Yes, I know what you see when you look at this. You see some wood, flowers.. on a deeper level, maybe you think of suburban domesticity- rustic Americana- perhaps you even conjure the image of Tom Sawyer, cleverly convincing his friends to paint..

yet I think it's appropriate to examine the violence and horror these sorts of images, not to mention the concepts behind them, enable in society and the world at large.

First off, a fence- what is a fence, but something designed to a) keep something out, b) keep something in, or even worse, c) both at the same time(!!!)

It's worth remembering that The Berlin Wall strike that, The Israeli enclosure around Gaza, is really nothing more than a fence- a big concrete fence, but a fence nonetheless. Where you find a fence, you find entitlement and imperialism on one side, and oppressed peoplez on the other. Always. (I'm looking at you, Mr. Ward motherfucking cleaver!)

And then we have the whole phallocentric implications of the fence post itself, which is -often as not- made of wood. see where I'm going with this? See how fences are the first step towards violence, oppression, and ultimately, genocide and complete pan-galactic annihilation?

Fences are the ultimate expression of the male gaze impulse to other... I'll keep you on your side of the fence, where I can turn you into an object for my amusement and maybe borrow your weed whacker without returning it. I can do this because my penis-fence has turned you into a thing, you see.

It's very simple. Fences, not just fences but pictures of fences, the idea of fences and even the word fences which like Koyanissqatsi I shouldn't even be saying out loud because of it's totemic mojo-like ability to perpetuate the phenomenon I am expressing concern about yet somehow I keep saying fences fences fences fences yes fences are responsible for societal harm and hurt. They are the first step down the primrose (fence-lined?) path towards injustice.

Am I saying fences are singlehandedly responsible for all the war, violence, and kidney problems in the world? Well, sort of. I mean yes, but first I'm going to direct my teams of highly scientifical-sounding sociology research groups to spend several years doing research on the matter, after which we will present our findings on the internet and in a documentary at the Sundance Film Festival.

Stay Tuned.

remdi95

Personally, I don't think it should matter whether it's a choice or not, and yes, personally, I think my brain is flexible enough to accept that some people are gay, some people are straight, some people are bi, and much of sexuality runs along a spectrum whereby not everyone fits into a neat little box.

My other point, which maybe I didn't communicate clearly, is that "choice" itself- what constitutes choice- is a thorny philosophical issue that I think is a fascinating topic, notwithstanding the fact that I don't think the "dumb ones" are even capable of gnawing on that sort of metaphysical bone. It's sort of like "God"... Okay, for the purposes of political discussion in this country, I self identify as an Atheist (and a Taoist, and a Buddhist, after a fashion, etc.) -- I self Identify as an Atheist because under the limited, low-brow terms of the debate, for most purposes in this country, that's what I am. I *don't* believe in anything resembling the "God" of the big Western Monotheisms, for instance.

But -and this is the discussion I don't normally get into- to call oneself an Atheist depends, to an extent, on a definition of what, precisely, you're not believing in. Is it 'any supernatural beings'? Okay, define that. My point is that "God" is such an opaque, ill-defined concept that calling myself an "Atheist", although a solid working description for the purposes of political discussion, is not necessarily a complete label or even true-in-all-cases. Dig?

Similarly, with "choice" or "innate"... I accept that for most people, sexual orientation seems to be hard-wired from early on, i.e. innate. And for purposes of political discussion, I strongly support the right of consenting adults to make their own decisions, i.e. choices. This assumes, (and for purposes of, say, legislation I absolutely do) that I believe "choice" is something fundamental that consenting adults are capable of making, free-will-exists-in-a-vacuum-as-a-platonic-ideal, that sort of thing. But I also think it's a fascinating question (having spent plenty of time around, for instance, addicts) as to exactly how much of what we think are our free will decisions actually are, how much is us and how much is programming.. how much is genetic, how much is environment, etc. My point, really, was that it's a complex and not easily cracked question with more to it than meets the eye, and really it's over the heads of the fundamentalists, which does NOT mean we should cede the terms of any debate to them.

And it's very different than the definition of terms like "marriage", which is a legal term, in fact much of the misconception around the debate (such as it is) re: marriage equality comes from conflation in the public mind between the legal and religious meanings of "marriage".

Rest assured I don't want to cede the terms of any debate to any bigots, and I wholeheartedly support your right to define yourself in whatever terms you choose.. If I have ceded the 'choice' question (or label) to anyone, it has been to my GLBT allies who have asked me to please drop it because they, themselves, would prefer (for simplicity's sake, apparently) to continue to reenforce the message that sexuality is NOT a choice.

she should also be aware that the idea of it being a "choice" is a club with which fundamentalists bludgeon members of the GLBT community. In that sense, I argree with Mr. Besen.

I will say that the truly thorny philosophical underpinnings of what, exactly, constitutes a choice versus something innate (how much of us is clockwork and how much of us is orange, in a sense) are worthy of some lengthy and deep analysis and introspection, but unfortunately the flatlander nature of our 2 dimensional, overly literal, overly simplified and frankly dumb political and cultural debates in this country (particularly when fundamentalist religion is involved) probably precludes that from being explored too greatly in detail at this time.

because, really, it's all about the delicate, easily hurt feelings of your invisible sky-man, and the fact that several million acres of tax-exempt church property in this country on which to post proclamations of biblical yammering isn't enough.

I've been saying this for a while. Some people brag at other sites about their multiple identities. There's one particularly prolific ex-du'er who specialized in creating flame-fest threads, whose other specialty seems to have been fielding a veritable army of "you go, girl " sockpuppets.

Of course, "she" is banned so I'm sure "she" doesn't post here, anymore.

I'm sure.

But like I said in another H&M thread; talk of "banning" is meaningless if there are no teeth in the TOS about returning from the dead or playing the 3 faces of Eve game.

...to accommodate the concomitant growth of my cerebral containment vessel"

he's actually articulating, out loud- force rape victims to remain pregnant, outlaw contraception, etc.- all the crazy fucking shit the anti-choice movement actually believes, but usually knows better than to say any time there's a camera nearby.

Oh, yeah, let's play the game where we pretend we don't know what this is all about. Give me a fucking break.

Chris "I'm voting 3rd Party... again!" Hedges can fuck himself.

And he can take Ralph Nader along for the ride, too. Given all the money Nader has taken from Republicans over the years, they ought to be able to afford a real nice go-fuck-themselves vacation.

'banning' is meaningless.

So, really, if you want this to be taken seriously, then the TOS needs to be clear that everyone is allowed one "life" and one name, and the MIR team needs to figure out a technological way to put a stop to clark kent constantly changing into superman.

Otherwise, your concerns CAN'T be addressed through the TOS, because the TOS has no real teeth.