GLR Forum

General Forum => Gay Culture => Topic started by: Ninja_monkey on Fri, Jun 09, 2006, 18:34

Title: OUT Mag Editor: 'Bowie' gay not 'Cher' gay...
Post by: Ninja_monkey on Fri, Jun 09, 2006, 18:34
...and one more demonstration that Andrew Sullivan is an idiot, as if one more were needed.

WWD: (http://wwd.com/issue/article/106942)

Quote
How gay is the new editor of Out? Not gay enough to avoid being mistaken for a heterosexual. When Aaron Hicklin, formerly editor in chief of Black Book, took the job back in April, the move was greeted enthusiastically by Andrew Sullivan, a gay columnist and blogger, who declared, "I think it's great that a straight guy is now heading up a gay magazine." Sullivan quickly corrected himself....

[OUT is not about to forsake its gay readership]... but the incident was prophetic, in a way. While Hicklin won't be altering Out's sexual identity, he does plan to make it, like his own, a bit harder to pin down. "My buzzword has been, 'Let's be [David] Bowie gay rather than Cher gay,'" he said this week, at the end of his first month on the job.

Am I mean for thinking that an editor's 'buzzword' ought to be... you know... a word, and not a phrase?
Title: Re: OUT Mag Editor: 'Bowie' gay not 'Cher' gay...
Post by: Feral on Fri, Jun 09, 2006, 20:26
Why, no.

A "buzzword" is, by definition, a single word--hence the name. If phrases were permissible, we'd call them "buzz-phrases."

Ah, the new generation....they make me want to (http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g156/coraldog/smiley/burningman.gif)
Title: Re: OUT Mag Editor: 'Bowie' gay not 'Cher' gay...
Post by: Mogul on Fri, Jun 09, 2006, 22:02
My first move was to write here cheerfully: "Who is Andrew Sullivan?", but my second move to make a brief Google search prevented me from revealing my shamefull ignorance.  ;D It seems that Mr. Sullivan is indeed an ... aehem ... slightly controversial person. Wikipedia says he is a "practicing Roman Catholic" and is believed to be of a " heterodox personal-political identity".

Quote
"Heterodoxy in the Roman Catholic Church refers to views that differ from strictly orthodox views, but retain sufficient faithfulness to the original doctrine to avoid heresy."

For me, being gay and Roman Catholic has something of incompatibility in principle, just like being Jew and member of the NSDAP.

But for sure, how gay one must be to be gay? Here and there I hear reports that some gay guys were not permitted to a disco because they were looking not "gay enough". Probably a reason not to date "straight-looking" boys - their weird looks can cause nothing but troubles!  :gi
Title: Re: OUT Mag Editor: 'Bowie' gay not 'Cher' gay...
Post by: Feral on Sat, Jun 10, 2006, 04:14
Quote
"Who is Andrew Sullivan?"

This is both extremely funny and no cause for concern: Many people have no idea who he is. In fact, a large number of gays are well-pleased to know as little as possible about him. In addition to being both gay and a Roman Catholic, he is prone to supporting a great many Republican causes, and has been an especially enthusiastic cheerleader for the current US administration's efforts in Iraq. I must confess that I have not read a word he has written since the last election (which proved sufficiently divisive to prompt me to evict all proponents of conservative thought from my daily reading). It is possible his views have moderated, though I doubt it. Comparisons involving Mr. Sullivan and the NSDAP are extreme -- some of his best writing is in defense of the rights of gays -- but I will not say that the analogy is incorrect. Indeed, it is far more correct than you imagine.

On many topics, he is well-spoken and eminently reasonable. His blog (http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/) is now associated with Time Magazine. Still, I do not recommend reading it.
Title: Re: OUT Mag Editor: 'Bowie' gay not 'Cher' gay...
Post by: Mogul on Mon, Jun 12, 2006, 16:33
I peered into Mr Sullivan's blog and I agree with your judgement on the missing necessity to read it - with one exception - the "The view from your Room". In a "Time" article (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1169898,00.html) Mr Sullivan writes:

"In retrospect, neoconservatives (and I fully include myself) made three huge errors. The first was to overestimate the competence of government, especially in very tricky areas like WMD intelligence. The shock of 9/11 provoked an overestimation of the risks we faced. And our fear forced errors into a deeply fallible system. When doubts were raised, they were far too swiftly dismissed. The result was the WMD intelligence debacle, something that did far more damage to the war's legitimacy and fate than many have yet absorbed."

Oh yes, as human creatures we all are imperfect. The only thing I would like to know is why these guys were playing dumb when the rest of the world was telling them they were doing wrong? And why they preferred allies like Sudan to democratic countries from the "old Europe", and refused to take any good advice from good friends? Certainly, one shall expect some competence from one's government, but it can't go through as explanation in cases of obvious and visible incapability of a particular administration. The only way to miss the true nature of Mr Bushs government was by willingly switching off one's brain - a very poor explanation fo one's misjudgement.