Box Turtle Bulletin

I liked the sense of humor in the original~

Not to say “nooo you shouldn’t have changed it” because geez, no matter what you do you can’t please everyone. Just an encouragement that the original was not completely out of line, in one reader’s opinion.

michael

i’m with mana. the original post was really cool. it was a fun change of pace. some people just don’t get satire—i hate having to cater to them

rusty

I heart ROB and all of his brilliant writings. Kudos to you. I do like the first and this revision also.

a.mcewen

Yeah I liked the original headline. I once did that in a piece I titled “Should white women be teaching our children.”

Through it, I compared one incident of a gay man molesting a child to several incidents of white teachers having sex with children in order to poke fun at the religious right’s need to blow the incident with the gay man out of proportion to demonize the entire gay community.

The title did catch a lot of attention.

johnathan

Well, I appreciate the change in the article. I also appreciate satire. Thank you, Rob!

To Michael: I suppose my offense related to the issue of demonizing one disenfranchised population at the expense of another in an article. If you notice the degree to which the overweight populace is currently discriminated against in society, you might understand why some readers here might take offense. There are many, many overweight people who are not “Kate Moss, bone skinny” who have medical conditions which impede them from losing weight, regardless of all effort on their part. We do not wear a scarlet letter differentiating us from the societal perception of the obese as being a mere “lazy populace, unable to fit into the world of “the real gay community.” However, the cultural messages teach us that it is “our fault” we are heavy, because, like being gay, we could change if we want to, etc. Watch all of the television advertisements, as well as all of the television representations of the overweight (most are not as positive as the “others.”)

And, in the gay [male] community: We are not always welcomed with open arms by the people with oiled legs and shaved chests at the White Party. Not all overweight gay men are “Bears” or “Cubs.” (However, this is just my experience in MY generation. Perhaps — and again — this is my personal observation and an outward assumption at large.)

On behalf of myself, as a member of two minority populations (an overweight gay male), forgive me for wanting to be “catered to” every now and then. Further, I’m sorry for my assumption that I MIGHT not be the only person who took offense to the first part of the article. (You know what they say about assumptions… :-) )

Please accept my apologies.

enough already

Personally,
I enjoyed the freshness of the first version.
This hyper-political correctness atmosphere is stifling far too much creativity.

That said, your point is very valid (horribly so, considering what’s happening in Arkansas right now, something your article, both in the double plus good version and the enormously more creative original foreshadowed.

Frankly, it is time for us to get over ourselves. There are more important problems for our gay, lesbian and transgender communities than whether we should use the term “twink” or not.

There will always be a large group of gay men who are so into the body culture of being young, muscular and endowed. That’s their world, it doesn’t need to define anything for the rest of us.

Adam

jonathan – I’m curious. To what degree are overweight people discriminated against in society, and what forms does this discrimination take?

andrew

Nicely done. The most important thing is the message, and if your message is obscured by style, then the job’s not getting done — it’s not necessarily offensive per se… it can be tedious, or obnoxious, or just immature-sounding (it depends on the piece). The important thing is the message and sounding like someone to take note of.

Thanks for hearing the readers out. At the end of the day, y’all have the editorial control. This version carries a pretty potent punch without distraction.

while i was taken aback for the few seconds it took me to read the initial part of your original post – i found it an effective rhetorical device and in no way offensive once i read the entire article

werdna

@Adam-

There’s a lot of scholarship documenting ways that fat folks are discriminated against. For instance, there are pretty clear patterns of discrimination in terms of hiring and wages, especially with regard to overweight women.

Here’s an article from May of this year reporting on a study of weight status and bullying which found that “…the odds of being bullied were 63 percent higher for an obese child.”

This article reviews a number of studies, focusing on attitudes among health care providers. From the first paragraph:

…28% of teachers in one study said that becoming obese is the worst thing that can happen to a person; 24% of nurses said they are ‘repulsed’ by obese persons; and, controlling for income and grades, parents provide less college support for their overweight children than for their thin children.

Folks might also be interested in this article by Paul Campos in the New Republic responding to Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity initiative. He argues that “obesity” is a poorly-defined and misleading proxy for health and that it would be better to focus on nutrition and exercise than on weight.

Start googling terms like “obesity discrimination” and you’ll find plenty more.

Amicus

Hi Rob, I missed the saucy original, whatever it was, but I think you might want “Equivalence Fallacy”, rather than the double negative.

Reducing obesity _in general_ has a medical foundation in good health practices, so it is okay, wihtin reason, to even make a more appeal for ‘people to take care of themselves’.

Denouncing gays has no such scientific or medical foundation, so making a similar moral appeal is violently aggressive, mean spirited, and coarse.

As noted, the two are not equivalent, even if sometimes the language used appears to overlap.

Priya Lynn

I thought the original version highlighted Harvey’s hypocrisy better.

Adam

werdna – Thank you very much for this information, I’ll read it with interest. :)

Rob Tisinai

http://wakingupnow.com/blog/a-blog-post-about-a-blog-post

The reaction to the original post and to the revision has been fascinating. I’m interested in hearing more from people over which version they found more effective. I’ve opened up a conversation about this on my personal blog, where you can view a reprint of the original version. If you’re interested in messaging tone and messaging style, please offer your thoughts. (You’re welcome to offer them here, as well, of course).

“This hyper-political correctness atmosphere is stifling far too much creativity.”

Speaking of equivalencies, a lot of people think LGBT rights is “hyper-political correctness.”

I always find it unfortunate when members of some minority groups center their particular oppression and minimize the oppression that other groups face.

Also, what happened to the original post here and comments?

You’re prelude to this revised version suggests that your critics were just being over-sensitive, hyper-politically correct ninnies.

Yet, my criticism for instance, wasn’t just that your post was offensive, but (1) that that particular rhetorical device minimized the real harassment that overweight people experience every day and (2) you seem unaware of the fact that Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity program really has been criticized for reinforcing fat hatred.

It’s disappointing that you wouldn’t let people read for themselves what the actual criticisms of your post were.

Rob Tisinai

“Youâ€™re prelude to this revised version suggests that your critics were just being over-sensitive, hyper-politically correct ninnies.”

Wow. That’s so far away from what I said that I’m not even sure we can communicate.

In any case, I’ve provided a link to the original version on my personal blog, where you’ll find exactly the sort of criticism you’re talking about.

Anna

“This is revised version of an earlier post, which some people found offensive. I try not to worry about offending people (I hate this increasingly popular notion that to offend someone is to do them harm), but in this case the rhetorical device seemed to overshadow the point itself.”

In this remark, you say that people merely were offended, and seem to suggest that their focus on the offensiveness was the problem. Fannie’s argument was that your article did cause harm by ignoring how overweight people are actually treated.

And you did, by deleting the article, delete all the comments and are forcing critics to repeat themselves if they want to be heard. I know that when this happens to me I am thrown off and never able to articulate myself quite as well.

Rob, I don’t mean to misinterpret you, but perhaps you can elaborate upon:

“I try not to worry about offending people (I hate this increasingly popular notion that to offend someone is to do them harm),”

To me, that suggests a disinterest in catering to “political correctness” and that you also believe that those who are offended by something you write have not actually been harmed and are just being over-sensitive.

I don’t think my interpretation of your words is radical, but I do welcome your clarification.

That sentiment certainly is echoed by others here.

And yes, I’ve re-read the original at your personal blog. I’m speaking to my disappointment that the original comments here at BTB are no longer up. They were constructive and in no way in violation of the comment policy here.

werdna

@Rob-

I think you’re being a bit disingenuous to deny that there’s a dismissive element in the prelude to your revised post. Did people claim that they were offended (or harmed) by your original post or did they offer specific objections to the way you framed things? We’ll never know of course, since those comments have vanished down the memory hole. It would have been more interesting for you to have addressed the substance of the concerns and criticisms that people raised about the original post.

AlexH

I just read the original and the revised version, and I think the original packs more of a punch.

Is it hurtful? Sure it is, but isn’t that the point?

Simply replacing the word “gay” with “overweight” and we see how ludicrous Harvey’s statements are.

Readers of BTB already know this, but others who are on the fence or have no opinion on gay rights might not get the connection until they are given another reference point.

Isn’t that what we want people to understand?

The revised piece is just more of the same: religious leader denounces gays, sidesteps culpability for gay teen bullying and suicides–blog site with majority LGBT readers reports it.

AlexH

I’d like to see some of the comments on the original post btw.

Alex, my point was that, yes, it might seem edgy, shocking, and effective to some people to replace “overweight” and “gay.”

However, many fat people do feel as though they experience a similar sort of shaming from society(including some of the rhetoric in Obama’s “anti-obesity” campaign), but to use the overweight/gay replacement as a rhetorical device implies that fat people do not actually have these shaming experiences and that only gay kids do. So yeah, I find the rhetorical device offensive, but it’s also inaccurate.

Rob Tisinai

@Werdna: “I think youâ€™re being a bit disingenuous to deny that thereâ€™s a dismissive element in the prelude to your revised post.”

Actually, that’s not what I denied. I denied that I regard those who were offended as “over-sensitive, hyper-politically correct ninnies.”

As for my determination not to worry too much about offending people, I think a good thing for every blogger and writer. It doesn’t mean you regard those who were offended as “ninnies.”

Rob Tisinai

When I deleted the original post, the comments disappeared with it. Here they are:

Don’t you think that title might be a tad inappropriate? I realize it’s your call, but that might be going a bit far just to snag attention.
— David Roberts

I agree with David.

Using this particular rhetorical device seems to minimize the fact that overweight kids really are vehemently bullied and that Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign really has been criticized as reinforcing fat hatred.
–fannie

While I value BTB for the news and insight, I also value BTB for its opinion pieces and articles.

I [used to] value BTB for its honesty and dignity in articles (i.e., its article titles). Like David and Fannie, I strongly believe the title is inappropriate. As an overweight gay man, I will go further and say I am repulsed by content of this article until, “…[S]he still doesn’t think she and her anti-gay cohorts bear any responsibility for anti-gay bullying.” (Of course, the “she” to whom I am referring here is Linda Harvey, NOT Michelle Obama.) I hope BTB readers, like myself, can see more honesty and dignity — even in opinion articles — which was present in the past. (I know some readers, MAY not agree with my sentiments, but I am also certain I am not alone.)
–jonathan

Rob,

I hear what you’re saying, but I have to contextualize this for you. Increasingly, BTB has used “provocative” misleading headlines and substituted opinion — sometimes shrill and worse — for analysis. Perhaps wading through the muck of the anti-gay and radical right — for whome these kinds of rhetorical abuses are commonplace — has started to desensitize folks there at BTB.

I urge you to reconsider your headline, and to try work toward reinforcing those aspects of BTB that are credible and laudible, rather than contributing to the downward spiral of this site.

The keys here are whether or not BTB can be considered either serious or sober, and whether BTB wants to be considered a bona fide place for analysis, or whether you want to be dismissed as juvenile, reactionary, or lacking a mature, sober voice on issues that concern the LGBTQ community.

I would suggest that there are too few voices and the stakes are too high for gimmicks and nonsense.

We need outlets like BTB.

But not if you’re going to play it like this.
–Andrew

AlexH

I agree with you, fannie, that society –including the gay community– does judge and make overweight people feel shame and embarrassment for their size.

But I didn’t read the implication in the original piece that overweight kids/people don’t experience bullying and shame from the world and only gay kids do.

Well, as a blogger and a writer myself, I prefer to care about whether my writing offends people and instead not care whether other people’s criticism offends me.

AlexH- the rhetorical device only “works” if overweight kids aren’t actually bullied, otherwise the replacement is pointless, no?

AlexH

I see your point, fannie.

I was actually looking at the article with the idea that someone who read it, might not think that what Harvey has said about gay people was hurtful. So by using the analogy of the overweight–something that the reader might be able to grasp or feel some empathy about–they’d understand how hurtful caustic comments about gays can be and how deep the impact is felt.

I see what you’re saying, too, Alex, and I appreciate your concessions. Maybe the rhetorical device is effective for people who are incapable of “getting” how hurtful Harvey’s words are to gay kids.

At the same time, I don’t think we’re at the point yet where many people “get” how hurtful fat shaming is to fat kids. For instance, I think many people actually would agree that “Feeling repulsed by [fat people] isnâ€™t merely acceptable, rather ‘repulsion is a natural defense against something that is absolutely wrong for you.’â€

enough already

Fannie,
Your baseless assumptions are precisely what I meant when I mentioned the absurd levels of political correctness we have confounded and shackled ourselves with on the left side of politics.

Does that mean I support racism? No.

Does that mean I haven’t fought hard for gay, lesbian and transgender rights? No.

And, no, I refuse to play the alphabet soup game. “Queer” is a good word, but too little used. As for the rest – questioning, str8, bi-, ally, et cetra, ad nauseum…well, if they support the return of my civil and human rights, fine. But they aren’t openly calling themselves homosexual, they aren’t stuck in the wrong body for their true gender. It’s GLT or, if the wind blows that way LGT or, if I’m in the mood, TLG.

Homosexuals and the transgender are born the way we are. Our immutable characteristics do not lead to our oppression, rather it is fear of our not fitting into the mold your mindset of censored speech desires which causes us to be so horribly attacked.

Does that mean I buy into the youth/appearance cult of so much of gay culture? No.

Does that mean I don’t support those of us whose manner is more closely aligned to that of the stereotypical ‘norm’ of the heteronbormative opposite gender? No.

Am I mightily tired of the humorless, attack first, think never approach of the PC-Police? Yes.

You get more flies with honey than vinegar. Your approach is far closer in tone to the christianists than to liberationists. In the end, you both want to impose ‘your’ views of correctness on everyone else.

Get over yourself. It’s to no small part the result of your approach that we lost the white, male, working class vote – and are paying dearly for it now.

hammerpants

Enough already: “Your baseless assumptions are precisely what I meant when I mentioned the absurd levels of political correctness we have confounded and shackled ourselves with on the left side of politics.”

What “baseless assumptions” is Fannie making?

Enough already: “… it is fear of our not fitting into the mold your mindset of censored speech desires which causes us to be so horribly attacked.”

From what I read hear, Fannie is not advocating for censored speech. If that’s what you’re reading, can you please point to specifics in Fannie’s argument? It seems she is making a critique of this post (and its original) by arguing that the rhetorical device neglects the fact that anti-fat hate is often as common as anti-gay hate, and therefore is both naive and ineffective with many audiences. Her critique is clear and well-argued. Fine if you disagree, but it seems the point of these comment threads is dialog. Critique should not be mistaken for a position that advocates censorship.

Are you also pointing blame at Fannie and others who are sensitive to the issues of other minority groups for attacks on LGBT people? If not, which attacks are you referring to? Can you elaborate? This sure sounds like victim-blaming. I believe its oppressors inability to recognize our shared humanity that leads to our oppression, not our embracing of other minority groups.

Enough already: “You get more flies with honey than vinegar. Your approach is far closer in tone to the christianists than to liberationists. In the end, you both want to impose â€˜yourâ€™ views of correctness on everyone else.”

What “flies” are you trying to attract and what are you willing to sacrifice to attract them? I read a whole lot of vinegar in your comments.

From what I’ve read, Fannie is making an argument. How is she imposing her views on you or anyone else?

Enough already: “Get over yourself. Itâ€™s to no small part the result of your approach that we lost the white, male, working class vote â€“ and are paying dearly for it now.”

Who is “we” in this statement? And what issues are should “we” be willing to compromise on to win the “white, male, working class vote?”

Priya Lynn

Hammerpants said “Who is â€œweâ€ in this statement?”.

I’m pretty sure the “we” he was referring to is the LGBT community.

enough already

Hammerpants,
Take a look at the first two posts by fannie. Those are in no way argumentative?
Puhlease, Mary.

But since you obviously are up on your high horse, I’ll respond to your very long missive (I’d call it a pointed response, but you’d pretend it was an honest attempt at communication. I do know how the game is played, even if I have had it up to here with that style.

hammerpants
October 28th, 2010 | LINK

Enough already: â€œYour baseless assumptions are precisely what I meant when I mentioned the absurd levels of political correctness we have confounded and shackled ourselves with on the left side of politics.â€

What â€œbaseless assumptionsâ€ is Fannie making?

Enough already: â€œâ€¦ it is fear of our not fitting into the mold your mindset of censored speech desires which causes us to be so horribly attacked.â€

From what I read hear, Fannie is not advocating for censored speech. If thatâ€™s what youâ€™re reading, can you please point to specifics in Fannieâ€™s argument? It seems she is making a critique of this post (and its original) by arguing that the rhetorical device neglects the fact that anti-fat hate is often as common as anti-gay hate, and therefore is both naive and ineffective with many audiences. Her critique is clear and well-argued. Fine if you disagree, but it seems the point of these comment threads is dialog. Critique should not be mistaken for a position that advocates censorship.

((Fannie is ignoring the entire basis of the argument, to whit, taking a very valid endeavor on the part of the wife of the American president, and using it to illustrate the absurdity of attacking us. This was once a common rhetorical style, no longer permitted under the reign of the PC-Police.))

((Perhaps I was too obscure, more likely, having already pre-judged me, you were incapable of understanding my comment. Here again, in other words. There is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuals and the transgender. The problem lies not with our differences to the heterosexual, respectively, to those whose physical reality is in alignment with their true gender. The problem, rather, arises from the fear of those who are frightened by people who are different to themselves – whether in sexual orientation, or gender expression, or body weight, or other appearance or manner. Was that clear enough for you? I don’t give a flying fish sandwich what Slaggy Gilamonster thinks, she’s dead wrong. My being gay is a good thing. Clear enough?))

Enough already: â€œYou get more flies with honey than vinegar. Your approach is far closer in tone to the christianists than to liberationists. In the end, you both want to impose â€˜yourâ€™ views of correctness on everyone else.â€

What â€œfliesâ€ are you trying to attract and what are you willing to sacrifice to attract them? I read a whole lot of vinegar in your comments.
((Sigh. Fine, whatever, when we lose big time on Tuesday, keep telling yourself that belittling the white, male, not-overly-well-educated men was a good way to achieve equality for us. Well, for me, at least – you probably oppose gay marriage on the principle that my freedom to marry would limit your rights.))
From what Iâ€™ve read, Fannie is making an argument. How is she imposing her views on you or anyone else?
((Read Fannie’s first two posts, again. Oh, and how do we know that Fannie prefers the female pronomina?))
Enough already: â€œGet over yourself. Itâ€™s to no small part the result of your approach that we lost the white, male, working class vote â€“ and are paying dearly for it now.â€

Who is â€œweâ€ in this statement? And what issues are should â€œweâ€ be willing to compromise on to win the â€œwhite, male, working class vote?â€
((The we is those of us who want freedom for gays, lesbians and the transgender. Which is obvious to anyone who is not being intentionally obtuse. No compromise needed, and I was chased by the dogs in Atlanta as a child marching for civil rights so don’t need a lecture by you on activism. What is needed, however, is to stop making enemies out of those who might easily be neutral or mildly open to our demand for our rights. Oh, by “our” and “rights”, I mean – typing slowly here, so you’ll get it – full human status and full civil rights for gays, lesbians and the transgender.

Sheesh. I prefer open hostility to your failed attempt at open discourse.

enough already,

I can see that I have become a symbol to you of Everything That Is Wrong With Leftists.

We have gone from having a relatively civil conversation about how some of us were taking issue with an inappropriate rhetorical device to a tangential conversation about how sucky it is for you to endure “the alphabet soup game” and the humorless “PC Police.”

If you leave this conversation knowing nothing else about my position, I want you to know the following:

1) I rendered a criticism of Rob’s post because, yes, I found it offensive but also because it contained an inaccurate (and therefore bad) rhetorical device. Refer to my conversation with AlexH if you seek understanding on that point.

2) I rendered a criticism of Rob’s post. To render a criticism of what someone writes is not to “impose” my views on that person, nor is it “censorship.” Refer to the First Amendment if you are unclear as to how civil discourse works.

3) On that point, you wrote:

“Take a look at the first two posts by fannie. Those are in no way argumentative?”

In addition to agreeing with a blog author, I was under the impression that a comment section is also for arguing. BTB folks are welcome to clarify if they do not wish for commenters to engage argumentatively with their blog posts.

4) You also explain, “You get more flies with honey than vinegar.”

Indeed.

That’s probably why you called my criticism part of the “humorless, attack first, think never approach of the PC-Police?,” proceeded to blame me for attacks on our community, told me to “get over myself,” and then blamed me for working class men not supporting LGBT rights.

Honestly, I am appalled at your reaction and at your heinous victim-blaming. Both hammerpants and me are part of the LGBT community too. We just both agree (as do many others, that other oppressed groups deserve respect ESPECIALLY if we demand them to respect us and our rights in return.

To holy hell if I’m going to compromise those values to keep the “respect” of the Poor White Men who suffer oh so badly when leftists call them out on their privilege and bigotry.

And about that PC Police bit. See, I’ve been around the internets engaging with people for many years now and what I’ve found is that when people whine about the “PC police” what they’re really looking for is a free pass to be rude and insensitive to anyone other than their own pet oppressed group.

hammerpants

Enough already â€“Â

When you said:
“Get over yourself. Itâ€™s to no small part the result of your approach that we lost the white, male, working class vote â€“ and are paying dearly for it now.”

I responded by asking who you meant by “we” because it sounded as though you were blaming the inclusive mindset of people like Fannie, who seek to be respectful allies to other oppressed groups, for the lack of support the LGBT community gets from white working class men.

As a LESBIAN MYSELF, I am not willing to sacrifice my commitment to treat others with dignity and respect (call it being overly PC if you will) in order to attract those who “don’t want to hear it” from whiny minorities. How can I demand respect and tolerance when I don’t treat others with respect and tolerance? So I take issue with you acting like its people like Fannie who ruin it for the rest of “us” because the rest of us include fat gays, fat trans, fat black lesbians in wheelchairs, etc. I’m not saying you are racist, I’m just pointing out that there are many identities in the LGBT community, and we shouldn’t neglect that or alienate those who share multiple oppressed identities. So while I appreciate your concern for winning people over, I don’t agree that we as a community should compromise our values to do it. Nor should we point fingers at those among us who are allies to oppressed people and blame them for the movement’s lack of success with white men. IF I had to choose (and I don’t think I should have to) I’d rather win over everyone but the white straight men. They’re sure outnumberd.

Rob Tisinai

@fannie: “the rhetorical device only â€œworksâ€ if overweight kids arenâ€™t actually bullied, otherwise the replacement is pointless, no?”

Actually, no, I don’t this is an accurate critique. In fact, I think you have it exactly backwards. The device works only if it DOES reference an oppressed group (a group chosen not by me, btw, but by the woman I’m critiquing).

The point is to show how shocking Linda Harvey comments about gays are. The device works because it shocks people to think, “Could the First Lady have actually said that?” If I had chosen some other group, well, first it wouldn’t make sense because it would have no connection to Linda Harvey’s comments.

But more importantly, if I HAD chosen an unbullied groups, (say, people who’s names begin with “j”) then there would have been no shock, just a reaction of “what the hell is he talking about?”

The device works only because it is genuinely shocking to think of Michelle Obama (specifically, Michelle Obama) saying this about the overweight. Without that, the rhetorical device would not work at all. Now, you can argue that it was cheap, or inappropriate, or perpetuating a problem (though I wouldn’t necessarily agree), but it’s definitely not true that “the rhetorical device only â€œworksâ€ if overweight kids arenâ€™t actually bullied.”

Archie Bunker

Lots of straight, white, working class men are overweight. And like I was just saying to Homer the other day, I’m getting really sick of you queers making fat jokes about us.

enough already