<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bristol Palin&#8217;s gay jibe at Margaret Cho</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/12/06/28254/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/12/06/28254</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:49:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Soren456</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/12/06/28254/comment-page-1#comment-84521</link>
		<dc:creator>Soren456</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2010 02:44:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=28254#comment-84521</guid>
		<description>&quot;Common sense&quot; and &quot;commonsense&quot; are the new synonyms for ignorant and ignorance.

&quot;Common sense&quot; insists on a clarity, simplicity and directness that just don&#039;t exist in the world; those who speak of it can&#039;t see, and so don&#039;t respect, the complexity in social issues, which are, to them, without nuance or shades of gray.

As Sarah continues to troll in public, her use of those terms will increase and she, and the public she attracts, will believe that they actually know something.

They ought to recall, however, that &quot;common sense&quot; once had the sun going around the Earth, and the Earth flat. You could look out and see that it was true; it was common sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Common sense&#8221; and &#8220;commonsense&#8221; are the new synonyms for ignorant and ignorance.</p>
<p>&#8220;Common sense&#8221; insists on a clarity, simplicity and directness that just don&#8217;t exist in the world; those who speak of it can&#8217;t see, and so don&#8217;t respect, the complexity in social issues, which are, to them, without nuance or shades of gray.</p>
<p>As Sarah continues to troll in public, her use of those terms will increase and she, and the public she attracts, will believe that they actually know something.</p>
<p>They ought to recall, however, that &#8220;common sense&#8221; once had the sun going around the Earth, and the Earth flat. You could look out and see that it was true; it was common sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MarcusT</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/12/06/28254/comment-page-1#comment-84510</link>
		<dc:creator>MarcusT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 20:28:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=28254#comment-84510</guid>
		<description>Uh, I&#039;m not seeing any &quot;snarky little jibe&quot; in this one.  Sure, it&#039;s an obnoxious use of sterotype, and randomly referencing an openly queer woman when writing something directed at another queer woman does suggest that lesbians/bi women are all a collective in the writer&#039;s mind, but I just can&#039;t see any kind of intent here.  Cho is an out bisexual (iirc), so it&#039;s not like implying she&#039;s gay would have any impact as an insult. What would the &quot;tasteless zinger&quot; even be?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Uh, I&#8217;m not seeing any &#8220;snarky little jibe&#8221; in this one.  Sure, it&#8217;s an obnoxious use of sterotype, and randomly referencing an openly queer woman when writing something directed at another queer woman does suggest that lesbians/bi women are all a collective in the writer&#8217;s mind, but I just can&#8217;t see any kind of intent here.  Cho is an out bisexual (iirc), so it&#8217;s not like implying she&#8217;s gay would have any impact as an insult. What would the &#8220;tasteless zinger&#8221; even be?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: justsearching</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/12/06/28254/comment-page-1#comment-84502</link>
		<dc:creator>justsearching</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 17:11:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=28254#comment-84502</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re right in that most are not. Some are theocratic and hateful and although they call themselves &quot;conservatives,&quot; conservatism has little to do with their opposition to gay marriage. I&#039;m just saying that a Burkean conservative could go either way on the issue of gay marriage.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re right in that most are not. Some are theocratic and hateful and although they call themselves &#8220;conservatives,&#8221; conservatism has little to do with their opposition to gay marriage. I&#8217;m just saying that a Burkean conservative could go either way on the issue of gay marriage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: L. Junius Brutus</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/12/06/28254/comment-page-1#comment-84501</link>
		<dc:creator>L. Junius Brutus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 17:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=28254#comment-84501</guid>
		<description>Justsearching, do you really think that the people who call themselves conservatives (especially the crazy nutjobs of the religious right) are Burkean conservatives? Theocrats are not conservatives, they are radicals.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Justsearching, do you really think that the people who call themselves conservatives (especially the crazy nutjobs of the religious right) are Burkean conservatives? Theocrats are not conservatives, they are radicals.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/12/06/28254/comment-page-1#comment-84500</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:25:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=28254#comment-84500</guid>
		<description>Sarah Palin 2.0</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sarah Palin 2.0</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: justsearching</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/12/06/28254/comment-page-1#comment-84499</link>
		<dc:creator>justsearching</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=28254#comment-84499</guid>
		<description>Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism, emphasized that society ought not to change too quickly, that the changes which seem &quot;wise&quot; to the intellectuals and professionals of the day might actually have unforeseen unwanted social consequences, and that leaders and thinkers need to be less impatient and have a greater respect for the treasured institutions of the day. Sure, most psychologists and sociologists and historians and bloggers say that there wouldn&#039;t be any future turmoil if we allow gays to marry, but might they be wrong?

I know there is a conservative tradition of a less intrusive government, but there&#039;s also a conservative vision of conserving, in large part, the status quo.

That&#039;s why, in my mind, allowing gay marriage is a squarely liberal idea t hough I&#039;m glad there are conservatives on board too. :D I grant that there is the conservative idea of preventing government intrusion which could support the idea of gay marriage, and it could be argued that the conservation of the institution of marriage is achieved if we tweak it and open it up to LGBT. Thus far, though, the majority of self-proclaimed conservatives would deny that the former two arguments fit into their understanding of conservatism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism, emphasized that society ought not to change too quickly, that the changes which seem &#8220;wise&#8221; to the intellectuals and professionals of the day might actually have unforeseen unwanted social consequences, and that leaders and thinkers need to be less impatient and have a greater respect for the treasured institutions of the day. Sure, most psychologists and sociologists and historians and bloggers say that there wouldn&#8217;t be any future turmoil if we allow gays to marry, but might they be wrong?</p>
<p>I know there is a conservative tradition of a less intrusive government, but there&#8217;s also a conservative vision of conserving, in large part, the status quo.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s why, in my mind, allowing gay marriage is a squarely liberal idea t hough I&#8217;m glad there are conservatives on board too. :D I grant that there is the conservative idea of preventing government intrusion which could support the idea of gay marriage, and it could be argued that the conservation of the institution of marriage is achieved if we tweak it and open it up to LGBT. Thus far, though, the majority of self-proclaimed conservatives would deny that the former two arguments fit into their understanding of conservatism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: L. Junius Brutus</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/12/06/28254/comment-page-1#comment-84494</link>
		<dc:creator>L. Junius Brutus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:14:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=28254#comment-84494</guid>
		<description>Wasilla hillbillies indeed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wasilla hillbillies indeed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roger</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/12/06/28254/comment-page-1#comment-84492</link>
		<dc:creator>Roger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 14:21:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=28254#comment-84492</guid>
		<description>&quot;what she really supports is less government interference in her life and much much much more in mine.&quot; --truer words were never spoken</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;what she really supports is less government interference in her life and much much much more in mine.&#8221; &#8211;truer words were never spoken</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lucrece</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/12/06/28254/comment-page-1#comment-84489</link>
		<dc:creator>Lucrece</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 13:45:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=28254#comment-84489</guid>
		<description>I despise the Palins, but this is clearly the case of gay people jumping to the defense of an ally who did wrong.


You see, if Cho really considered Bristol Palin a &quot;friend&quot;, she wouldn&#039;t have been so rude as to publicly state that Bristol was pressured into the show by some tyranical, calculating mother.

Bristol responded in a juvenile fashion-- unsurprising considering her age. But Cho is old enough to know better than go gossip-mongering and making rude claims about family dynamics of her &quot;friends&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I despise the Palins, but this is clearly the case of gay people jumping to the defense of an ally who did wrong.</p>
<p>You see, if Cho really considered Bristol Palin a &#8220;friend&#8221;, she wouldn&#8217;t have been so rude as to publicly state that Bristol was pressured into the show by some tyranical, calculating mother.</p>
<p>Bristol responded in a juvenile fashion&#8211; unsurprising considering her age. But Cho is old enough to know better than go gossip-mongering and making rude claims about family dynamics of her &#8220;friends&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: swampfox</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/12/06/28254/comment-page-1#comment-84488</link>
		<dc:creator>swampfox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 13:41:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=28254#comment-84488</guid>
		<description>Look at the Man with whom she had a child. She along with Levi need to fade from the scene.  She has no class.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Look at the Man with whom she had a child. She along with Levi need to fade from the scene.  She has no class.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
