh.
But all you really have to do is watch the two play. Bergeron is a decent journeyman player, and Datsyuk is not just a hall-of-famer, he's among the best of all time.
I mean, if you wanted to argue, you could throw Toews out there. I'm not even sure where Bergeron fits in, if he's even top 5 in the league. He's a decent penalty killer. So's Drew Miller, but I don't see anyone throwing Selke trophies at him.
Datsyuk; Toews; Zetterberg; Backes; I bet I could come up with 3 or 4 more better than Bergeron. He might not even make the top 10.
Wait -- you're not his mom, are you? Sorry, Mrs. Bergeron. I didn't mean to belittle your son. I'm sure he's a very nice boy.
Palladian, maybe I'm wrong. Show me how draconian these Russian laws are, that they should be debated over here, and a boycott of the Olympics should be considered.
I tried to Bing it earlier, and all I could get was what I would call "gay propaganda" -- the same thing the Russians are trying to get control of. Seriously -- Bing or Google "Russian laws against homosexuality" and see if you can find one link in the top 100 that isn't some over-the-top diatribe. See if you can find a simple list of what the laws actually proscribe and what the penalties are.
I can't be troubled with this, given that Russia isn't exactly a free expression zone. Hell, Kasparov (all-time greatest chess player ever and now political dork, er, activist) once had a meeting interrupted when he was attacked by a flying RC dildo. (No, I am not kidding, you can look it up yourself if you doubt.) That in between bouts in jail, being beaten, etc.
So I can't get all exercised about a hockey player not getting all uppity about the lack of gay pride parades in Red Square, or whatever they call it these days.
Bergeron won the Selke last year and he was a finalist last year.
Decent journeyman player? He'll end up in the HOF before his career is over.
Not to mention how tough the little bastard is. Playing with broken ribs, punctured lung and a couple of other injuries.
Whatever. You can have a man crush on Datsyuk, and why not? He's a great player.
If he was on my team I'd have a man crush on him. As a hockey fan I agree he's a great player. I'd just rather have Bergy.
You know how it is.
A ridiculous non-issue. When did it become the concern of the USA how gays are being treated in every country around the world?
Focus on your own back yard.
The NHL announced the finalists for the Selke Trophy on Wednesday, as centers Patrice Bergeron of the Boston Bruins, Pavel Datsyuk of the Detroit Red Wings and Jonathan Toews of the Chicago Blackhawks will contend for the award given "to the forward who best excels in the defensive aspects of the game," as voted on by members of the Professional Hockey Writers' Association.
From May 15 of this year.
I believe the guy from the Blackhawks won it. That means your boy didn't win it, right?
LOL
Now that Gay marriage passed, a lot of Gay "activists" have nothing to do. I guess this fills a gap in their lives.
Seriously, I'm in favor of banning THIS kind of thing HERE. The only way that is acceptable is if they're riding unicycles and attempting extreme stunts in which testicles may be ruptured. Then it counts as comedy GOLD, which can be forgiven much.
Now that Gay marriage passed, a lot of Gay "activists" have nothing to do. I guess this fills a gap in their lives.
Come on, RC, I know you know about World War T. THAT'S where the action will be.
Great player and horseshit to put him in this situation.
We've got the reverse situation in the NFL: We're getting a player shoved down our throats because of his vocal advocacy on behalf of gays (of which he is not). I'm sick of every g-ddamned football column these days talking about Chris Kluwe. Punters should be seen, not heard.
You say...they don't ban homosexuality at all, but only those obnoxious gay pride parades?
You probably ought to actually read up on the laws before opining on them, because the above remark makes you sound like a complete ignoramus.
They don't "only" ban "those obnoxious gay pride parades". They ban "gay propaganda", with the definition of "propaganda" left broad enough to cover any speech or publication that portrays homosexuality or gay rights positively.
Any real American would condemn those laws, regardless of his or her feelings about homosexuality. The issue isn't really homosexuality at all -- this is about the basic human right to freedom of speech.
Why would any real American yada yada?
It's Russia. They're a foreign country. They're allowed to run their shit the way they see fit.
Or isn't that the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Chicago Blackhawks captain Toews won the Selke Trophy as top defensive forward while the Boston Bruins' Patrice Bergeron was honored for off-ice activities.
Toews just edged Bergeron, the reigning winner, for the Selke, 1,260 points to 1,250. He finished second to Bergeron in faceoff winning percentage and ranked third in the league in plus minus. He also tied finalist Pavel Datsyuk (Detroit Red Wings) in takeaways.
Bergeron won the King Clancy Trophy for the person "who best exemplifies leadership on and off the ice and who has made a noteworthy humanitarian contribution to his community."
His Patrice's Pals brings local hospital patients and children's organizations to games.
Hey if the Russians want to put religious freedom above gay rights why is that any of our business?
It is not a crime to follow the doctrine of your faith in regard to gays. At least not yet.
That hate crime legislation is still in committee. But it is coming soon.
Any real American would condemn those laws, regardless of his or her feelings about homosexuality. The issue isn't really homosexuality at all -- this is about the basic human right to freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech isn't considered a right universally, even in the Western nations. If fact the US is pretty hardcore in its free speech beliefs, as compared to the vast majority of societies.
They ban "gay propaganda", with the definition of "propaganda" left broad enough to cover any speech or publication that portrays homosexuality or gay rights positively.
And given that they're pretty restrictive on freedom of political expression anyway, why should I give PARTICULAR attention to this particular restriction?
Oh and by the way Derek Sanderson was the best bi-sexually player by a mile.
With Ron Duguay a close second.
I'm not a baseball fan (didn't grow up with it in the South, and it's too damned slow), but it's got a few things going for it. One, it's got the best sound in sports. Two, there's nothing like going to a ball game on a good day - it really is a pleasant experience, even if you're not a fan of the game. And three, baseball allows for some great displays of pure athleticism and coordination. (Baseball highlights are usually worth watching.) A great example of the last:
Evan Longoria's Crazy Barehanded Catch
Hell, I'm going to post that at a couple of the blogs I'm involved with. That's good stuff!
I didn't realize Sanderson was bisexual. I thought a lot of his problems came from being hyper heterosexual. Plus a raging drunk and drug abuser.
Now, you wanna talk bisexuals...let's not leave Messier out of the convo.
Trooper York said...
Why can't we leave Russia to the Russians and Syria to the Syrians and not be the world's thought police?
Because any dissent tolerated anywhere may foster dissent here.
Some details of the law, from The Guardian:
It "bans the spreading of 'propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations' among minors" and "introduces fines for individuals and media groups found guilty of breaking the law, as well as special fines for foreigners..."
The fines can be "up to 100,000 roubles (£1,975) for individuals who have used the media or internet to promote 'non-traditional relations'. Organisations can be fined up to 1m roubles and closed down for up to 90 days...foreigners can be detained for up to 15 days and deported, as well as fined up to 100,000 roubles, for breaking the law."
Icepick, you do know that whole thing is fake, right?
In Britain you can get arrested for saying that homosexuality is a sin: link
I think we've got it pretty good here compared to both Russia and Britain.
Trooper York said...
Why can't we leave Russia to the Russians and Syria to the Syrians and not be the world's thought police?
One reason is that we're about to go to war with an ally of Russia. It might be convenient for whipping up some old jingo lingo.
After Benghazi, I thought a lot of lefties were OK with curbing free speech.
I agree it's ridiculous to go after this hockey player. His answer, an honest answer, was taciturn and elegant. To take offense because someone has a religious conscience, private beliefs, that differ from your own, is ridiculous; to publicly castigate them for it (especially when he didn't even publicly articulate those beliefs!), worse. For me, freedom of conscience is sacrosanct.
But I agree with Palladian & Revenant on Russia. Don't many of you complain (I have complained myself) when feminists or gay-rights activists fulminate in their denouncements of America-- where women and gays have the greatest rights (consistent with equality before the law) in the world-- and have nothing to say about situations in other countries that are much much worse?
For me, freedom of speech is a paramount value. True, Russia is not my country; this is (thank god). But I find nothing wrong with publicly protesting what's going on there.
It's true that in a sense, another country's laws are "none of our business." But that's different from sliding into relativism, which some of you (on this topic) seem to be espousing. Yes, I'm judging Russia. I'm being a Judgy McJudgerson toward Russia.
(To some extent, I'm a-- troubled-- relativist myself. But I'm a proud American ethnocentrist, when it comes to classical liberal values.)
Of course, it does get tricky when public protest turns into boycotts on a national level. Because then there's something like a coercion of conscience involved, and heaps of hypocrisy/ bias.
Cf. boycotts on Israel (e.g. academic boycotts), which I abominate and make my blood boil.
So I'm more skeptical of, averse to the idea e.g. of boycotting the Olympics. Why boycott Russia, and not China etc.? Then it never ends.
It's Russia. They're a foreign country. They're allowed to run their shit the way they see fit.
What's that got to do with anything? I'm not talking about invading Russia and forcing them to change their laws; I'm talking about criticizing them for being a bunch of assholes with no respect for basic human rights.
So you criticize them.
Do you think Vlad Putin gives a flying fuck what you say?
So why bother. And why (not saying you did this) go after a hockey player who happens to be Russian and make him be the spokesbabe for the policies in his country that he has no say in.
Knock yourself out to bitch at them. Fly to Alaska and walk out onto the beach there by the Bering Sea and holler and shake your fist if it makes you feel better.
But at the end of the day that energy would be better spent solving problems in this country.
Or not. Who gives a fuck. I certainly don't anymore.
Freedom of speech isn't considered a right universally, even in the Western nations.
I said "any real American", not "any resident of a Western nation". Are you trying to claim that *this* country doesn't believe in an inborn, inalienable right to freedom of speech, or are you just trying to change the subject?
For me, freedom of conscience is sacrosanct.
Nobody is infringing on his freedom of conscience. The resident gay-bashers here just have their panties in a bunch because someone dared criticize (gasp!) a Christian.
Now, granted, their standard for "freedom of conscience" is "conservative Christians have the right to say anything they want about anyone they want; non-Christians and liberal Christians have the right to shut the fuck up". So I suppose by their standards his freedom of conscience HAS been violated. :)
Do you think Vlad Putin gives a flying fuck what you say?
Because we should only criticize people for bad behavior if those people actually care what we think?
That's really going to cut down on the amount of Obama-bashing around here. :)
But I find nothing wrong with publicly protesting what's going on there.
Fine. But what does having a shit fit about someone not sharing your opinion accomplish, which is what we're discussing HERE. Which is much less of a problem than going after Putin over THERE.
Are you trying to claim that *this* country doesn't believe in an inborn, inalienable right to freedom of speech, or are you just trying to change the subject?
I'm saying that Russia has lots of curbs on freedom of expression, and I don't see why THIS PARTICULAR MEASURE warrants any response, as opposed to say opposition leaders being beaten, or jailed, or even killed.
Getting one's panties in a bunch about THIS MEASURE seems pretty fucking cynical to me, as does pitching a fit because this Russian isn't willing to say what all the Powers That Be Fruitier Than the Chiquita Banana Woman's Hat want him to say. As though HE had any control over anything. Frankly, the criticism of him looks like a bunch of bullying wanna-be butch faggots that are looking for someone to bully here, and that they don't really give a shit about what's happening there.
And if you really have problems with nations curtailing free speech, where's the criticism of nations such as Britain, France or Germany, all of whom practice official censorship to one degree or another?
It's all just domestic political bullshit, for one group to show their power to punish anyone that doesn't bow down before the new elitist cultural norm.
And that's me exercising MY inalienable right....
Because we should only criticize people for bad behavior if those people actually care what we think?
Are we going to criticize everyone that disagrees with us, or does something we find objectionable? That's going to use up valuable time during the day that I could otherwise use taking a dump, to choose one example of things I find more important than particular Russian anti-free-speech laws.
Personally, I don't care about Russia so long as they keep producing great chess players and don't nuke anyone, especially us. I'm also tired of caring about how other countries want to fuck up their internal polity, or fix it, or whatever. Not generally my business, and I see no reason for the US to keep being the world's busybody/scold.
Some general truths that people just don't seem to want to get, no matter how long the Universe pounds on their heads with a ball peen hammer:
1. The Palestinians aren't going to make peace with the Israelis, save for the peace of the grave.
2. Land wars in Asia aren't such good ideas.
3. The USA isn't the best qualified entity to tell everyone that lives somewhere else how to live.
4. Just moving people that don't share US beliefs on political rights and processes to the US doesn't convert them to our way of thinking.
5. Dropping bombs on people elsewhere in the world also doesn't convince the people in question to adopt US beliefs on political rights and processes.
Feel free to add your own.
Oh, and
6. Boycotting sporting events over political issues is always stupid.
It was stupid when we boycotted Moscow in 1980, it was stupid when they boycotted us in 1984, it was stupid when a few idiots suggested some sort of boycott of Beijing in 2008, and it's stupid to talk about boycotting Sochi 2014 because Putin isn't Liberace. (I could name any number of boycotts from the chess world, but no one would care.)
Atheist says.....
Are you trying to claim that *this* country doesn't believe in an inborn, inalienable right to freedom of speech, or are you just trying to change the subject?
Yes that is correct. We put people in jail because of Youtube videos, fire rodeo clowns and make the exercise of your religion as this hockey player did a thought crime subject to abuse and non stop attack. There are now protected classes in this country. Sacred cows if you will. Christians are not among those people. They are the people you can say anything about. You can put their most sacred objects in a bucket of piss or pile cow shit on them and the crowd will applaud. Make any claim about these Christians without pushback from the self appointed media mavens of the thought police. Because their fondest dreams would lead to their destruction.
Well now is the time for pushback. Strong pushback.
It is shame to have to look to a Russian dictator for it but their you go.
Revenant: Nobody is infringing on his freedom of conscience.
True, but it edges into that territory, because they're lambasting him basically for the thought-crime of being Orthodox, and for what he didn't say.
Icepick: But what does having a shit fit about someone not sharing your opinion accomplish, which is what we're discussing HERE. Which is much less of a problem than going after Putin over THERE.
As I said, agree with you on the first point (the main topic of the post): going after the hockey player is ridiculous bullying. But the discussion ranged into a different issue too, and I was responding to that.
Yes, gays are not beheaded in Russia. But why minimize (or laugh off) the egregious affront to free speech there?
Given the generality of the law, to so much as say that you're gay, publicly, could be considered against the law. To write anything at all about gays, to stage a play or publish a story with a gay character in it-- against the law.
I do agree with your point (made in a later comment) that if you have a problem with nations curtailing free speech, there's much to criticize about other countries too. And much closer to home: hey, Canada!
Icepick, you do know that whole thing is fake, right?
Cody, I didn't, because I didn't want to know. Thanks for ruining it, dude!
Jeez, sometimes I just want to believe some simple little something that has no impact on anything, and someone comes along and ruins it.
We put people in jail because of Youtube videos
I agree that this should make us angriest of all. Because it was done here, in the US of A, and by the government (not a private institution). It still boggles my mind that such a thing could happen here.
Yes, gays are not beheaded in Russia. But why minimize (or laugh off) the egregious affront to free speech there?
Again, this is hardly the first curtailment of free speech there, so why get hot and bothered by this, but not by opposition leaders getting beaten up and thrown in jail? Or getting buzzed by flying dildos?
Which is to say, why maximize THIS particular issue? Or care about it at all? I'm not Russian, no one in my family is Russian. I don't have any links to that country. Why should I care about THIS issue? And how is anything in Russia compare to censorship in places like China?
I mean why get mad at hockey players. They are known for being the stupidest of all professional athletes. They can't even manage to keep a full set of teeth.
Icepick
Not fake. Enjoy the baseball.
Icepick-
Also not fake.
¡El béisbol es un juego divertido!
That Longoria catch is a great clip. The look on that reporter's face was classic.
EMD, THANK you!
See, through the decades I've seen so many incredible baseball highlights I'm willing to believe in stuff like the Longoria bit, just because if COULD happen. AND, unlike the question of whether or not Sarin gas was used in Syria, and by who against whom, this doesn't matter!
Those mayors who suggested that Chick-fil-A would not be welcome in their city (though IIRC they later backtracked)-- that was appalling too.
For me, it's not about a gay thing (pro or contra), but about free speech.
I do understand what you're saying, Icepick, about making an exception (or exceptional case) about this particular suppression of speech in Russia-- gay speech-- rather than others, or speech in general.
But most of the time it's particular issues that galvanize people's interest, passion, imagination; that's human nature. I don't have a problem with people focused on gay rights, seizing on that particular angle. And I do think there's something special about laws suppressing speech about something as basic as your sexual identity (who you are) as opposed to political speech the Russian government considers dangerous or inflammatory for whatever reason (political dissent). I find both heinous, but they're different things, and one cuts deeper into the personal/ private sphere.
Yet I agree, when a particular bias cloaks itself in general principle, that can become a problem-- and pernicious, and even evil. Like those who would boycott Israel for "human rights violations," when what's really motivating them is merely pro-Palestinian bias.
The attack on the hockey player is an example of where that kind of blinkered focus can lead.
That Longoria catch is a great clip. The look on that reporter's face was classic.
It. Was. Fake.
They were filming a Gillete commercial. She's an actress.
Not classic. Fake.
Well now is the time for pushback. Strong pushback.
An editor at the BBC once said (2-3 years ago)that it was a lot better to print nasty stuff about Christians than Muzzies because Christians would only write angry letters.
Muzzies of course will blow up your office building and cut your head off.
I'm not saying Christians should do that--but a little more pushing wouldn't be bad.
Those headaches bothering you again, Cody?
Those headaches bothering you again, Cody?
sorry, what?
I wasn't aware forcing everybody to act as if they're happy over Teh Gheys forcing everybody to accommodate to their whims constituted a basic human right.
Try not to be a complete fuckin' retard, ed.
People forget that all this is NOT a "top down" Putin-inspired thing, but these laws flow from grass roots Russian public opinion that--rightly or wrongly--homosexuality is both morally wrong according to Russian Orthodox religious teaching and a cultural detriment to society in terms of both public health and overall debasement of cultural values. And further, that, bad enough as the pro-gay western media/film/music culture is in pushing their agenda by cultural osmosis, the West in general is seen as now trying to overtly force a debased and highly sexualized culture on Russia via political pressure from NGOs, etc, and Russia is resisting with Putin championing a cause already popular with a majority of grass-roots Russians.
"What we have here" , imo. really is a mini "Clash of Civilizations" and I'm not sure the Russian pov is totally wrong..
I'm saying that Russia has lots of curbs on freedom of expression, and I don't see why THIS PARTICULAR MEASURE warrants any response, as opposed to say opposition leaders being beaten, or jailed, or even killed.
Ah, the "people aren't complaining about the things that matter most to me" argument makes another appearance.
One obvious difference is that Russia didn't actually pass a law giving Putin permission to do those things. He does them illegally and gets away with them for the same reason that, e.g., Obama can get away with ignoring American laws: the people who enforce the laws work for him. Holding all of Russia responsible for Putin's thuggish behavior wouldn't really be fair.
The anti-gay laws, on the other hand, were enacted with overwhelming popular support from the Russian people. It is entirely fair to hold them accountable for that.
Why can't we leave Russia to the Russians and Syria to the Syrians and not be the world's thought police?
I'm reminded of the lefties who whined themselves in half when Reagan called the USSR an empire of evil.
He had committed the unpardonable sin of actually *believing* that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights. People capable of Nuance -- people capable of Seeing the Big Picture -- realized that quaint, outdated ideas like that had no place in a multicultural world. :)
And no, before someone takes offense, I am not equating this new law with the worst offenses of the USSR. I'm just pointing out the stupidity of adopting a "how dare you criticize Russia, they do things differently over there" view of the world. Our founders didn't believe that natural rights were restricted to the descendants of Englishmen, you know.
And I'm not a Christian, btw.
So maybe I can spot the hypocrisy more easily.
I say 'real' journalists as over there you point it out and you're dead. We have not reached that point here as yet, economic destruction working just as well for the moment.
True, but it edges into that territory, because they're lambasting him basically for the thought-crime of being Orthodox
Bullshit. Being Orthodox doesn't require a person to think speech the Orthodox church disagrees with should be illegal. It is possible to respect the basic human right to freedom of speech AND be a Christian, too.
Also, criticism -- however harsh -- doesn't "edge into the territory" of violating freedom of conscience. You want an example of something that violates freedom of conscience? Fining someone for saying "I think gay people should be allowed to get married". :)
and for what he didn't say.
Can we please stop pretending he didn't say he supported the law? He was asked a yes-or-no question about whether he agreed with the law and replied "I’m an Orthodox and that says it all". The Orthodox church endorsed the law. Do the math.
Datsyuk could have said "no comment". He could have said "none of your business", or "it isn't my place to say", or any of a thousand other ways of ducking the question. He opted instead to endorse the law; that makes him an asshole, and assholes are fair game for criticism.
Fucking Muzzies are the fucking religion of fucking peace. They're not supposed to blow up people either.
And when a Muslim stops by the comments to brag about how peaceful his religion is, I'll be sure to call him on HIS bullshit, too.
Looks like some of the Bon Homme of this blog birth has waned.
Good thing Johnny McCain isn't President. Otherwise, it'd be nuclear war toe-to-toe with the Rooskies.
But really--what's your point?
I wasn't complicated, but I'll spell it out for you: excusing someone's behavior, on the grounds that worse-behaved people exist, is pathetic.
That's the kind of argument children try on their parents -- "no fair, Billy's parents let HIM watch Nightmare on Elm Street!"
Though "Bon Homme" is an inprecise term I'll argue that it is even then more precise than any lefty argument.
It is too bad that the initially desired opposition POV here, ended up being... well, you know.
Being Orthodox doesn't require a person to think speech the Orthodox church disagrees with should be illegal. It is possible to respect the basic human right to freedom of speech AND be a Christian, too.
Yes, but-- isn't that a matter of conscience? Between him and his conscience. For some, adherence to their church's teaching (and what it endorses) is a matter of conscience.
Also, criticism -- however harsh -- doesn't "edge into the territory" of violating freedom of conscience. You want an example of something that violates freedom of conscience? Fining someone for saying "I think gay people should be allowed to get married". :)
Yes, but-- this is the kind of brouhaha that could lead to him getting fired (like the rodeo clown, like Paula Deen).
Look, I see your point (and agree to an extent), but here's where I'm coming from. This is a guy, a hockey player. Yes he's a public figure insofar as he's a hockey player, but other than that, pretty much, he minds his own business. He's not a pundit or public intellectual, pushing his beliefs and opinions on the public. He's asked a question. Yes, he could've said "no comment" (though I bet he would've been criticized for that, same inferences drawn). He gave an honest but taciturn answer. Basically, I have my own (religious) beliefs/ views, and that's my own business.
Can we please stop pretending he didn't say he supported the law?
I agree the more probable implication of his statement is that he's not against the law. But the answer was taciturn enough to leave some ambiguity-- in any case, he was reticent enough to avoid any kind of explicit advocacy or overt "support." By "what he didn't say," I did have this ambiguity partly in mind, but mostly what I meant was: what he didn't say is that he was against the law, and that is what he's guilty of. There's an element of coercion there: if you don't explicitly come out against the law, you're guilty (will be demonized by the media).
I agree with you that vigorous criticism-- even of religious or "private" beliefs, of matters of conscience-- is essential to free speech.
But I don't like this shaming of private individuals, who happen to hold "incorrect" views (even if I myself think they're incorrect, even despicable). Like I said, he's a public figure insofar as a he's a hockey player-- but he's just a hockey player, for god's sake. Why judge him as I would a pundit or political advocate (or a Hollywood celebrity who willingly & purposely broadcasts, indeed pushes their political or spiritual views on the world, unprompted)?
He has family in Russia. I'd give him a pass on that basis alone. Besides who's got the time to learn how to spell Russian hockey players' names?....Can't gay activists find someone with a more hostile attitude and legible name to protest against?
Looks like some of the Bon Homme of this blog birth has waned.
Oh, I don't think anyone here has really broken the spirit of bonhomie-- even if I've been called out for "bullshit." :-)
Heated political argument should be allowed and welcomed here. What's poisonous is when it starts getting too personal. Or too knee-jerk.
I think everyone here would have a beer with each other, even after a knock-down drag-out argument. That's not always the case, but here at Comment Home, it's much more the case than elsewhere, I think.
Didn't the famous captain of the Bon Homme Richard declare "I have not yet begun to fight!"?
He wound up playing bass for Led Zeppelin.
Rub a dub dub, three men and a tub, Bon Ami!
A very good post.
The anti-gay laws, on the other hand, were enacted with overwhelming popular support from the Russian people. It is entirely fair to hold them accountable for that.
It's entirely fair for Americans to hold Russians to American standards. Got it.
And it is totally unreasonable for Russians to hold Americans to Russian standards. Got it.
It all makes perfect sense now.
I'm reminded of the lefties who whined themselves in half when Reagan called the USSR an empire of evil.
Slight difference, as best I can tell. The USSR had as its stated goal to impose its own view of morality on everyone else in the world, by and and all means necessary.
This time around, the American left seems to want to impose ITS view of morality on everyone in the world, by any means necessary.
It's all perfectly clear.
Can't gay activists find someone with a more hostile attitude and legible name to protest against?
Yeah, and didn't they manage to pick the hockey player that DOESN'T get in fights for this? Get back to me when they find a Mohammedan hockey enforcer with AQ ties and a bad case of homophobia and criticize HIM - then we'll talk, LOL!
Yes, but-- isn't that a matter of conscience? Between him and his conscience.
You're making the same mistake many people make when talking about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. You're equating "freedom of _____" with "all forms of ______ should be considered valid and immune to criticism by anyone and everyone".
Yes, but-- this is the kind of brouhaha that could lead to him getting fired (like the rodeo clown, like Paula Deen).
So you don't think his employers should be free to follow *their* consciences?
He gave an honest but taciturn answer. Basically, I have my own (religious) beliefs/ views, and that's my own business.
You can say "my beliefs are nobody's business but mine" or you can tell other people what you believe. You can't do both. Once you open your yap and express an opinion, people have every right to judge you based on that opinion. And if your "honest and taciturn" opinion runs counter to the values of your host nation -- as happened here -- you can expect to hear some loud criticism of it.
It's entirely fair for Americans to hold Russians to American standards. Got it.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
You think that sentence is bullshit. I don't. We'll just have to agree to disagree, because you are not going to convince me that liberty is something only Americans are entitled to.
But America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit - John Adams
Thanks Rev, I never knew Thomas Jefferson was a Gay rights advocate.
You think that sentence is bullshit. I don't.
No, you stupid fuck, that's not what I think. What I think is that it isn't my job or my country's job to impose ITS standards on everyone else in the world, whether they want it or not. A statement of a belief in a principle isn't the same as supposing that this principle MUST be imposed on everyone everywhere for all time, or we will kill their stupid asses for not being as civilized as we are.
I'll note that the Founders didn't even think it was their job to impose those standards on THIS country at the time, even though they had the power and the authority to do so. And they certainly didn't seem all that interested in imposing those standards on any other country.
So, don't take up the hypocrisy argument with me, when your Holiest of Holy Men were a bunch of slave owning and slavery supporting BSers. They were interested in THEIR rights, not anyone else's, and the historic record supports that, not your crusading "We better kill everyone that doesn't agree with us for the purity of the Founders" crap.
Jesus Christ, how did the country end up full of such moronic self-glorifying twats?
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence....
I wonder what the pols a couple of generations later thought of that statement when they were stealing the half of Mexico that had all the paved roads.
phx said...
Some of you righties act like you're the only ones in the world who ever had to deal with zealots.
We do, they are called muslims and leftists. Oh and the POTUS. It's a tough world bro. We've bucked up and yet we still get kicked for it.
"I wonder what the pols a couple of generations later thought of that statement when they were stealing the half of Mexico that had all the paved roads."
What does this mean? When did Mexico get paved roads, 1910?
What does this mean? When did Mexico get paved roads, 1910?
It's a joke.
Oh, and one more thing: I wonder what the Founders would have thought of Gay Pride parades, and whether or not they would have been in favor of banning them and similar things.
Bueller? Bueller?
Post a Comment