![](http://"http://static.flickr.com/84/261697034_7aee0845b7_o.jpg")
Pissed and Annoyed
A few days ago a letter appeared in the editorial section of the Missoulian spelling out a hypothetical sequel to Brokeback Mountain. It was too long, poorly written and I couldn't really understand the point of the letter until the very last line. Hate speak. Not even thinly disguised. I felt hot and angry, seeing such nastiness in print, and I was immediately irritated at the newspaper for printing such crap, but now I'm conflicted. Is it better for us to see that shit and be forced to respond to it? Does it affect people that don't normally feel when they read the news? I'm still inclined to think it's a waste of newsprint and if it validates that one man's feelings at all, then it was a crime to run it. But the fact that I feel a new sense of purpose in fighting this type of bigotry may be a good reason to print it. See? Confused I am. But still pissed. What do you think?
posted by Mignon at 1:48 PM
It frankly shows you that those opinions (and probably poorly formed ones) are out there - which is important to know. Otherwise you basically believe what your family and friends tell you all the time. It's a big old world out there - (by the way what does that have to do with the Prez itching his head?)
Nevermind.
Hey - I came to your site because I want to know how guys like you and Brooke put your pic or some other logo in your comment box - haven't figured that one out yet.
So, have you written your letter to the editor yet?
Here's my alternative ending to Brokeback Mountain—the two guys fall in love but don't quite know what to do with that. Then they meet me, and they also fall in love with me, and I with them. The three of us live happily ever after.
Bush's head scratchin' was supposed to mirror my own. Though for an entirely different reason, of course.
Rock - I just followed the instructions on the blogger help site. You basically post a picture as you would a normal post, use the website address for the post in the spot given for a profile photo, then delete the original post photo.
Orange, you gay cowboy whore! (Oh great, here come the googling porn-seekers.)
I'm with you. I have a hard time not hating the ignorant hypocritical assholes that stand outside of Gay Pride events and spew hatred under the guise of God's wrath, but they are protected under free speech just like anyone else. And somehow they're the ones who warrant police protection. Give me a fucking break.
I'm betting you could write one scorching letter to the editor though.
Better to vent this by writing than by gay-bashing.
All signs indicate that this hate is slowly becoming extinct. Many of today's youth have grown up knowing GLBT people, and realize this hate is based on lies. Some would wish we would all just shut up and lead lives of quiet, hidden misery in the closet, but this ain't gonna happen anymore.
Seattle writer Dan Savage has a good take on this: Homo-hatred is just a very cheap way to be "moral". You don't have to change your life, help the sick and poor, work for peace or endure any difficulty or struggle… just hate gays, and you can claim the "moral high ground". (Ironically this is profoundly un-Christ-like.)
So now I usually think, "cheap bastards" about stuff like this.
I get irritated when I read what I think are ignorant views espousing racism or bigotry or some other evil mindset. But I do think you can't appreciate the balanced viewpoint unless you see that there are people who think differently from you. It riles me up, boils my blood, etc. -- but I guess I must admit that that's a whole part of our society, the freedom of speech, which helps us form our opinions.
Wow. I guess there's a little bit of the librarian in me remaining after all.
See, this is why my primary source of news is The Onion.
I read the Week...it's good because it summarizes what both sides say about a particular issue. When I don't read it for a long time, my only source for news is NPR and then I think all people think exactly what I think...and that's a little scary. It's good to know what the other viewpoint is, even if unbareably disgusting, but it is tricky...where is the line between education about viewpoints and advertising hatred?
Yes, those who suggested I should write a scathing response are too right, however I'm not going to for a couple reasons.
First, I've written quite a few letters, and the last two times I responded to some ignorant bigots hate-speak, I received mail at my home address telling me what a sinner and how wrong I was. I wouldn't care if I didn't have two small children and if this state weren't full of crazies with guns.
Second, Missoula is a very liberal town in the midst of this very red state, and I've found the response to these types of opinions in the newspaper to be well-written, thoughtful and final. Meaning, I'm going to let someone else respond. Or many other people, as is usually the case when an idiot gets published.
But thank you for telling me what I should already know. Free speech and all. And thanks Mark for that tidbit about Dan Savage. I'll definitely be quoting that in the future.
There was an old guy in a town where I lived who would write letters every few months attributing all manner of moral decline to the way women dressed. He was serious! In his world, all social problems could be traced back to short skirts, belly tops, tight jeans, and low cut shirts. Men were led astray by evil women--everything was THEIR fault.
I'm convinced he was a porn addict. The people that object the most strenously to all things sexual are the ones hiding sexual secrets. Remember Jimmy Swaggart, y'all?
I wrote many sharp witted letters in response, and I even tried to get his address so I could send him a subscription to Victoria's Secret catalog. I bet he wore women's panties under his freakin overalls.